Is Libertarianism a Solution for America’s Problems?

[bripat9643]

Bootney Lee Farnsworth certainly doesnt. I tried to explain to him earlier the libertarian philosophy is tied up with metaphyical notions of moral rights and wrongs.

Exactly. You dipshit libertarians have a philosophy based on a belief that denying you the right to own property is morally wrong. Of course you can't explain that rationally so you say stupid shit like what I claim is wrong in and of itself (because I say so). What a wonderfully stupid philosophy.

I've already explained it rationally, moron. You simply ignored it because you are unable to deal with it.

 

[Curried Goats]

Of course you have failed to provide any coherent definition of rights and simply ignored my definition of the term.

I didn't ignore your definition. I in fact responded to it and asked follow up questions. Did you respond to those? I can remember but I'll check. As for what I think Rights are, they are legal fictions, nothing more. They are constructs of society and government. They describe the legal boundaries between yourself and others and yourself and government and they are subject to change with the whims of society.

 

[Curried Goats]

I've already explained it rationally, moron. You simply ignored it because you are unable to deal with it.

No you didn't. You couldn't even handle a simple follow up. I asked you what these "rules" of society were and where did they come from and you got nothing.

 

[sparky]

I believe that was the intent of many of our founders.

Maybe they were fncceo? Lotta these debates end up trying to figure the FF's intents juxtaposed to our current direction as a society

There have been some very interesting responses here as to our social construct , what it really is, or what could change it

Looking back ,1700's , 1800's ,1900's America all had some evolutionary changes making us look rather differently from that which was before us

What America may be in 2050, 2100 , etc is conjecture worthy of our attention

~S~

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't ignore your definition. I in fact responded to it and asked follow up questions. Did you respond to those? I can remember but I'll check. As for what I think Rights are, they are legal fictions, nothing more. They are constructs of society and government. They describe the legal boundaries between yourself and others and yourself and government and they are subject to change with the whims of society.

So nothing wrong has been done if you hang a black man without a trial? Is that really what you're saying?

Your questions were just your way of evading the issue. You didn't say what was wrong with my definition of rights.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Is Libertarianism a Solution for America’s Problems?​

No..........a platoon of snipers aimed at all the top DNC people, their RINOs and their brainwashed sheeples are the solution.

Wow, so kill anyone that does not agree with your way of thinking and how Hitler, Mao and Stalin would have loved you!

 

[fncceo]

Maybe they were fncceo?

Some of the original founding fathers definitely had a Libertarian ideology. Payne, Jefferson, Franklin, and Henry all wrote prolifically about the ideals of Libertarian democracy and the role of a limited federal government. However, there were other founding fathers who believed just as strongly that Democracy should be limited to white males and that slavery was right and proper. There were even proposals to limit suffrage to land owners (as did the ancient Athenians).

The Constitution of the US is very much a compromise between competing philosophies.

 

[Curried Goats]

So nothing wrong has been done if you hang a black man without a trial? Is that really what you're saying?

In this country it would be legally wrong.

You questions were just your way of evading the issue.

I personally would think it's wrong but I can acknowledge that plenty of people throughout history didn't think it was wrong and acted accordingly. I'm not so much of a child that I need to believe the Universe thinks it's wrong. I'm okay with just being a subjective belief of me, the majority of my fellow citizens and the law under which I live.

 

[Curried Goats]

Some of the original founding fathers definitely had a Libertarian ideology. Payne, Jefferson, Franklin, and Henry all wrote prolifically about the ideals of Libertarian democracy and the role of a limited federal government. However, there were other founding fathers who believed just as strongly that Democracy should be limited to white males and that slavery was right and proper. There were even proposals to limit suffrage to land owners (as did the ancient Athenians).

The Constitution of the US is very much a compromise between competing philosophies.

I'm going to go ahead and question the strength of those libertarian beliefs in a slaver and child rapist like Jefferson.


Fucking white people love them some fairytales.

 

[bripat9643]

In this country it would be legally wrong.

