What's not to love about libertarians?

[Liberty]

For those who think libertarians are goofy or dumb, what specific issues do you disagree with libertarians on?

 

[uscitizen]

That industry and people are smart enough to properly regulate themselves to both their country's and their betterment.

 

[Liberty]

That industry and people are smart enough to properly regulate themselves to both their country's and their betterment.

What in your view, gives a human being the legitimate right to exercise dominion of intellect over another human being simply by saying so?

 

[VaYank5150]

That industry and people are smart enough to properly regulate themselves to both their country's and their betterment.

What in your view, gives a human being the legitimate right to exercise dominion of intellect over another human being simply by saying so?

It's late, or maybe you are typing too fast, but "huh"??

 

[uscitizen]

That industry and people are smart enough to properly regulate themselves to both their country's and their betterment.

What in your view, gives a human being the legitimate right to exercise dominion of intellect over another human being simply by saying so?

Power.
either granted or forced.

 

[Sallow]

Shaving.

Damn libertarian women and their hairy armpits. Gosh..and it might help to run a razor on those legs every so often.

 

[Liberty]

That industry and people are smart enough to properly regulate themselves to both their country's and their betterment.

What in your view, gives a human being the legitimate right to exercise dominion of intellect over another human being simply by saying so?

Power.
either granted or forced.

So unrestrained power that is not based on the rule of law that provides a human being power over another is legitimate in terms of correct societal practice?

 

[uscitizen]

What in your view, gives a human being the legitimate right to exercise dominion of intellect over another human being simply by saying so?

Power.
either granted or forced.

So unrestrained power that is not based on the rule of law that provides a human being power over another is legitimate in terms of correct societal practice?

That would depend on the society I suppose.

 

[Liberty]

Power.
either granted or forced.

So unrestrained power that is not based on the rule of law that provides a human being power over another is legitimate in terms of correct societal practice?

That would depend on the society I suppose.

The society in which you personally identify as being the most desirable to live in is the one in which I am referring.

 

[uscitizen]

So unrestrained power that is not based on the rule of law that provides a human being power over another is legitimate in terms of correct societal practice?

That would depend on the society I suppose.

The society in which you personally identify as being the most desirable to live in is the one in which I am referring.

Ohh you mean a dream world? Does not exist and will not exist for maybe 1000 years based on the slow rate of human emotional development.

I agree with many libertarian principles. I do however live in the reality of how the world is and what it can and cannot accomplish.

 

[Liberty]

That would depend on the society I suppose.

The society in which you personally identify as being the most desirable to live in is the one in which I am referring.

Ohh you mean a dream world? Does not exist and will not exist for maybe 1000 years based on the slow rate of human emotional development.

I agree with many libertarian principles. I do however live in the reality of how the world is and what it can and cannot accomplish.

Ok, just so I understand:

Political philosophy to you is pointless because any sort of principles not directly existing at the present moment is not worth being discussed? Sounds like a cop-out to the question to me.

Also, What gives you the power to define for everyone else exactly what can and cannot be accomplished?

 

[uscitizen]

The society in which you personally identify as being the most desirable to live in is the one in which I am referring.

Ohh you mean a dream world? Does not exist and will not exist for maybe 1000 years based on the slow rate of human emotional development.

I agree with many libertarian principles. I do however live in the reality of how the world is and what it can and cannot accomplish.

Ok, just so I understand:

Political philosophy to you is pointless because any sort of principles not directly existing at the present moment is not worth being discussed? Sounds like a cop-out to the question to me.

Also, What gives you the power to define for everyone else exactly what can and cannot be accomplished?

on your first point. You are resorting to pushing to absurdity. I forget the term for it.

On your second point.

I give me the power.

 

[Liberty]

Ohh you mean a dream world? Does not exist and will not exist for maybe 1000 years based on the slow rate of human emotional development.

I agree with many libertarian principles. I do however live in the reality of how the world is and what it can and cannot accomplish.

Ok, just so I understand:

Political philosophy to you is pointless because any sort of principles not directly existing at the present moment is not worth being discussed? Sounds like a cop-out to the question to me.

Also, What gives you the power to define for everyone else exactly what can and cannot be accomplished?

on your first point. You are resorting to pushing to absurdity. I forget the term for it.

On your second point.

I give me the power.

It is not pushing to absurdity. Everyone can probably describe a society that they personally would prefer to live and be a part of. Fantasy or not, that was the question presented.


You give yourself the power to define what can and cannot be accomplished for yourself and only yourself. To define what can be accomplished for another person is illegitimate because no human has direct control over another human's talents or abilities.

 

[uscitizen]

Ok, just so I understand:

Political philosophy to you is pointless because any sort of principles not directly existing at the present moment is not worth being discussed? Sounds like a cop-out to the question to me.

Also, What gives you the power to define for everyone else exactly what can and cannot be accomplished?

on your first point. You are resorting to pushing to absurdity. I forget the term for it.

On your second point.

I give me the power.

It is not pushing to absurdity. Everyone can probably describe a society that they personally would prefer to live and be a part of. Fantasy or not, that was the question presented.


You give yourself the power to define what can and cannot be accomplished for yourself and only yourself. To define what can be accomplished for another person is illegitimate because no human has direct control over another human's talents or abilities.

Ohh I am not forcing any limitation on anyone.
I just think I have a better overall picture of what at least the US subset of the Human Species can accomplish.


giving myself the power is a very libertarian concept.
You do not understand this?
Actually your attitude thus far in this thread has not been very Libertarian in nature.

 

[Liberty]

on your first point. You are resorting to pushing to absurdity. I forget the term for it.

On your second point.

I give me the power.

It is not pushing to absurdity. Everyone can probably describe a society that they personally would prefer to live and be a part of. Fantasy or not, that was the question presented.


You give yourself the power to define what can and cannot be accomplished for yourself and only yourself. To define what can be accomplished for another person is illegitimate because no human has direct control over another human's talents or abilities.

Ohh I am not forcing any limitation on anyone.
I just think I have a better overall picture of what at least the US subset of the Human Species can accomplish.


giving myself the power is a very libertarian concept.

yep, it is. its when you violate the liberty of other individuals is when one's actions become illegitimate and consequently, illegal. Well, carry on then.

 

[eagleseven]

We have a hard time developing a cohesive national political machine that can rival with the GOP and Democrats, precisely because our political philosophy encourages decentralization.

We also face difficulty in opposing Judeo-Christian morality prevalent throughout this nation. It is no coincidence that the largest Christian organization in the world, the Catholic Church, is an authoritarian theocracy.

 

[uscitizen]

Why would you need to oppose others morality?

that morality is only a problem if it becomes law.
and if libertarians ran things....

 

[Liberty]

Oh yeah, trust me, I am not a libertarian because I think we have a chance of gaining some house seats or anything. I am a libertarian because I identify with their platform 100% and think it is a great platform. Nothing more.

 

[Liberty]

Why would you need to oppose others morality?

that morality is only a problem if it becomes law.
and if libertarians ran things....

...the rule of law would be based first and for most on protecting the individual human rights of everyone. What are you implying?

 

[uscitizen]

Why would you need to oppose others morality?

that morality is only a problem if it becomes law.
and if libertarians ran things....

...the rule of law would be based first and for most on protecting the individual human rights of everyone. What are you implying?

And these individual human rights are?
Where does ones right cross over to impact another?

What you are talking about is impossible to work out, even among libertarians.
some believe that the govt should not fund police.