CDZ What would Libertarians Vote for in this Hypothetical Referendum?

[grbb]

A Hypothetical Referendum for Libertarians – Get Rich Bang Babes

Your countries have tons of states, like US. People can easily move from one state to another without restriction.

One day there is a referendum.

Choice 1:
Everyone can paint their house in any color they wish

Choice 2:
What everyone can paint their house with is decided by the state. Some state will say cool, paint any color you wish. Some state will say, all house must be red.

Which one will you choose?

You're a libertarian.

If people pick choice 2, everyone that doesn't like the decision can have 5 years to move out and settle on other states they prefer. So the law is not in effect too soon.

Also some people like color red so much they want to live in a state where all houses are red. Some people like color green so much they want to live in a state where all house are green.

If everyone can paint their house as their wish, then those people, that like to live among people with similar preference with them, will have to move to another country, or another planet.

However, if the state can decide which color the house is, those who like red can group up among themselves and live together. Those who like green can easily go to another.

So the second choice has more "positive choice" namely the choice to live among people with similar preferences with you. If you like to paint your house with any color you wish you can still do that if choice 2 passes. You just need to move to another state within 5 years.

Let's just say all states are equally wealthy and they vary with one another just on those house painting preferences.

What about if movement between states are not free? What about if some states only accept people that like green or accept people that like red? I mean it's impossible to ensure that everything is red if deep down some people prefer green. We got graffiti and stuffs.

 

[jwoodie]

A Hypothetical Referendum for Libertarians – Get Rich Bang Babes

Your countries have tons of states, like US. People can easily move from one state to another without restriction.

One day there is a referendum.

Choice 1:
Everyone can paint their house in any color they wish

Choice 2:
What everyone can paint their house with is decided by the state. Some state will say cool, paint any color you wish. Some state will say, all house must be red.

Which one will you choose?

You're a libertarian.

If people pick choice 2, everyone that doesn't like the decision can have 5 years to move out and settle on other states they prefer. So the law is not in effect too soon.

Also some people like color red so much they want to live in a state where all houses are red. Some people like color green so much they want to live in a state where all house are green.

If everyone can paint their house as their wish, then those people, that like to live among people with similar preference with them, will have to move to another country, or another planet.

However, if the state can decide which color the house is, those who like red can group up among themselves and live together. Those who like green can easily go to another.

So the second choice has more "positive choice" namely the choice to live among people with similar preferences with you. If you like to paint your house with any color you wish you can still do that if choice 2 passes. You just need to move to another state within 5 years.

Let's just say all states are equally wealthy and they vary with one another just on those house painting preferences.

What about if movement between states are not free? What about if some states only accept people that like green or accept people that like red? I mean it's impossible to ensure that everything is red if deep down some people prefer green. We got graffiti and stuffs.

You don't need to cite an article and then repeat it in its entirety. As to its substance, it is premised on false all-or-nothing alternatives. In reality, people can choose to live in neighborhoods with strict HOA rules or they can choose to live in neighborhoods without them without the burden of having to move to another state.

 

[320 Years of History]

Is there some point or statement you aim to make or have addressed? If so, would you please tell us what it is?

 

[grbb]

My point is, even if I am libertarian, I might choose 2.

Yes that may seem to reduce choices. Now the state can decide the color of my house.

However, on bigger scale of things, it's not too bad. If I don't like the color the state choose I can just move somewhere else.

I wonder what other libertarians think?

And this seemingly unlibertarian choice actually give people more freedom.

You can replace house paint with any other issues.

Some states may have tough laws on crimes and safer, like Singapore. Some states may legalize drugs but filled with liberals, muslims, christians, etc.

Sometimes, if the choice is to befriend everyone and ensure that no fraud or force happens is a fantasy.

What makes sense is to just get close to people you like and that's it. Then, fraud or force will happen less naturally.

 

[320 Years of History]

My point is, even if I am libertarian, I might choose 2. Yes that may seem to reduce choices. Now the state can decide the color of my house. However, on bigger scale of things, it's not too bad. If I don't like the color the state choose I can just move somewhere else.

