What is a libertarian?

[BlindBoo]

It only works when there's no one else around. As soon as a second person arrives, the complications begin and the "ism" falls apart.

Example?

I claimed all the land. The second person is now my serf, because of my property rights.

Thats kind of an extreme example. No one person can own all the land. Property rights does not mean that non land owners are all serfs.

Interaction between people does not make libertarians ideals fall apart. When you add in corportations and governements that's when things get sticky.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Sniperfire is a closet Progressive and a Statist to boot. You will never get him to concede a point. He keeps repeating the same arguments in every thread despite having been soundly refuted in the past. When you corner him he resorts to ad hominems and then as a last resort he will start posting silly pictures.

Since he wants to control others he assumes everyone wants to control others and thinks libertarianism won't work.

Whenever two people meet they have to have an agreed upon set of rules to make things go smoothly. If they don't then you have anarchy and tyranny might ensue. The strong may prey upon the weak. Basically in an anarchy you would have the choice to fight, flee or submiit. Libertarianism offers an important 4th choice. Cooperation. The only way to ensure cooperation is to have a way to enforce the agreement on those who would try to take advantage. You need an independent agency to gaurantee that the rules are followed in other words. That agencies sole responsibility should be to ensure that every persons rights are protected and that we all stay on an equal footing. The minute that agency favors one person or group over another we slide into tyranny. This is why corporations can take advantage of consumers and workers now. The very idea of the corporation is a violation of this trust. The government is basically saying that the people who run the companies are exempt from personal liability. You can't have a system based on individual responsibility and then allow exemptions. If you make a decision to pollute and my kid gets cancer then I should be able to come after YOU and the company.

The problem we have had in the past is that there are elements in society who will try and take advantage of others. They started trying to find loopholes in the language of the constitution before the ink was dry. They have succeeded in large part and have created an entire profession that's sole purpose is to manipulate language until it no longer resembles the original intent. We have forsaken the spirit of the law in favor of the letter of the law and our liberty has suffered as a result.
Libertarianism is a refinement of the technology of government by confining it to its original mandate. It seems every advancement we make is an attempt to increase efficiency except in government. Our businesses have benefited from a study of workflow and efficiency allowing them to accomplish their goals without wasting as much money on superfluous personell and equipment. Electronics have become smaller and smaller while producing the same result. Isn't it time we streamlined our governing process in the same way?

I would argue that I am in some ways for a stronger government than Democrats and Republicans. When it comes to the violation of someone else's rights then I believe the punishment should be swift and sure but just. Above all it needs to be consistent. People need to know that if they commit a crime they will be punished in the same way as past offenders and the penalties need to be severe enough as to be a deterrent.

 

[SniperFire]

Since he wants to control others he assumes everyone wants to control others and thinks libertarianism won't work.

You are free to point out where Libertarianism has ever 'worked' as an actual system of government.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Since he wants to control others he assumes everyone wants to control others and thinks libertarianism won't work.

You are free to point out where Libertarianism has ever 'worked' as an actual system of government.

Libertarianism is not a system of government it is a philosophy of government. Examples of systems would be a Republic or Democracy or Monarchy. Do you think this is a republican government? Democratic? Do you think Democrats want pure democracy? Do you think republicans what a pure republic? Do you know what these words mean?

 

[PredFan]

Just seems like another form of GOP.

I'll bet you got hammered over this.

 

[PredFan]

We believe in the constitution of the United States.
We believe in Liberty.
We oppose tyrranny.
We DO what the GOP and the DNC claim to do but never will.

 

[PredFan]

Since he wants to control others he assumes everyone wants to control others and thinks libertarianism won't work.

You are free to point out where Libertarianism has ever 'worked' as an actual system of government.

In the early days soon after our founders established this republic.

That was easy!

 

[hortysir]

We believe in the constitution of the United States.
We believe in Liberty.
We oppose tyrranny.
We DO what the GOP and the DNC claim to do but never will.

WADR, Pred, what do you get done with such a small splinter group?

 

[PredFan]

We believe in the constitution of the United States.
We believe in Liberty.
We oppose tyrranny.
We DO what the GOP and the DNC claim to do but never will.

WADR, Pred, what do you get done with such a small splinter group?

Ok, the fact that we hold little power is a good point, but we don't just claim that we support liberty like the two parties do and then only in truth support the liberties we like.

We talk of balancing the budget like both parties do but we actually have a workable plan unlike the other two parties do.

We believe in the Constitution, not just the parts we approve of.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They just favor corporate tyranny.

You could not be more wrong about that. Capitalism we favor. Cronyism we do not.

Unregulated capitalism will most always take advantage of both the workers and the nation.

People keep saying that, but no one has ever pointed to a single example that proves there theory. Could that be because one does not actually exist?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unregulated capitalism will most always take advantage of both the workers and the nation.

