How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[rightwinger]

Libertarians look at our Constitution as a cookbook. It contains all the recepies and ingredients that future generations may need

Our founders wrote a Constitution that builds a kitchen. Future generations can use that kitchen to cook the meals and use the ingredients that they want and need

 

[JimBowie1958]

Libertarianism is advocating liberty. It's not an on/off switch.

That is total bullshit, as Libertarianisms 'fine print' has its own restrictions that reduces complete liberty to what people can live with in close proximity to each other.

Libertarianism justifies restrictions on violence, hence all 'fighting words' are no longer justifications of punching the guy in the nose and you still go to jail, and of trespass, even if you didnt know that that pothead had his 'garden' there.

Libertariansim is a cult of irrationality layered over simple greedy selfishness.

 

[dblack]

Laws are enforced with the threat, and execution, of violence. How do you convince yourself otherwise?

JimBowie1958 - you laughed at this. Does it seem preposterous to you? I'm curious how. All laws are backed by the threat of force. If you persist in defying the law you will ultimately be imprisoned or killed. This isn't hyperbole. It's the real, fundamental fact of most forms of government, including ours. That's the entire point of making something a law. Without that threat of force, a law would be a mere request or suggestion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I think the ultimate litmus test is this: for all of their propaganda and mindless yammering about "the wonders" of government control and centralized planning, not one of these idiots ever denounce their U.S. citizenship, leave the United States, and go experience "the wonders" of government control and centralized planning in North Korea.

Because at the end of the day, it's about two things for these people. Power and control over others, and mooching off of us. Liberals vehemently opposed ending slavery in the 1860's and more than 150 years later, they still cannot accept that slavery is outlawed. They want people to be forced to labor on their behalf.

So if you dont agree to Libertarian cult ideology, you must like living in North Korea?

That is the stupidest thing I have ever read from a person trying to defend Libertarian cultism.

 

[dblack]

Libertarianism is advocating liberty. It's not an on/off switch.

That is total bullshit, as Libertarianisms 'fine print' has its own restrictions that reduces complete liberty to what people can live with in close proximity to each other.

Libertarianism justifies restrictions on violence, hence all 'fighting words' are no longer justifications of punching the guy in the nose and you still go to jail, and of trespass, even if you didnt know that that pothead had his 'garden' there.

Can you expand on this? Or rephrase, or something? I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[JimBowie1958]

JimBowie1958 - you laughed at this. Does it seem preposterous to you? I'm curious how. All laws are backed by the threat of force. If you persist in defying the law you will ultimately be imprisoned or killed. This his hyperbole. It's the real, fundamental fact of most forms of government, including ours. That's the entire point of making something a law. Without that threat of force, a law would be a mere request or suggestion.

The threat of violence is not why the vast majority of people respect and obey the law.

The predominant reason is that they no it is the moral thing to do, thus why a Libertarian cultist cannot grasp the point, and that the majority of people recognise the right of the government, representing the People of the nation in aggregate to make laws and impose them.

The threat of violence is only needed for jack asses and Libertarian anarchists.

 

[kaz]

So if a person is killing an unborn baby, is that a violation of another person? - libertarians are mixed on this, but my view is the baby doesn't have a right to the mother's body

Then the mother should not have chosen to conceive the baby. You also didnt answer the question I asked; is the baby a person for whom killing it is wrong? IF it is a person, then by Libertarian beliefs it has a right to live and not have the violence of abortion done to it.

If a Father abandons his own biologically conceived children to live on the street, is that violence of some kind? - Um ... violence? No. It's a civil wrong though and the family has the right to redress it through the civil courts

So then there are things wrong according to Libertarian cults than only violence and trespass.

If someone refuses to defend their own country by ducking the draft in a time of war, is that against the Libertarian belief system? - If people won't voluntarily defend the country, why should the country be able to force them? Maybe it's time to move on to a new government if people would be overrun than fight for the one they have

So the cowards have a right to live in a country that they refuse to defend?> How nice for anarchist cowards.

If someone refuses to pay their taxes is that a violation? - Legitimate taxes to fund common services, sure. Taxes to redistribute your money to other citizens, no

But all spending of taxes 'redistributes' money to other people whether it is the military the Bureaucrat or the homeless. Your mantra makes no sense in the real world.

If a person buys out a company that has the patent on a life saving drug then runs the price up by a factor of 50, is that wrong by Libertarian values? - Unrealistic scenario. The drug would have to be still under patent, and if the profit maximizing price was 50 times lower, they'd be losing more sales than making new profits

No, it has actually happened in the real world, so how can it be 'unrealistic'? You duck the question because it shows the heartlessness of Libertarianism.

If a person decides that a law against selling crack cocaine to minors is unjust and begins to do so, is he violating Libertarian values? - Yes, if as you said it's to a minor

Why is it unethical to a minor? So if the minor is 17 and he buys crack and smokes it with friends, that is unethical to buy or sell it in that case?

