How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[Centinel]

To the first part, I would need more comprehensive description of the terms "liberty" and "property". Do I respect them? Yes. Are they absolute? No.

Liberty: Being able to do what you want with your own body and property but not with other people's bodies or property.

Property: physical resources a person owns.

 

[dblack]

Dumbest solution I have ever heard

The real problem is that conservatives do not want the transgendered to use either bathroom. They would just as soon beat the shit out of them

We're talking about libertarianism not conservatism, so who cares what conservatives want?

And what is dumb about allowing the owner of something to determine how that thing is used?

We don't serve colored here

A libertarian ideal

It's been pointed out to you many times that that isn't true.

 

[dblack]

We don't serve colored here

A libertarian ideal

Not really.

Again, libertarianism is based on the principle that people have the right to be left alone unless/until they trespass against someone's person or property.

This means that as long as someone isn't trespassing against someone's person or property we don't have the right to initiate force against him, even if he's doing something we disagree with, such as preventing colored people from using his property.

You seem to be confusing the refusal to initiate force with agreement. I may not agree with your behavior, but as long as you're not trespassing against the person or property of someone, I have no ethical justification for using force against you.

Exactly......

We don't serve colored here is a libertarian utopia

Nope. That's a lie.

 

[NightFox]

Libertarians are like economists - good to have around for reference now and then, but best when kept in their own lanes.

Mac, Do you respect the life, liberty and property of others and eschew aggression against other peaceful human beings?

To the second part of that, yes. To the first part, I would need more comprehensive description of the terms "liberty" and "property".
.

fingernail definitions might look like this:
Liberty.... I can do whatever I choose as long as what I choose to do doesn't infringe on the life, liberty and property of others.
Property.... that which I have acquired through the utilization of my own mind and/or body and/or have acquired by voluntary exchange with others.

Do I respect them? Yes. Are they absolute? No.

you don't think that you eschewing aggression against other peaceful persons is absolute?

 

[dblack]

Exactly......

We don't serve colored here is a libertarian utopia

It's actually not. In fact, every libertarian I know finds the idea reprehensible.

However, unlike authoritarians, a libertarian doesn't use force to make people act the way he wishes. To a libertarian, force is always unjustified unless/until someone trespasses against someone's person or property.

Libertarian....none of my business if you don't want to serve negroes

Wrong again. It's not government's business if you don't want to serve, regardless of your reasons.

 

[rightwinger]

Dumbest solution I have ever heard

The real problem is that conservatives do not want the transgendered to use either bathroom. They would just as soon beat the shit out of them

We're talking about libertarianism not conservatism, so who cares what conservatives want?

And what is dumb about allowing the owner of something to determine how that thing is used?

We don't serve colored here

A libertarian ideal

It's been pointed out to you many times that that isn't true.

The fact that libertarians are willing to look the other way in the name of libertarianism is well established

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly......

We don't serve colored here is a libertarian utopia

It's actually not. In fact, every libertarian I know finds the idea reprehensible.

However, unlike authoritarians, a libertarian doesn't use force to make people act the way he wishes. To a libertarian, force is always unjustified unless/until someone trespasses against someone's person or property.

Libertarian....none of my business if you don't want to serve negroes

Wrong again. It's not government's business if you don't want to serve, regardless of your reasons.

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

 

[Centinel]

The fact that libertarians are willing to look the other way in the name of libertarianism is well established

Yes, the fact that libertarians oppose using force against someone unless/until he has trespassed against someone's person or property is well established.

To a libertarian, violence isn't the answer.

 

[Centinel]

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.

 

[Mac1958]

Libertarians are like economists - good to have around for reference now and then, but best when kept in their own lanes.

Mac, Do you respect the life, liberty and property of others and eschew aggression against other peaceful human beings?

To the second part of that, yes. To the first part, I would need more comprehensive description of the terms "liberty" and "property".
.

fingernail definitions might look like this:
Liberty.... I can do whatever I choose as long as what I choose to do doesn't infringe on the life, liberty and property of others.
Property.... that which I have acquired through the utilization of my own mind and/or body and/or have acquired by voluntary exchange with others.

Do I respect them? Yes. Are they absolute? No.

you don't think that you eschewing aggression against other peaceful persons is absolute?

No, I said I agree with that part of the question, that we eschew aggression on other peaceful people.

Regarding property, I'm not an absolutist there. I think a society, particularly a wealthy and advanced society, can make a conscious decision to create a foundation for those who simply don't have the capacity to generate significant wealth (or health, for that matter). That would require identifying a point of equilibrium at which (a) people are not made to be so dependent on others that it significantly retards their own growth, and (b) taxes and restrictions on those who do have the capacity to generate significant wealth are not so onerous as to disincentivize their wealth-creating production.