But not morally wrong. The fact that it's a crime is purely arbitrary, according to you.

I personally would think it's wrong but I can acknowledge that plenty of people throughout history didn't think it was wrong and acted accordingly. I'm not so much of a child that I need to believe the Universe thinks it's wrong. I'm okay with just being a subjective belief of me, the majority of my fellow citizens and the law under which I live.

You just admitted that it's not morally wrong. According to you there is no objective reason for making it illegal. If the government started gassing Jews tomorrow, you would have no logical objection to it.

Here's a hint: the people who thought it was wrong had very good logical reasons on their side.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm going to go ahead and question the strength of those libertarian beliefs in a slaver and child rapist like Jefferson.


Fucking white people love them some fairytales.

Whether Jefferson's behavior were consistent with his beliefs isn't under discussion here. Yours certainly isn't, after all.

 

[Curried Goats]

But not morally wrong. The fact that it's a crime is purely arbitrary, according to you.

They're not necessarily arbitrary. There are good reasons for respecting peoples rights. (Fewer violent revolts)

You just admitted that it's not morally wrong. According to you there is no objective reason for making it illegal.

They're are plenty of good objective reasons beyond morality. I just mentioned one above.

If the government started gassing Jews tomorrow, you would have no logical objection to it.

Of course I would. I have personal, subjective beliefs, I just don't pretend as if they're objective, as you do.

Here's a hint: the people who thought it was wrong had very good logical reasons on their side.

I never said they didn't. I'm just arguing moral objectivity and natural rights aren't one of them. You can't rationally prove moral objectivity is a real thing.

 

[Curried Goats]

Whether Jefferson's behavior were consistent with his beliefs isn't under discussion here. Yours certainly isn't, after all.

It was what I was discussing. You can discuss whatever you like. A lot of you pussy whites like to live in these fantasy worlds where someone's word is more relevant to who they actually are rather than their actions. As if saying repeatedly how much you love you wife makes up for the fact that she's always showing up with a black eye.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

Wow, so kill anyone that does not agree with your way of thinking and how Hitler, Mao and Stalin would have loved you!

Nope. Just playing by THEIR rules.

 

[bripat9643]

They're not necessarily arbitrary. There are good reasons for respecting peoples rights. (Fewer violent revolts)

Why should we avoid violent revolts? That's just another arbitrary choice.

They're are plenty of good objective reasons beyond morality. I just mentioned one above.

Nope. That's just as arbitrary.

Of course I would. I have personal, subjective beliefs, I just don't pretend as if they're objective, as you do.

"Subjective" means irrational. What's a rational reason for doing it?

I never said they didn't. I'm just arguing moral objectivity and natural rights aren't one of them. You can't rationally prove moral objectivity is a real thing.

Yes you are. You're just arguing that morality is something different than rationality.

 

[Catsnmeters]

A Libertarian state could not.



I don't propose merit-based immigration. I propose a system where The Market will encourage skill-based immigration and disincentivize non-skilled immigration.

The market typically wants low skilled workers because Americans are more inclined to work higher skilled jobs. Immigrants are not climbing and cutting through walls, running across the desert or depending on smugglers to come to America to manage fortune 500 companies.

In a system where the government cannot (under law) provide social benefits, there will be a greater number of un-skilled citizens and legal immigrants interested in the jobs currently being filled by undocumented workers.

You are going to program but states from doling out social benefits? Doesn't that violate the 10thb amendment?

Many of those jobs today cannot be filled by citizens because there is no incentive for a citizen, who gets social benefits equivalent or better than what an un-skilled job will pay without getting out of bed.

Speak for yourself. The wife and I busted our humps early on in our marriage to support our kids. Working my whatever jobs we could get.

In a Libertarian state, there would be no punitive or retaliatory motivations for withholding social funding. The state would be Constitutionally disallowed from provideing taxpayer funds for such benefits.

How can the fed dictate to states how they spend their money.

Private institutions would be free to distribute what funds they felt a desire to distribute. But, that would be a matter for the people who voluntarily contribute to those institutions.