If a pimp coerces one of his whores to get back out on the street, despite her flu and resume getting the minimum number of johns he has given her, is that wrong by Libertarian notions? - I'm not quite clear what the question is here. But if coerce means actual force, then duh, yeah, it's wrong right there. Past that, it's kind of convoluted

Pimps dont beat their whores every day. They just give a thorough smashing once in a while and then later the whore remembers it and that is enough. But in the specific case of a particular incident where no violence is used, is that unethical to a Libertarians?

Most people would agree it is wrong and should be illegal, but the Libertarian nut balls like you will usually defend it as there is no direct violence in the particular instance though violence is threatened by implication.

I have heard Libertarians defend each and everyone of the above, but I thought I would give you the chance to speak for yourself? - No you haven't

Lol, yeah I just imagined all that by myself. /sarc

You are an ideologue. Common sense means nothing to you once you run a thought through your ideological filter and let the ideology dictate to you what is right, wrong and justifiable. You have abandoned your own free thinking in order to defend a system of thought not authored by you via your own evaluation and analyusis.

You are a pod people, dude.

Are any of these things unethical in your Libertarian opinion?

Libertarianism does not involve moral absolutes, thus none of it is actual morality and at best is a question of ethics.

These godless and soulless minions think themselves liberated but in fact they are craven beasts abusing reason and rhetoric not to find Truth, that they already assume that they have, they merely want to justify their own appetites, selfishness, greed and hatred.

There are three main groups under "libertarian"

- "Libertarians" I keep telling you they are a party. Please sir, learn the English language and use it properly. The party are a group of libertarians who joined. They do not speak for all libertarians, not even a majority or even a plurality of us. Yes, the party is formed on libertarian ideas, but in my view they are more party than libertarian

- "anarchists" Ironically you keep using the standards of anarchists to us all and then call us "Libertarians" which is the party and the party is not anarchist. Seriously, learn the terms and use them correctly if you want to discuss it because I never know who the hell you're talking about

- "small government libertarians" People who support the principle you can do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on other's right to do the same. We think government should exist but be minimized to only those functions government can do. Police, military, courts, recognition of property rights, ... Many are Republicans. A few claim to be Democrats, but I've never met one who didn't clearly and repeatedly violate libertarian ideals. And a whole bunch of us are dissatisfied with all of them and are none of the above.

If you want to keep mixing the terms, you'll get arguments, but you'll keep confusing people and nothing will be really understood

 

[JimBowie1958]

Libertarianism is advocating liberty. It's not an on/off switch.

That is total bullshit, as Libertarianisms 'fine print' has its own restrictions that reduces complete liberty to what people can live with in close proximity to each other.

Libertarianism justifies restrictions on violence, hence all 'fighting words' are no longer justifications of punching the guy in the nose and you still go to jail, and of trespass, even if you didnt know that that pothead had his 'garden' there.

Can you expand on this? Or rephrase, or something? I have no idea what you're talking about.

no, if I have to explain it to you then there is no point to doing so.

Something are just Axioms; look it up

 

[P@triot]

Laws are enforced with the threat, and execution, of violence. How do you convince yourself otherwise?

Most people obey the law the vast majority of their lives because they know that obeying the law is the right moral thing to do.

Only jack asses and Libertarians have to have the threat of force to get them to obey the law.

Boy is that the mindless nonsense of a liberal minion. So let's be clear here - you firmly believe the following were (and I quote) "the right and moral thing to do" (all of these are either currently law or were law until someone opposed them):

• Slavery
• Rape (wives)
• spitting on the sidewalk
• NSA surveillance (Patriot Act)
• Up until 1990 cannibalism was legal in all 50 states (Idaho became the first to outlaw it)
• Atheists aren't allowed to run for office in Texas (still on the books - you support that)
• In Virginia, sex is completely outlawed for anyone except married couples (class 4 offense)

Idiot. Most people respect the U.S. Constitution and the freedom granted to us and oppose idiotic power and control laws. Only idiot liberals love and obey that unconstitutional nonsense.

 

[kaz]

That's the inevitable result of anarchy

I disagree. It's the result of a failed totalitarian state. The same thing happened after the Roman Empire collapsed.

It's happened everywhere. Europe, Russia. Most people are followers. If everyone was like you and me, sure, it would work to have voluntary associations. But most people are like the majority of Americans who serve the parties and follow them. You take away one government, they'll find someone new to control them. And we'll have to joint to fight them back. You aren't getting little house on the prairie anarchy

The Idea of a Private Law Society

Still requires the world to be comprised of people like you and me. Tyrants will seek followers to conquer us and liberals seeking masters will follow them. Yeah, government deciding sucks, the key is to make it as weak as possible. But somehow judgments need to be universally recognized, and whatever you call that universal recognition, it's government

No, it actually doesn't require the world to be comprised of people like you and me. If there is no government, then it doesn't matter what kind of people populate the society. If there are no levers of power for them to push, then they can't accomplish their goal of imposing their aims on us.

I've said many times that the phrase "limited government" is an oxymoron. If you allow government to come into existence, it will grow until it consumes all of society. That's what history has shown over and over and over.

And if you eliminate it, tyrants will recruit liberals to be their armies, we'll join to defend ourselves, and bam, you have government again.

