What Is Libertarianism?

[Skull Pilot]

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.

bumper sticker lunacy

Or is it a simple truth that a nanny stater like you can't handle?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually, Kennedy, Anarchism is a form of libertarianism

Libertarians want few laws. Anarchist want none.

Finally, the issue of the social contract is an understanding between government and citizen. Without it, then no government is preferrable. Rights are not recognized under any government with out SC. The only difference is that it is the citizenry oppressing the citizenry.

Even if you see that a social contract could lead to the violation of some ones rights, the lack of such an understanding could lead to chaos. To propose a government, the idea of establishing a basis of what the government can and can not do to the citizenry is necessary if one wish to have order in society.

Some libertarians are anarchists, but not all of them are.

Except it is always the government who gives itself the monopoly of interpreting the social contract, and therefore a monopoly on what it can and can not do to the citizenry. This is why the government is able to grow unchecked.

 

[JBeukema]

So despite the fact that I plainly say in the first post that I am not an anarchist, I am advocating anarchy?

You attack the social contract that is the foundation of all civilization. When there is no social contract, there is no civilization, no ethics, no laws, no society. There is only anarchy and chaos/

And because the libertarian does not believe in the right of a large group of people to force a smaller group of people to subsidize roads or libraries for them the libertarian is a mentally ill hermit in the mountains?

If the People choose to form such a government, then the Libertarian you describe has two options- join in or leave the group and live elsewhere, apart from society.

These are the implications of your ideology and the logical conclusions that must be drawn from your own words.

Hi, you have received -66 reputation points from Skull Pilot.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
FUCK YOU ASSWIPE.

Regards,
Skull Pilot

Note: This is an automated message.

Another elegant, well-spoken, and logical rebuttal from one of our more esteemed posters

 

[Skull Pilot]

So despite the fact that I plainly say in the first post that I am not an anarchist, I am advocating anarchy?

You attack the social contract that is the foundation of all civilization. When there is no social contract, there is no civilization, no ethics, no laws, no society. There is only anarchy and chaos/
If the People choose to form such a government, then the Libertarian you describe has two options- join in or leave the group and live elsewhere, apart from society.

These are the implications of your ideology and the logical conclusions that must be drawn from your own words.

Hi, you have received -66 reputation points from Skull Pilot.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
FUCK YOU ASSWIPE.

Regards,
Skull Pilot

Note: This is an automated message.

Another elegant, well-spoken, and logical rebuttal from one of our more esteemed posters

apologies. I meant to click on Dante's post and got yours accidentally

 

[JBeukema]

IMO, Libertarianism and Marxism are flip sides of the same coin. They both require a basic shift in human nature to work. Marxists expect all to work for the common good, but some will always shirk their duty and the system collapses as fewer and fewer work. Libertarians expect all to work for themselves with little or no governmental interference, ignoring the fact that given a laissez-faire attitude some of the strong will inevitably prey on the weak. Given that these human attributes are unlikely to change in the near future, both systems are doomed to failure.

Humans survived for millennia just the from way you described. It wasn't until civilization started removing the right to bear arms from those people you label as weak that the strong was able to dominate the weak

We haven't even had guns for millenia. And you seriously think that the stronger caveman didn't exploit the weaker caveman or ever take his food, his cave, or his woman, I'll have difficulty taking you too seriously.

 

[JBeukema]

Finally, the issue of the social contract is an understanding between government and citizen

Incorrect. The social contract is between persons (and, by extension, the groups they might form). The government is a product of the socail contract, not a party to it.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is the best definition of libertarianism (little "L") as I understand it that I have been able to find:

Libertarianism: Philosophical principle that suggests that a government's involvement in civil economical and social matters should be limited, and that the issues should be settled amongst civilians. Libertarianism seeks to provide free-will participants the ability to make decisive decisions without the government determining or influencing the outcome, as long as it does not harm other individuals. Libertarianism is based off the belief that each individual owns every aspect of their lives and thus should have the ability to control it. Libertarians strongly believe that through these shared principles, they are able to establish a more fruitful and peaceful society. Libertarianism traces its roots back to the early 1890s as societies tried to escape anti-anarchist laws in France.
Libertarianism definition