I wonder what other libertarians think? And this seemingly unlibertarian choice actually give people more freedom. You can replace house paint with any other issues.

Some states may have tough laws on crimes and safer, like Singapore. Some states may legalize drugs but filled with liberals, muslims, christians, etc. Sometimes, if the choice is to befriend everyone and ensure that no fraud or force happens is a fantasy. What makes sense is to just get close to people you like and that's it. Then, fraud or force will happen less naturally.

Red:
Okay. You made your point. You would choose option #2. Now we know; TY for telling us.

Blue:
Well, one can exchange house paint with some other issues, but were one to trade it for certain of any other issues, one would find that one has, at detriment to one's credibility, oversimplified things, leading folks to perceive that one cannot or does not distinguish among relevant factors pertaining to issues of varying complexity, scale and scope.

Green:
Are you aware that Libertarians are considered conservatives?

 

[jwoodie]

Green:
Are you aware that Libertarians are considered conservatives?

By whom?

 

[GaryDog]

It's the analogy that breaks down for me. It's an oversimplification of the "states rights" versus "individual rights" argument.

Replace it with gay marriage or abortion and we're talking something COMPLETELY different.

 

[flacaltenn]

My point is, even if I am libertarian, I might choose 2. Yes that may seem to reduce choices. Now the state can decide the color of my house. However, on bigger scale of things, it's not too bad. If I don't like the color the state choose I can just move somewhere else.

I wonder what other libertarians think? And this seemingly unlibertarian choice actually give people more freedom. You can replace house paint with any other issues.

Some states may have tough laws on crimes and safer, like Singapore. Some states may legalize drugs but filled with liberals, muslims, christians, etc. Sometimes, if the choice is to befriend everyone and ensure that no fraud or force happens is a fantasy. What makes sense is to just get close to people you like and that's it. Then, fraud or force will happen less naturally.

Red:
Okay. You made your point. You would choose option #2. Now we know; TY for telling us.

Blue:
Well, one can exchange house paint with some other issues, but were one to trade it for certain of any other issues, one would find that one has, at detriment to one's credibility, oversimplified things, leading folks to perceive that one cannot or does not distinguish among relevant factors pertaining to issues of varying complexity, scale and scope.

Green:
Are you aware that Libertarians are considered conservatives?

Who considers Libertarians "conservatives"? I can out liberal you on any number of issues. The only thing we're "conservative" on the the Constitution and keeping the govt solvent and within the BOUNDS of that document. Other than that -- we've been AHEAD on "social liberalism" for several decades.

 

[flacaltenn]

A Hypothetical Referendum for Libertarians – Get Rich Bang Babes

Your countries have tons of states, like US. People can easily move from one state to another without restriction.

One day there is a referendum.

Choice 1:
Everyone can paint their house in any color they wish

Choice 2:
What everyone can paint their house with is decided by the state. Some state will say cool, paint any color you wish. Some state will say, all house must be red.

Which one will you choose?

You're a libertarian.

If people pick choice 2, everyone that doesn't like the decision can have 5 years to move out and settle on other states they prefer. So the law is not in effect too soon.

Also some people like color red so much they want to live in a state where all houses are red. Some people like color green so much they want to live in a state where all house are green.

If everyone can paint their house as their wish, then those people, that like to live among people with similar preference with them, will have to move to another country, or another planet.

However, if the state can decide which color the house is, those who like red can group up among themselves and live together. Those who like green can easily go to another.

So the second choice has more "positive choice" namely the choice to live among people with similar preferences with you. If you like to paint your house with any color you wish you can still do that if choice 2 passes. You just need to move to another state within 5 years.

Let's just say all states are equally wealthy and they vary with one another just on those house painting preferences.

What about if movement between states are not free? What about if some states only accept people that like green or accept people that like red? I mean it's impossible to ensure that everything is red if deep down some people prefer green. We got graffiti and stuffs.

There is not an honest FACTUAL REAL Libertarian that would live in a country that believes it has the power to referendum a question that their Constitution does not ALLOW them to aggregate to a popular vote. The powers of state START at the national Constitutional level. And Libertarians like it that way.