The only solution is to just flat out give government as little as possible. Whatever power they have they will abuse. So give them as little to abuse us with.

 

[dblack]

Libertarianism is advocating liberty. It's not an on/off switch.

That is total bullshit, as Libertarianisms 'fine print' has its own restrictions that reduces complete liberty to what people can live with in close proximity to each other.

Libertarianism justifies restrictions on violence, hence all 'fighting words' are no longer justifications of punching the guy in the nose and you still go to jail, and of trespass, even if you didnt know that that pothead had his 'garden' there.

Can you expand on this? Or rephrase, or something? I have no idea what you're talking about.

no, if I have to explain it to you then there is no point to doing so.

Something are just Axioms; look it up

Your call. I'll mark it down as flim-flam.

 

[Norman]

Libertarianism is advocating liberty. It's not an on/off switch.

That is total bullshit, as Libertarianisms 'fine print' has its own restrictions that reduces complete liberty to what people can live with in close proximity to each other.

Libertarianism justifies restrictions on violence, hence all 'fighting words' are no longer justifications of punching the guy in the nose and you still go to jail, and of trespass, even if you didnt know that that pothead had his 'garden' there.

Libertariansim is a cult of irrationality layered over simple greedy selfishness.

So you are saying that you should be able to beat down someone who calls you an idiot?

Idiot...

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you are saying that you should be able to beat down someone who calls you an idiot?

Idiot...

Lol, the term 'fighting words' does not include merely calling someone an idiot, you flaming idiot.

I would try to assplain it to you but I get the impression that you are just too stupid to understand what I tell you anyway unless I write it in big block letter with your favorite crayon color, so **** off.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Your call. I'll mark it down as flim-flam.

Lol, this idiot thinks axioms are flim flam, roflmao

 

[kaz]

Libertarianism is advocating liberty. It's not an on/off switch.

That is total bullshit, as Libertarianisms 'fine print' has its own restrictions that reduces complete liberty to what people can live with in close proximity to each other.

Libertarianism justifies restrictions on violence, hence all 'fighting words' are no longer justifications of punching the guy in the nose and you still go to jail, and of trespass, even if you didnt know that that pothead had his 'garden' there.

Can you expand on this? Or rephrase, or something? I have no idea what you're talking about.

no, if I have to explain it to you then there is no point to doing so.

Something are just Axioms; look it up

I just read your question as well and it makes no sense to me either. Can you clarify what you were asking?

 

[kaz]

Your call. I'll mark it down as flim-flam.

Lol, this idiot thinks axioms are flim flam, roflmao

So what about you should be free to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on other's right to do the same do you disagree with? Keep in mind, I'm not a Libertarian or an anarchist, I'm a libertarian. I explained that to you

 

[kaz]

Your call. I'll mark it down as flim-flam.

Lol, this idiot thinks axioms are flim flam, roflmao

I keep giving you this thread. I said what I thought small government libertarianism is and asked other small government libertarians if they generally agreed with my view, they said yes. So why don't you go in and address my actual positions instead of your endless sweeping statements that are mostly wrong

What is a small government libertarian?

 

[Norman]

So you are saying that you should be able to beat down someone who calls you an idiot?

Idiot...

Lol, the term 'fighting words' does not include merely calling someone an idiot, you flaming idiot.

I would try to assplain it to you but I get the impression that you are just too stupid to understand what I tell you anyway unless I write it in big block letter with your favorite crayon color, so **** off.

Pretty sure most libertarians believe that provocation and such should play a role in the legal system. But if you acknowledged this you would have to admit you are full of shit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So what about you should be free to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on other's right to do the same do you disagree with? /QUOTE]

1. One should not violate the law and the punishment for that should be administered by the government and consist of combinations of fines, imprisonment and capital punishment

2. One should not infringe on public morality and standards of decency. The penalty for this should be public shunning, and criticism, not governmental punishment.

3. One should not engage in fraud. The punishment for that depends on the nature of the fraud.

4. One should not advocate the harm of other people.

All the above passes the free to do whatever you want as long as you don't infringe on other's right to do the same mantra.

 

[P@triot]

If you want to run your business in our society, you have to follow our rules

It applies to building codes, labor regulations, hours you are allowed to operate and who you are required to serve

Yes, the proclivity for authoritarians to use violence to enforce their rules on their fellow man is well established.

To an authoritarian, violence is always the answer.

No violence unless you create a dangerous scene

Otherwise, your business is just shut down until you can follow the rules

Coming from a person who not only never ran a business, but has never even worked for one.

It's comical sitting here listening to you pretend like you're in charge.

You own a business, you conform with the regulations of your community

If you had really owned your own business you would realize that

As usual, the U.S. Constitution proves you wrong. You want to convince the American people that private business is nothing more than extension of government - public space created to serve the people. But that's simply not the case. My private business on my private property entitles me to decide who I enter into business with and who I don't. The Constitution says so. And that trumps any local "regulations of my community". Believe me, you of all people I do not expect to understand this. But the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution proves what I said to be true.