How could any capitalist organisation take such advantage without the support of the force of law?

LOL

Ever hear of a monopoly?

There are no monopolies that have not happened without the government stepping in to ban competition.

Period.

 

[Avorysuds]

Since he wants to control others he assumes everyone wants to control others and thinks libertarianism won't work.

You are free to point out where Libertarianism has ever 'worked' as an actual system of government.

I see you have re worded your question slightly... But,

The United States of America...

Owned...

again... for like the who knows how many times now.

Now Sniper, the same question I always present to you after you make a huge fool of yourself by claiming anarchy is equal to libertarianism (oddly even you use the 2 different words that hold 2 different meanings but yet you don't seem to grasp that concept).

Please point out where Republicanism has ever 'worked' as an actual system of government. And buy this I don't mean that is has existed, but that where it has worked, IE not run massive deficits and slowly eroded all the "work" that was done to build the country by classic liberalism (libertarianism).

Time for you to run away and support one of the most progressive liberal Governors in US history, Mitt Romney in another thread somewhere while calling yourself a conservative.

 

[hortysir]

We believe in the constitution of the United States.
We believe in Liberty.
We oppose tyrranny.
We DO what the GOP and the DNC claim to do but never will.

WADR, Pred, what do you get done with such a small splinter group?

Ok, the fact that we hold little power is a good point, but we don't just claim that we support liberty like the two parties do and then only in truth support the liberties we like.

We talk of balancing the budget like both parties do but we actually have a workable plan unlike the other two parties do.

We believe in the Constitution, not just the parts we approve of.

Though Paul has never really been a serious Presidential contender, I will say that he and his party have done a lot to get their topics to the forefront of political discussions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LOL

Ever hear of a monopoly?

Sure, do you have an example of one? Unless you're talking about an extremely limited resource that is found only on a piece of land owned by a single entity, monopolies are practically impossible without government meddling in support of that entity.

But what if that entity becomes rich enough to buy off most and force the holdouts into bankruptcy by strong arming suppliers? See, Standard Oil. The reason it doesn't happen now is because of a strong government, not despite it.

Standard Oil was not a monopoly.

 

[JohnA]

WADR, Pred, what do you get done with such a small splinter group?

Ok, the fact that we hold little power is a good point, but we don't just claim that we support liberty like the two parties do and then only in truth support the liberties we like.

We talk of balancing the budget like both parties do but we actually have a workable plan unlike the other two parties do.

We believe in the Constitution, not just the parts we approve of.

Though Paul has never really been a serious Presidential contender, I will say that he and his party have done a lot to get their topics to the forefront of political discussions.

thats right and keep on supporting him

 

[Vidi]

Libertarians are the last great hope against tyranny.

They just favor corporate tyranny.

Actually no.

A progressive liberarian sees that control of the people be it from government or corporations is bad and therefore expects that the government will play referee and keep corporations from exploiting the individual.

The problem lies in those that claim that libertarians think there should be NO goevrnment regulation at all. Thats simply not the case. We just favor smart and minimal regulations.

 

[Vidi]

Libertarians are those that believe Governments role is simply to play referee but to stay the hell out of the game for the most part.

It seems to me they don't want referees, either. What's the difference between refereeing and regulating, anyway?

Refereeing IS regulation. But regulation should be to the point, minimal and used primarily to protect the the individual from the collective.

 

[Truthseeker420]

A Republican that wants to smoke pot and sleep with hookers.

 

[Vidi]

I claimed all the land. The second person is now my serf, because of my property rights.

konradv and I agree on nothing, eflat, but we both await your 'real world' Libertarian solution to this dilemma.

Sorry, but under what system of free markets and individual liberty can someone "claim all the land"? One would have to buy land from a willing seller, which in no way makes another person a "serf", which requires one to render services. This is a nonsensical hypothetical.

Actually its not.

Company towns are an example of such a system getting out of hand, which is why Libertarians still understand the need for government to play a role preventing such situations from happening.

 

[eflatminor]

A progressive liberarian sees that control of the people be it from government or corporations is bad and therefore expects that the government will play referee and keep corporations from exploiting the individual.

That might work if you have magic beans in your pocket.

Otherwise, there is zero evidence to suggest that any politicians meddling in private industry will do so out of a sense of reducing corporate and/or union influence. Politicians meddle because their corporate and/or union partners fund their election and allow them to grow government and increase their power. In other words, more cronyism is not the answer to rampant cronyism. More government meddling always results in more corporate/union power and less individual liberty...ALWAYS.

I'll take hundreds of millions of "regulators" voting with their dollars over ANY bureaucrat that you think will be immune to corporate/union contributions. Ain't going to happen.