I'd have to move out of that country.

 

[GaryDog]

A Hypothetical Referendum for Libertarians – Get Rich Bang Babes

Your countries have tons of states, like US. People can easily move from one state to another without restriction.

One day there is a referendum.

Choice 1:
Everyone can paint their house in any color they wish

Choice 2:
What everyone can paint their house with is decided by the state. Some state will say cool, paint any color you wish. Some state will say, all house must be red.

Which one will you choose?

You're a libertarian.

If people pick choice 2, everyone that doesn't like the decision can have 5 years to move out and settle on other states they prefer. So the law is not in effect too soon.

Also some people like color red so much they want to live in a state where all houses are red. Some people like color green so much they want to live in a state where all house are green.

If everyone can paint their house as their wish, then those people, that like to live among people with similar preference with them, will have to move to another country, or another planet.

However, if the state can decide which color the house is, those who like red can group up among themselves and live together. Those who like green can easily go to another.

So the second choice has more "positive choice" namely the choice to live among people with similar preferences with you. If you like to paint your house with any color you wish you can still do that if choice 2 passes. You just need to move to another state within 5 years.

Let's just say all states are equally wealthy and they vary with one another just on those house painting preferences.

What about if movement between states are not free? What about if some states only accept people that like green or accept people that like red? I mean it's impossible to ensure that everything is red if deep down some people prefer green. We got graffiti and stuffs.

There is not an honest FACTUAL REAL Libertarian that would live in a country that believes it has the power to referendum a question that their Constitution does not ALLOW them to aggregate to a popular vote. The powers of state START at the national Constitutional level. And Libertarians like it that way.

I'd have to move out of that country.

As usual, it's never that simple.

People are people. States are not people.

 

[GaryDog]

My point is, even if I am libertarian, I might choose 2. Yes that may seem to reduce choices. Now the state can decide the color of my house. However, on bigger scale of things, it's not too bad. If I don't like the color the state choose I can just move somewhere else.

I wonder what other libertarians think? And this seemingly unlibertarian choice actually give people more freedom. You can replace house paint with any other issues.

Some states may have tough laws on crimes and safer, like Singapore. Some states may legalize drugs but filled with liberals, muslims, christians, etc. Sometimes, if the choice is to befriend everyone and ensure that no fraud or force happens is a fantasy. What makes sense is to just get close to people you like and that's it. Then, fraud or force will happen less naturally.

Red:
Okay. You made your point. You would choose option #2. Now we know; TY for telling us.

Blue:
Well, one can exchange house paint with some other issues, but were one to trade it for certain of any other issues, one would find that one has, at detriment to one's credibility, oversimplified things, leading folks to perceive that one cannot or does not distinguish among relevant factors pertaining to issues of varying complexity, scale and scope.

Green:
Are you aware that Libertarians are considered conservatives?

Who considers Libertarians "conservatives"? I can out liberal you on any number of issues. The only thing we're "conservative" on the the Constitution and keeping the govt solvent and within the BOUNDS of that document. Other than that -- we've been AHEAD on "social liberalism" for several decades.

Ideologically, it's not very controversial to say that Libertarians have closer cousins in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. Of course they're conservatives.

 

[yiostheoy]

The only thing I know about Libertarians is that they are soft on crime and don't like the death penalty.

 

[flacaltenn]

My point is, even if I am libertarian, I might choose 2. Yes that may seem to reduce choices. Now the state can decide the color of my house. However, on bigger scale of things, it's not too bad. If I don't like the color the state choose I can just move somewhere else.

I wonder what other libertarians think? And this seemingly unlibertarian choice actually give people more freedom. You can replace house paint with any other issues.

Some states may have tough laws on crimes and safer, like Singapore. Some states may legalize drugs but filled with liberals, muslims, christians, etc. Sometimes, if the choice is to befriend everyone and ensure that no fraud or force happens is a fantasy. What makes sense is to just get close to people you like and that's it. Then, fraud or force will happen less naturally.

Red:
Okay. You made your point. You would choose option #2. Now we know; TY for telling us.