Where is that point of equilibrium? The ballot box. And if those on the more libertarian side of the equation want to turn things around and make gains, they'll have to do a better job of messaging. And further, they'll have to realize that we did not get to this level of dependency overnight, nor will we be able to move away from it overnight. If this happens at all, and I'm very doubtful, it will have to be accomplished with skill and patience, not with volume and absolutism.

FYI, I took a political test a while back, and I think the results were pretty accurate:

.

 

[Contumacious]

I think you owe the Amish an apology, despite them being a bunch of weirdasses like they are, they are not so loathesome as Libertarians.

Lol. Libertarian here.

Unlike Republicans or Democrats, libertarians like me, who don't affiliate themselves with the official Libertarian Party, don't adhere to the rigidity of party politics. Party politics can lead people to be closed minded and prejudiced, as evidenced from what I'm seeing in this thread.

It allows us to tolerate what we please, and be intolerant to what we please. But enjoy being led along like lemmings by the establishments in your respective parties.

Are you a Rand Objectivist or a little 'l' libertarian who wants minimal government, respect for the Constitution and no public intrusion where no harm is caused?

There is a big difference.

I place no definition on my worldviews. Your problem is that you feel the need to define my worldviews. Nothing so simplistic.

And what if I'm either? Or both? I don't appreciate being labeled because of what my political beliefs are. Are we that truly loathsome to you? And why are we evil?

I can't help but feel...offended by your description.

You already labelled yourself as a libertarian. He's asking for clarification - there are a lot of libertarians out there, and each one of them has a slightly different personal definition of libertarianism.

I don't see how you are offended by his question.

Gee, I was afraid of that.

Now folks are going to identify themselves as Liberal Libertarian, conservative Libertarian, middle of the road Libertarian ....ad nauseam

An individual is a Libertarian if he/she adheres to our STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES .

Don't tell me that you are a Libertarian but dislike our stance on the military and recreational drug use. That's bullshit.

If you believe that we have a duty to invade every country on the face of mother earth then identify yourself as a conservative Republican.

If you believe that it is proper for the state to send a 75 year old veteran to die in prison because he smoked a joint then identify yourself as a conservative Republican.

We are not going to water down our principles in order to be electable.


.

 

[Centinel]

Regarding property, I'm not an absolutist there.

What does that mean, that you're not an absolutist regarding property?

 

[Mac1958]

Regarding property, I'm not an absolutist there.

What does that mean, that you're not an absolutist regarding property?

Explained further in post 130.
.

 

[Centinel]

Libertarians are like economists - good to have around for reference now and then, but best when kept in their own lanes.

Mac, Do you respect the life, liberty and property of others and eschew aggression against other peaceful human beings?

To the second part of that, yes. To the first part, I would need more comprehensive description of the terms "liberty" and "property".
.

fingernail definitions might look like this:
Liberty.... I can do whatever I choose as long as what I choose to do doesn't infringe on the life, liberty and property of others.
Property.... that which I have acquired through the utilization of my own mind and/or body and/or have acquired by voluntary exchange with others.

Do I respect them? Yes. Are they absolute? No.

you don't think that you eschewing aggression against other peaceful persons is absolute?

No, I said I agree with that part of the question, that we eschew aggression on other peaceful people.

Regarding property, I'm not an absolutist there. I think a society, particularly a wealthy and advanced society, can make a conscious decision to create a foundation for those who simply don't have the capacity to generate significant wealth (or health, for that matter). That would require identifying a point of equilibrium at which (a) people are not made to be so dependent on others that it significantly retards their own growth, and (b) taxes and restrictions on those who do have the capacity to generate significant wealth are not so onerous as to disincentivize their wealth-creating production.

Where is that point of equilibrium? The ballot box. And if those on the more libertarian side of the equation want to turn things around and make gains, they'll have to do a better job of messaging. And further, they'll have to realize that we did not get to this level of dependency overnight, nor will we be able to move away from it overnight. If this happens at all, and I'm very doubtful, it will have to be accomplished with skill and patience, not with volume and absolutism.

FYI, I took a political test a while back, and I think the results were pretty accurate:

.

What would the difference be between an absolutist regarding property and a non-absolutist regarding property?

 

[Mac1958]

Libertarians are like economists - good to have around for reference now and then, but best when kept in their own lanes.

Mac, Do you respect the life, liberty and property of others and eschew aggression against other peaceful human beings?

To the second part of that, yes. To the first part, I would need more comprehensive description of the terms "liberty" and "property".
.

fingernail definitions might look like this:
Liberty.... I can do whatever I choose as long as what I choose to do doesn't infringe on the life, liberty and property of others.
Property.... that which I have acquired through the utilization of my own mind and/or body and/or have acquired by voluntary exchange with others.

Do I respect them? Yes. Are they absolute? No.

you don't think that you eschewing aggression against other peaceful persons is absolute?