What about roads and stuff?

 

[Curried Goats]

Why should we avoid violent revolts? That's just another arbitrary choice.

Do you not know what arbitrary means?

I don't know about you but I purposefully try to avoid violence.

Nope. That's just as arbitrary.

Arbitrary and subjective are not the same thing.

"Subjective" means irrational. What's a rational reason for doing it?

Subjective also doesn't inherently mean irrational. My love of mango is subjective but it is based in the pleasure I derive from it which in turn is caused by the chemical reactions occurring in my body when I consume it.

Yes you are. You're just arguing that morality is something different than rarationality.

I'm arguing there is no rationality in arguing for universal sentiment. There is every objective reason to believe personal sentiment exists.

 

[flan327]

Most people see Libertarianism as a fringe ideology. Liberals see it as laissez-fair Capitalism gone amok. Conservatives see it as hedonistic and just one step away from godless anarchy.

But, what are the principles of Libertarianism that people seem to object to:

Individualism: Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. In principle, there are no groups that are responsible for actions or who have needs or rights beyond those of the individual. Libertarianism eschews identity politics.

Individual rights: Each individual has a right to be secure in their life, their liberty, and their property. These rights are granted by nature, not by government and the burden of explanation lies with anyone who proposed to interfere with those right.

Spontaneous Order: A certain amount of order in society if necessary for individuals to survive and prosper. Without order, anarchy leads to a state where the powerful will oppress the weak. However, order doesn’t have to be imposed from a central authority. Language, law, money, and markets all developed spontaneously, without the need for a central authority. Individual humans do not need to be led to achieve social cohesion. Social cohesion will assert when individuals are free to choose.

Rule of Law: As I stated before, Libertarians aren’t anarchists. In a Libertarian society, a person is free to pursue their own lives SO LONG as they respect the equal rights of others. Laws need to respect that principle, not be either arbitrary in nature, or used to create social conditioning.

Limited Government: To quote Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Limiting both the size and scope of government into any area that doesn’t protect the rights of ALL citizens to liberty and for individuals to be secure in their life, their liberty, or their property should be un-Constitutional.

Free Markets: The most effective way to eliminate corruption in the marketplace is to remove the power that a government has to regulate that market. “When buying and selling are legislated, the first thing to be bought and sold will be legislators”. Preventing an individual from pursuing a business is just as evil as using a taxpayer’s money to shore up a failing business. Wealth can be spontaneously created by giving free reign to innovation and production. Only government can limit the creation of that wealth or use their power to divert that wealth towards others that didn’t participate in its production, but only were able to ingratiate themselves with the government.

Production is a Virtue: People who produce need to be secure to keep the fruits of their labor. No on has a right to the production of others. Thomas Paine wrote, “There are two distinct classes of men in the nation, those who pay taxes, and those who receive and live upon the taxes.” And Jefferson wrote, “We have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”

Harmony of Interests: In a free society, the interests of most people don’t conflict. People will strive to achieve what they cannot obtain by other means. When we all seek to prosper by our own means, we mutually prosper. Adam Smith writes, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”

Peace: War does nothing to enhance the rights of the individual. War requires the sacrifice of the individual to enhance the interests of The State. Foreign interventionism, Imperialism by Force, or the idea of imposing a peace beyond our borders doesn’t belong in a Libertarian society.


So, which of those principles do people find so offensive? Which ones wouldn’t be beneficial to our society as a whole, and to the individuals who make up our society?

TL; DC

 

[flan327]

I've already explained it rationally, moron. You simply ignored it because you are unable to deal with it.

LOLOLOLOL

 

[bripat9643]

It was what I was discussing. You can discuss whatever you like. A lot of you pussy whites like to live in these fantasy worlds where someone's word is more relevant to who they actually are rather than their actions. As if saying repeatedly how much you love you wife makes up for the fact that she's always showing up with a black eye.

No, you were discussing what a right is. Now your changing the subject to whether Jefferson was a hypocrite. Then you resort to name calling because you were called on it.