Blue:
Well, one can exchange house paint with some other issues, but were one to trade it for certain of any other issues, one would find that one has, at detriment to one's credibility, oversimplified things, leading folks to perceive that one cannot or does not distinguish among relevant factors pertaining to issues of varying complexity, scale and scope.

Green:
Are you aware that Libertarians are considered conservatives?

Who considers Libertarians "conservatives"? I can out liberal you on any number of issues. The only thing we're "conservative" on the the Constitution and keeping the govt solvent and within the BOUNDS of that document. Other than that -- we've been AHEAD on "social liberalism" for several decades.

Ideologically, it's not very controversial to say that Libertarians have closer cousins in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. Of course they're conservatives.

We judge positions and policy on maximizing personal choice and freedom. In the spirit of the original liberals -- the founding fathers. That's actually Liberal in the strictest sense. It's the Liberalism of H. D. Thoreau, at a time when true liberals still had an innate distrust of a powerful government.

Our current platform is in accords with 1/2 of what Bernie was pitching. On foreign policy, civil liberties, ending corporate-govt collusion etc. The only "conservative" part is we PREFER economic solutions not designed and dictated from bureaucrats in D.C. It's very simple -- liberal on social issues, free market choice and smaller, more efficient govt on economic issues.

 

[Onyx]

The only thing I know about Libertarians is that they are soft on crime and don't like the death penalty.

At risk of invoking the outrage of American moderates posing as libertarians, a libertarian is someone that adheres to the ideology of libertarianism. Libertarianism is classically defined as being the pursuit of maximum liberty.

There are different arguments on what maximum liberty looks like. Probably the closest territories to pure libertarianism are the ELZN in Mexico and Rojava in Syria, but I believe anarchism is the only true libertarian ideology. The Zapatistas are ridiculously close to being an anarchy, and they are certainly influenced heavily by anarchist philosophy, but they are not quite there.

 

[Onyx]

The Libertarian Party is not libertarian by the way.

Only in the modern westernized Menshevik governments could a libertarian be perverted into being a moderate.

 

[320 Years of History]

My point is, even if I am libertarian, I might choose 2. Yes that may seem to reduce choices. Now the state can decide the color of my house. However, on bigger scale of things, it's not too bad. If I don't like the color the state choose I can just move somewhere else.

I wonder what other libertarians think? And this seemingly unlibertarian choice actually give people more freedom. You can replace house paint with any other issues.

Some states may have tough laws on crimes and safer, like Singapore. Some states may legalize drugs but filled with liberals, muslims, christians, etc. Sometimes, if the choice is to befriend everyone and ensure that no fraud or force happens is a fantasy. What makes sense is to just get close to people you like and that's it. Then, fraud or force will happen less naturally.

Red:
Okay. You made your point. You would choose option #2. Now we know; TY for telling us.

Blue:
Well, one can exchange house paint with some other issues, but were one to trade it for certain of any other issues, one would find that one has, at detriment to one's credibility, oversimplified things, leading folks to perceive that one cannot or does not distinguish among relevant factors pertaining to issues of varying complexity, scale and scope.

Green:
Are you aware that Libertarians are considered conservatives?

Who considers Libertarians "conservatives"? I can out liberal you on any number of issues. The only thing we're "conservative" on [is] the Constitution and keeping the govt solvent and within the BOUNDS of that document. Other than that -- we've been AHEAD on "social liberalism" for several decades.

I'm not going to get into a "mine is bigger" debate with you.

Red:
That "only" thing you mentioned would, by your own words, be at least two things. Add to that:

• Little to no gov't involvement in healthcare
• The view that taxation amounts to theft
• "Hands off" economic philosophy that makes them more laissez faire favoring there than are Republicans and Democrats (admittedly the GOP is split at the moment on this)
• Rejection of social engineering

From the 1980s to mid 1990s, I was a Libertarian, drawn especially by the socioeconomic Darwinist ethos of Libertarianism.