No, I said I agree with that part of the question, that we eschew aggression on other peaceful people.

Regarding property, I'm not an absolutist there. I think a society, particularly a wealthy and advanced society, can make a conscious decision to create a foundation for those who simply don't have the capacity to generate significant wealth (or health, for that matter). That would require identifying a point of equilibrium at which (a) people are not made to be so dependent on others that it significantly retards their own growth, and (b) taxes and restrictions on those who do have the capacity to generate significant wealth are not so onerous as to disincentivize their wealth-creating production.

Where is that point of equilibrium? The ballot box. And if those on the more libertarian side of the equation want to turn things around and make gains, they'll have to do a better job of messaging. And further, they'll have to realize that we did not get to this level of dependency overnight, nor will we be able to move away from it overnight. If this happens at all, and I'm very doubtful, it will have to be accomplished with skill and patience, not with volume and absolutism.

FYI, I took a political test a while back, and I think the results were pretty accurate:

.

What would the difference be between an absolutist regarding property and a non-absolutist regarding property?

My point was about income, money, which is property.

So, the variable here would be taxation of that property.
.

 

[Centinel]

My point was about income, money, which is property.

So, the variable here would be taxation of that property.

So when you say that property rights are not absolute, it seems that you're saying that the government has the power to violate property rights via taxation. Okay, are there any other ways in which property rights are not absolute, or is taxation the only acceptable violation, in you opinion?

 

[Mac1958]

My point was about income, money, which is property.

So, the variable here would be taxation of that property.

So when you say that property rights are not absolute, it seems that you're saying that the government has the right to tax. Okay, are there any other ways in which property rights are not absolute, or is taxation the only acceptable violation, in you opinion?

I might be fairly libertarian outside of that. Eminent domain, no, for example.

What other examples do you have in mind?
.

 

[Centinel]

My point was about income, money, which is property.

So, the variable here would be taxation of that property.

So when you say that property rights are not absolute, it seems that you're saying that the government has the right to tax. Okay, are there any other ways in which property rights are not absolute, or is taxation the only acceptable violation, in you opinion?

I might be fairly libertarian outside of that. Eminent domain, no, for example.

What other examples do you have in mind?

I don't have any examples in mind. I just wanted to know what you meant when you said that property rights are not absolute, and now I know that you meant that property rights can be violated by the state solely for the purposes of taxation.

Although, come to think of it, do you think a person has the right to deny access to his property for whatever reason he chooses?

 

[Mac1958]

My point was about income, money, which is property.

So, the variable here would be taxation of that property.

So when you say that property rights are not absolute, it seems that you're saying that the government has the right to tax. Okay, are there any other ways in which property rights are not absolute, or is taxation the only acceptable violation, in you opinion?

I might be fairly libertarian outside of that. Eminent domain, no, for example.

What other examples do you have in mind?

I don't have any examples in mind. I just wanted to know what you meant when you said that property rights are not absolute, and now I know that you meant that property rights can be violated by the state solely for the purposes of taxation.

Although, come to think of it, do you think a person has the right to deny access to his property for whatever reason he chooses?

Goddamn it, making me think late on a Friday afternoon isn't terribly nice of you.

Okay. I can think of two exceptions to that - law enforcement and emergency services. Someone may not be in their right mind and law would have to take precedence (although the property owner still has rights regarding what happens).
.

 

[Centinel]

My point was about income, money, which is property.

So, the variable here would be taxation of that property.

So when you say that property rights are not absolute, it seems that you're saying that the government has the right to tax. Okay, are there any other ways in which property rights are not absolute, or is taxation the only acceptable violation, in you opinion?

I might be fairly libertarian outside of that. Eminent domain, no, for example.

What other examples do you have in mind?

I don't have any examples in mind. I just wanted to know what you meant when you said that property rights are not absolute, and now I know that you meant that property rights can be violated by the state solely for the purposes of taxation.

Although, come to think of it, do you think a person has the right to deny access to his property for whatever reason he chooses?

Goddamn it, making me think late on a Friday afternoon isn't terribly nice of you.

Okay. I can think of two exceptions to that - law enforcement and emergency services. Someone may not be in their right mind and law would have to take precedence (although the property owner still has rights regarding what happens).
.

I actually agree with you. I think that the law can make allowances for those who can't act as their own agent. For example, let's say you fall down and stop breathing. Now, normally, if someone were to pound on your chest and put his mouth on yours he would be guilty of assault and battery. However, I think it is legitimate for the law to recognize that you had no mechanism to convey your desire to be helped, and that a reasonable person would assume you wanted to be helped.

Of course, it's a judgement call, which is why we have juries, but I do think there are cases in which a person can "trespass" against the person or property of another and be forgiven for the transgression.

Since it's Friday afternoon, feel free to respond at your leisure. No hurry.