This illustrates beautifully my belief that the Founders, all libertarians to the core, intended that the Federal government secure our rights--that is ensure that exercise of our liberties does not infringe on the rights (harm) others--and otherwise leaves the people alone to live their lives and create whatever society/social contract they wished to have.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

was Rand not named after Ayn?

you missed that thread? I mentioned this and Paul followers went ballistic. Truth hurts. Paul's pa is a lunatic so he named his spawn after a lunatic.

Apparently you missed the thread too, since it would have been made clear that he wasn't named after Ayn Rand.

really?




I thought I started the thread.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Rand Paul lies about his name change...

Ron Paul Son Not Named After Ayn Rand : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee

[youtube]oD-R_OeP6tU[/youtube]

So he and his wife are fans of Ayn Rand, and they never thought of the name similarities?

okie dokie

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You attack the social contract that is the foundation of all civilization. When there is no social contract, there is no civilization, no ethics, no laws, no society. There is only anarchy and chaos/
If the People choose to form such a government, then the Libertarian you describe has two options- join in or leave the group and live elsewhere, apart from society.

These are the implications of your ideology and the logical conclusions that must be drawn from your own words.

Hi, you have received -66 reputation points from Skull Pilot.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
FUCK YOU ASSWIPE.

Regards,
Skull Pilot

Note: This is an automated message.

Another elegant, well-spoken, and logical rebuttal from one of our more esteemed posters

apologies. I meant to click on Dante's post and got yours accidentally

 

[Quantum Windbag]

IMO, Libertarianism and Marxism are flip sides of the same coin. They both require a basic shift in human nature to work. Marxists expect all to work for the common good, but some will always shirk their duty and the system collapses as fewer and fewer work. Libertarians expect all to work for themselves with little or no governmental interference, ignoring the fact that given a laissez-faire attitude some of the strong will inevitably prey on the weak. Given that these human attributes are unlikely to change in the near future, both systems are doomed to failure.

Humans survived for millennia just the from way you described. It wasn't until civilization started removing the right to bear arms from those people you label as weak that the strong was able to dominate the weak

We haven't even had guns for millenia. And you seriously think that the stronger caveman didn't exploit the weaker caveman or ever take his food, his cave, or his woman, I'll have difficulty taking you too seriously.

Did I say guns? I specifically said arms, as in weapons. Peasants were legally prohibited from owning swords by the noblity in order to prevent those weak people, who were the backbones of their army, from rising up and kicking them out of the neighborhood. Peasants were not weak, they were unarmed.

I am all but positive that stronger people always tried to dominate weaker people, but those weaker people are only going to be dominated if they choose not to fight. If they band together they will be strong enough to resist anyone.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

you missed that thread? I mentioned this and Paul followers went ballistic. Truth hurts. Paul's pa is a lunatic so he named his spawn after a lunatic.

Apparently you missed the thread too, since it would have been made clear that he wasn't named after Ayn Rand.

really?




I thought I started the thread.

Well you apparently missed the part where it was shown he was not named after Ayn Rand, since his name is Randal.

 

[konradv]

Humans survived for millennia just the from way you described. It wasn't until civilization started removing the right to bear arms from those people you label as weak that the strong was able to dominate the weak

We haven't even had guns for millenia. And you seriously think that the stronger caveman didn't exploit the weaker caveman or ever take his food, his cave, or his woman, I'll have difficulty taking you too seriously.

Did I say guns? I specifically said arms, as in weapons. Peasants were legally prohibited from owning swords by the noblity in order to prevent those weak people, who were the backbones of their army, from rising up and kicking them out of the neighborhood. Peasants were not weak, they were unarmed.

I am all but positive that stronger people always tried to dominate weaker people, but those weaker people are only going to be dominated if they choose not to fight. If they band together they will be strong enough to resist anyone.