 

[Onyx]

• Little to no gov't involvement in healthcare
• The view that taxation amounts to theft
• "Hands off" economic philosophy that makes them more laissez faire favoring there than are Republicans and Democrats (admittedly the GOP is split at the moment on this)
• Rejection of social engineering

Sounds good to me

 

[Onyx]

A Hypothetical Referendum for Libertarians – Get Rich Bang Babes

Your countries have tons of states, like US. People can easily move from one state to another without restriction.

One day there is a referendum.

Choice 1:
Everyone can paint their house in any color they wish

Choice 2:
What everyone can paint their house with is decided by the state. Some state will say cool, paint any color you wish. Some state will say, all house must be red.

Which one will you choose?

You're a libertarian.
.

I would choose neither.

Politics serve the ruling class and hurt the common man. By rejecting them, I would be favoring choice one, without necessitating a referendum to affirm my position.

 

[flacaltenn]

My point is, even if I am libertarian, I might choose 2. Yes that may seem to reduce choices. Now the state can decide the color of my house. However, on bigger scale of things, it's not too bad. If I don't like the color the state choose I can just move somewhere else.

I wonder what other libertarians think? And this seemingly unlibertarian choice actually give people more freedom. You can replace house paint with any other issues.

Some states may have tough laws on crimes and safer, like Singapore. Some states may legalize drugs but filled with liberals, muslims, christians, etc. Sometimes, if the choice is to befriend everyone and ensure that no fraud or force happens is a fantasy. What makes sense is to just get close to people you like and that's it. Then, fraud or force will happen less naturally.

Red:
Okay. You made your point. You would choose option #2. Now we know; TY for telling us.

Blue:
Well, one can exchange house paint with some other issues, but were one to trade it for certain of any other issues, one would find that one has, at detriment to one's credibility, oversimplified things, leading folks to perceive that one cannot or does not distinguish among relevant factors pertaining to issues of varying complexity, scale and scope.

Green:
Are you aware that Libertarians are considered conservatives?

Who considers Libertarians "conservatives"? I can out liberal you on any number of issues. The only thing we're "conservative" on [is] the Constitution and keeping the govt solvent and within the BOUNDS of that document. Other than that -- we've been AHEAD on "social liberalism" for several decades.

I'm not going to get into a "mine is bigger" debate with you.

Red:
That "only" thing you mentioned would, by your own words, be at least two things. Add to that:

• Little to no gov't involvement in healthcare
• The view that taxation amounts to theft
• "Hands off" economic philosophy that makes them more laissez faire favoring there than are Republicans and Democrats (admittedly the GOP is split at the moment on this)
• Rejection of social engineering

From the 1980s to mid 1990s, I was a Libertarian, drawn especially by the socioeconomic Darwinist ethos of Libertarianism.

There is no social Darwinism to good govt kept in check within its' legal bounds. Or a govt that isn't dead ass broke and paying more in interest on the debt than they are for defense. There are MANY leftist orgs that acknowledge that a more fiscally responsible govt could be much more useful and effective than one that's on a path to becoming a debtor nation..

And I'm surprised that ANYONE who claims to have dabbled in the Libertarian Party would put up the complicated -- yet completely uninformative charts that you just did. Because the KEY recruiting and handout for the LP is the Nolan chart. Which is the EASIEST way to understand WHERE in multi-space Libertarians live. You will not find us on a simple-ass left to right chart or one that uses POLITICS for any of it's major axes .

In the Nolan chart -- the 2 pillars of liberty and choice lie on either the Economic axis or the Social axis. It actually reflects the core concept that freedom and liberty are not granted by allowing just one or the other.

I don't agree with the location of Trump in that chart.. He's obviously WELL into the "populist" box. And Johnson lives deeper into the upper left hand of the "moderate" box.

But 1st -- let me give you the geography lesson for this "map projection".

The 2 axis go from 0 to 100%. Think of 0 as tyranny and 100 as complete freedom for either. True tyranny lives at the South Pole. Anarchy at the North pole. MOST retail American politics lives (lately) somewhere on the equator. Libertarians are ALONE and stranded in that Northern Hemi of politics.

