What is a libertarian?

[eflatminor]

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.

Outside of Disney World, are there any actual company towns today? Even if there were, that is far from "claiming all the land". People are still free to move in this country. And even during their hay day, were any employees in company towns FORCED to work there, like a serf? I don't think so.

 

[Vidi]

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.

Outside of Disney World, are there any actual company towns today? Even if there were, that is far from "claiming all the land". People are still free to move in this country. And even during their hay day, were any employees in company towns FORCED to work there, like a serf? I don't think so.

No they dont exist today because there are government regulations against it.

And in their day, YES, they were...sort of. Once a person voluntarily took the job and they were trapped. The company owned your home and the stores in town. Every dime you made went right back into their pockets. And in some cases, companies would pay in company script, meaning employess werent given money that could be spent anywhere BUT the company town.

This effectively made them serfs.

As for today, you cant move if you dont have cash to move.

Which is why theres a need for government to set and enforce the rules by which all parties are allowed to play.

BUT...thats as far as it should go. No more. Very limited.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Or maybe we're just Democrats who don't want to pay taxes?

Or, better yet, maybe Democrats and Republicans are just libertarians that want to rob and murder people?

 

[eflatminor]

No they dont exist today because there are government regulations against it.

Which regulations would those be? Link?

And in their day, YES, they were...sort of. Once a person voluntarily took the job and they were trapped.

Not even "sort of". Employees could find themselves in financial trouble if they spent what they didn't have. Sound familiar? No one was trapped by force but only perhaps by bad decisions. That's a far cry from "claiming all the land".

As for today, you cant move if you dont have cash to move.

And two broken legs? Then yes, you'd be correct.

Which is why theres a need for government to set and enforce the rules by which all parties are allowed to play.

That sounds like equal justice, which is great. Don't take what doesn't belong to you and don't impede on the freedom of others. Wonderful. However, the central planners long ago left that idea far behind as they gained more and more control of our economy and our lives. All meddling politicians/central planners are not doing what they are in an effort to level the playing field. They're meddling for campaign contributions and increased power while happily engaging in cronyism. The idea that we might find some planners that would be self sacrificing in their meddling has never and will never happen. Our best bet is to restrict government from meddling by requiring government to stick to the enumerated powers in the Constitution and no more. The MASSIVE and ever increasing amount of regulations, loopholes, special favors, and growth of government long ago surpassed this original idea. And $16 trillion of debt later...

 

[Vidi]

No they dont exist today because there are government regulations against it.

Which regulations would those be? Link?

And in their day, YES, they were...sort of. Once a person voluntarily took the job and they were trapped.

Not even "sort of". Employees could find themselves in financial trouble if they spent what they didn't have. Sound familiar? No one was trapped by force but only perhaps by bad decisions. That's a far cry from "claiming all the land".

As for today, you cant move if you dont have cash to move.

And two broken legs? Then yes, you'd be correct.

Which is why theres a need for government to set and enforce the rules by which all parties are allowed to play.

That sounds like equal justice, which is great. Don't take what doesn't belong to you and don't impede on the freedom of others. Wonderful. However, the central planners long ago left that idea far behind as they gained more and more control of our economy and our lives. All meddling politicians/central planners are not doing what they are in an effort to level the playing field. They're meddling for campaign contributions and increased power while happily engaging in cronyism. The idea that we might find some planners that would be self sacrificing in their meddling has never and will never happen. Our best bet is to restrict government from meddling by requiring government to stick to the enumerated powers in the Constitution and no more. The MASSIVE and ever increasing amount of regulations, loopholes, special favors, and growth of government long ago surpassed this original idea. And $16 trillion of debt later...

While I mostly agree with you, the whole "original idea" part is utter nonsense.

First, the original idea was to restrict corporate control of the people ( see Boston Tea Party )

Second, several of the "original ideas" are barely applicable in todays world. But thats ok because the beauty of the Constitution is that is is a living document, one that can be adapted when needed to deal with new issues.

Thirdly, the "original ideas" that ARE applicable are largely twisted around to pretend they mean something they dont even mean.

While I completely agree we should adhere to the enumerated powers as listed in the Constitution, the simple fact is that simply saying," Constitution!" isnt an answer. Its far more complicated than that.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

FYI, Corporations are creatures of the state not the free market.

.

 

[SniperFire]

I don't know but you very quickly abandoned all logic, reason or specificity in our discussion. All of a sudden, a purely emotionally response and now an ad hominem attack. That is usually the tactic of the Left. I'm disappointed in you.

Libertarianism is a nice personal philosophy to live by, and a childish theory on how a government could actually be run.

Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, Williams, Rothbard and many other would disagree. But please, tell us in your own words why the ideals of limited government and individual liberty run contrary to "how a government could actually be run".

Show us one that actually runs, tard.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

That is some stupid shit. No wonder there are no 'progressive libertarians' to speak of.

LOL

 

[P@triot]

In a nutshell - someone who has actually read the US Constitution (so the opposite of a liberal). Here is the reality of today's political scale, which has slid so far to the left that everything is distorted:

Liberal - Socialist/Marxist/Communist
GOP Conservative - Kennedy era big spending, big government liberal
Libertarian - Constitutional conservative

 

[uscitizen]

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.

some of you do and some do not.
Just as some support using our military as a police force around the world and some do not.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

some of you do and some do not.
Just as some support using our military as a police force around the world and some do not.

Another example - many roil again the notion that States have sovereignty to force their denizens to do many things, such as participate in a socialized healthcare system, while others such as the one I debated earlier in the thread say it is perfectly fine even though he would not support it, personally.

 

[LibertyForAll]

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.

some of you do and some do not.
Just as some support using our military as a police force around the world and some do not.

You can't be an imperialist and a libertarian.

 

[SniperFire]

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.

some of you do and some do not.
Just as some support using our military as a police force around the world and some do not.

You can't be an imperialist and a libertarian.

Libertarians are all over the board.

What Kind of Libertarian Are You?

Neolibertarianism:

'Neolibertarians are fiscal libertarians who support a strong military, and believe that the U.S. government should use that military to overthrow dangerous and oppressive regimes. It is their emphasis on military intervention that distinguishes them from paleolibertarians (see below), and gives them reason to make common cause with neoconservatives.'

What Kind of Libertarian Are You? - 10 Different Types of Libertarianism



But, hey. It is just silly theory, afterall.

 

[bripat9643]

Libertarians are the last great hope against tyranny.

They just favor corporate tyranny.

That's what bootlickers always say about anyone who opposes government tyranny.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Regulation is when government tells you how to do something, and often compels you to do things that aren't in your bests interests.

"referee" is the wrong term. Government is supposed to settle disputes, not impose rules that neither party approves of.

 

[MarcATL]

Just seems like another form of GOP.

You're absolutely right Sky.

They're like the Saskatchewan or the lochness monster...the simply do not exist.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Horseshit. the demagogues who attack capitalism are the ones who take advantage of workers and the nation. They always have an ulterior motive: more power and more money for themselves.

Obama and current Democrats are perfect examples of that.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

No monopoly has ever existed without legal protection from the government.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The problem with your understanding is that Standard Oil never succeeded in doing that. It never succeeded in eliminating all its competitors. The reason it doesn't happen now is because it never happened, ever. It can't happen. it's an economic impossibility.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

He meant an example from reality, not your cloud cuckoo fantasy land.