Banding together? Isn't that forming a government with all its complexities and the guarantee that not everyone will agree with everything? What's a libertarian to do? Seems like the only way it works is if you're alone on a desert island!

 

[Oddball]

Ahhh...the pedantic old "desert island" stalking horse again.

Can't you Fabian losers at least come up with some fresh strawmen?

 

[amrchaos]

Ahhh...the pedantic old "desert island" stalking horse again.

Can't you Fabian losers at least come up with some fresh strawmen?

How about this one Dude

Libertarians should move to Antartica!! There is No government and no society!!

Libertarians can then show us how we are suppose to govern ourselves. If we can see past all the snow--

 

[amrchaos]

Actually, Kennedy, Anarchism is a form of libertarianism

Libertarians want few laws. Anarchist want none.

Finally, the issue of the social contract is an understanding between government and citizen. Without it, then no government is preferrable. Rights are not recognized under any government with out SC. The only difference is that it is the citizenry oppressing the citizenry.

Even if you see that a social contract could lead to the violation of some ones rights, the lack of such an understanding could lead to chaos. To propose a government, the idea of establishing a basis of what the government can and can not do to the citizenry is necessary if one wish to have order in society.

Some libertarians are anarchists, but not all of them are.

Except it is always the government who gives itself the monopoly of interpreting the social contract, and therefore a monopoly on what it can and can not do to the citizenry. This is why the government is able to grow unchecked.

You know, it seems to me like you are arguing against having a government.

So I have to ask:What structure of government do you think is best for people?

Because even in a Direct Democracy, the government can grow unchecked. That is, the people can become to accustomed to solving their problems though the use of government.

 

[konradv]

Ahhh...the pedantic old "desert island" stalking horse again.

Can't you Fabian losers at least come up with some fresh strawmen?

Then explain how it would work in the real world. Add a second person to the mix and suddenly you either have to start compromising or one dominates the other. IMHO, any attempt to create a libertarian society would inevitably lead to feudalism as the weak look to the strong for protection and end up losing the rights libertarianism is supposed to protect.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ahhh...the pedantic old "desert island" stalking horse again.

Can't you Fabian losers at least come up with some fresh strawmen?

Then explain how it would work in the real world. Add a second person to the mix and suddenly you either have to start compromising or one dominates the other. IMHO, any attempt to create a libertarian society would inevitably lead to feudalism as the weak look to the strong for protection and end up losing the rights libertarianism is supposed to protect.

The Founders intended a libertarian society. Some of you persist in erroneously defining libertarianism as anarchism. It isn't. Libertarianism advocates government that secures and defends individual rights and recognizes that under anarchy there are no rights.

 

[JBeukema]

The Founders intended a libertarian society.

The FF were Liberals who intended a federated system where the States could govern any way they saw fit

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually, Kennedy, Anarchism is a form of libertarianism

Libertarians want few laws. Anarchist want none.

Finally, the issue of the social contract is an understanding between government and citizen. Without it, then no government is preferrable. Rights are not recognized under any government with out SC. The only difference is that it is the citizenry oppressing the citizenry.

Even if you see that a social contract could lead to the violation of some ones rights, the lack of such an understanding could lead to chaos. To propose a government, the idea of establishing a basis of what the government can and can not do to the citizenry is necessary if one wish to have order in society.

Some libertarians are anarchists, but not all of them are.

Except it is always the government who gives itself the monopoly of interpreting the social contract, and therefore a monopoly on what it can and can not do to the citizenry. This is why the government is able to grow unchecked.

You know, it seems to me like you are arguing against having a government.

So I have to ask:What structure of government do you think is best for people?

Because even in a Direct Democracy, the government can grow unchecked. That is, the people can become to accustomed to solving their problems though the use of government.

The problem is that I'm not an anarchist, so arguing for the complete removal of government would make no sense. As I said in the first post, I, along with the other board libertarians, am in favor of a strictly limited government. I believe the Articles of Confederation are a far superior model than the Constitution, so I suppose that would be where I would start.