Trump is that charismatic Populist that should be somewhere at the NE corner of the Populist box. Much more dictatorial than most American traditional tastes. Clinton should also have a higher "economic freedom" rating on that axis because of her "says one thing privately to the bankers, pretends to be Bernie Lite on the stump", but has always been favorable to exploiting the riches of full scale Capitalism when it comes to her survival. By MY calculations, that moves HER TRUE SELF (not the phony one) to the SW corner of the Moderate box.

The LP agrees with 1/2 of what Bernie was preaching. HIGH on our list of priorities is to END corporate-govt collusion. Which means the Fed Govt should NEVER be giving targeted tax breaks, interest free loans. and other financials to ANY corporations for products that already exist on the market. Unlike Bernie -- who pretends not to know why GE doesn't "pay any income tax" -- it's very obvious and clear to those paying attention. The Fed govt was paying that company up to $75 in tax credits (not tax deductions) for every large energy efficient appliance they produced. They wracked up such a backlog of tax credits that they might not have to pay taxes for decades. The LParty would stop this dead. ALL of the targeted handouts. And reserve some of the savings for TRUE R&D -- based on RFProposals and merit.

As an example on the Social side, we've been clear on "Justice Reform" for over 20 years now. Most of that problem is NOT Federal but actually lives in the municipalities where "justice" is served. And the entire country mistakes RACISM for what is actually a failure of govt to provide efficient and accurate "customer service" in it's encounters between justice and the people. The fact that EVERY household in Ferguson averaged 3 standing Warrants and 1.5 arrest per year is testament to failure of govt. DOJ found that most fugitive warrants that were plaguing that city were either FAULTY or stemmed from escalations of simple traffic or nuisance violations. Because their income from LEGAL fees, penalties and fines was the 2nd LARGEST income for the city. And because the working poor could be forced destitute and homeless with ANY encounter with a legal system that kept you waiting for an entire day for a hearing, would not accept PARTIAL payments, and could NOT keep it's own paperwork straight.

Was not RACISM that flamed out Ferguson. It was FRUSTRATION with big unresponsive incompetent govt.

Agree with Bernie on cutting back the Patriot Act, Asset Forfeiture, and chaining the NSA back up to spy on strategic global threats -- not us.

We ran as our 1st candidate in the 70s an openly gay man. Not because we wanted to make a statement. But because the party thought he was best for the job. Got called "queer lovers" for that for decades. Our opposition to MEast involvement since the 80s got us called "traitorous doves". And our work to make the Drug War into a medical and personal counseling problem got us called "potheads". Because we wanted to empty the jails that were filling up with incidental marijuana offenders and turn them back into citizens.

Check the record -- We've been correct on almost EVERY important issue. And America is moving TOWARDS us on most important things. And this election will show that our persistence in being on the ballot in all the 50 states -- despite massive efforts by the Rs & Ds to keep us off-- for every recent Federal election is a CHOICE that America should encourage.

//"end campaign message"//

Just one question. As a former big L "Libertarian" -- how could you NOT know about the Nolan chart or these issue examples that I gave here? The chart is front and center on the LP.org site where it's ALWAYS been since I was a confused leftist.

 

[Onyx]

In the Nolan chart -- the 2 pillars of liberty and choice lie on either the Economic axis or the Social axis. It actually reflects the core concept that freedom and liberty are not granted by allowing just one or the other.

.

I find the Nolan Chart under representative, because it does not take into account that anarchists (max libertarian) and fascists (max statist) also have differing economic ideologies that vary from left to right.

While the differences in economic ideology for fascists may be based more on semantics than substance (I might be misspeaking since I am not well versed in fascist philosophy outside Mussolini), anarchism is incredibly varied economically.

We have capitalists, syndicalists, mutualists, communists, and partecons. Then we have those that integrate them together. The best chart at the moment is the political compass.

Unlike the Nolan Chart, the Political Compass does not marginalize left or right as signifying the scale of economic liberty, which allows greater representation of economic ideologies. I do recognize that it does not offer a horseshoe, but I believe it is better to allow for every position to be represented than to illustrate horseshoe theory on the graph.

By the way, the populist on your chart should be replaced with statist or authoritarian.