What are libertarians?

[shart_attack]

Here is the link to Pogo's plagiarism. Everyone is free to review the evidence.

Here's actually a quicker way to get to exactly where you begin exposing Pogo for the goddamned plagiarist that she is:

Do hyphenated-Americans contribute to racism Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That hyperlink you gave above is on page four of the thread, Rike. The one I just posted takes you right to it.

It's funny to watch Pogo's calling fellow posters "liars". Obviously, she has special training in that, the Nazi *****.

 

[Bfgrn]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

Why do you ask loaded questions? Did you think that would pass off as an argument? A Plurium Interrogationum fallacy, not to mention an ad baculum position with the elderly. She knows it, you know it.

I ask a logical questions. HOW would this 'charity only' society work?

A TV show based on an agrarian society? So you have a plan to take back farming from huge corporations? Looks like the evolution of society and the industrial revolution are not to be considered...


Social Security is not exclusive to America. It has been endorsed as a basic right of human beings by the international community. And all other industrialized nations go beyond just Medicare. They cover ALL citizens.

Social Security is not an American concept. It is an international one.

Social Security is based upon a concept set forth in Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states, Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. In simple terms, the signatories agree that society in which a person lives should help them to develop and to make the most of all the advantages (culture, work, social welfare) which are offered to them in the country.[1]

Social Security may also refer to the action programs of government intended to promote the welfare of the population through assistance measures guaranteeing access to sufficient resources for food and shelter and to promote health and well-being for the population at large and potentially vulnerable segments such as children, the elderly, the sick and the unemployed. Services providing social security are often called social services.



But take solace Rikurzhen, you stand with other ultra-conservatives in this world who reject the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Be PROUD you stand with: the Soviet Union, Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR, People's Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People's Republic of Poland, Union of South Africa, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) Honduras and Yemen.

And be VERY PROUD you stand with your ideological brothers...Muslims....

In 1948, Saudi Arabia abstained from the ratification vote on the Declaration, claiming that it violated Sharia law. In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, said that the Declaration was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition" which could not be implemented by Muslims without conflict with Sharia.

 

[Bfgrn]

The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.

Your mea culpa doesn't make sense. You're arguing, in essence, that people who thought Fred Flintstone had a pet dinosaur given to him by God are not creationists because they recognize that cultures evolve over time.

You're a creationist because you reject the science of evolution, so your embrace of cultural change has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic mutation, selection effects as a response to environment and genetic drift.

I don't deny evolution. I reject that evolution should be the basis of a civil society.

Then why not pop back into the education thread, retract your statements and we can proceed afresh?

There is nothing to retract. When you examine education, race is not the determining factor. Poverty is.

That's already been dealt with in that thread. Look, the entire basis of Fisher vs. The University of Texas affirmative action case was that UT had to give preference to the children of upper class blacks and Hispanics over the BETTER QUALIFIED white children from more modest families. The University of Texas went to court to defend giving preferences to rich black kids. Race is the big factor that you don't want to acknowledge and I'm going to keep swatting away your feeble attempts to ignore it.

The Washington Post:

Texas needed to provide a preference to wealthy minority students such as “the African American or Hispanic child of successful professionals in Dallas” who would defy stereotypes.

​

So you will continue to stand by your white supremacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Among the many fundamental mistakes libertarians make is to incorrectly perceive 'the government' as something separate and apart from the people – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth, as the government and the people are one in the same. The government acts at the behest of the people, representing the people, where the people are solely responsible for the government's actions.


Indeed, that the people have elected to abdicate their Constitutional responsibility to keep their government in check – either through the political process, or failing that, the legal process – is not the 'fault' of government, it is the fault of the people, where the people are wrong to perceive themselves as 'hapless victims' of government 'overreach' and 'excess' that they alone created.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do you know ANY parent who would want to be a burden on their children???

So using your creationist logic, in order to avoid being a burden on one's children it's much better to be a burden on strangers and harm them and their families.

What is it with you magical thinkers, does this become a habit, appealing to magic in order to justify your beliefs?

Libertarianism is a philosophy that, among other things, subscribes to a doctrine that a free people, unencumbered by authoritarian restrictions, requirements and demands, will accomplish far more for their own benefit and for the general good than anything government will ever accomplish. And you nailed one of the basic rationales. When that authoritarian government makes requirements and demands re what the people are required to do for others, whatever the motives, the net result will include far more unintended negative consequences, and whatever good is accomplished will be inferior compared to what the private sector will accomplish if left free to do what they choose to do.

The pro-government crowd always assume that for whatever reason, even as those in government increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth, those elected or appointed to serve in government will be more wise, more noble, more compassionate, and more effective than will people acting of their own volition.

Why are you avoiding answering my question?

Critical thought? Seriously. Critical thought would include actually considering ALL the ramifications of actions proposed here. I know you have said on previous threads that you would end Social Security and Medicare.

Did you really use critical thought to consider how much pain, suffering and anxiety that would cause elderly folks? You said you would replace it with charity. Let's consider that for a moment...currently seniors receive a monthly SS check. These seniors know EXACTLY how much money they have coming in each month, so they can set up a budget. HOW would your 'charity only' society work? Would elderly Americans have to rise every morning not knowing if they can pay their bills, buy food and pay their utilities? Would you provide them a CUP so they could stand on a street corner and beg for money??

Why do you ask loaded questions? Did you think that would pass off as an argument? A Plurium Interrogationum fallacy, not to mention an ad baculum position with the elderly. She knows it, you know it.

I ask a logical questions. HOW would this 'charity only' society work?

A TV show based on an agrarian society? So you have a plan to take back farming from huge corporations? Looks like the evolution of society and the industrial revolution are not to be considered...

I hope that you're not a teacher, for if you are then I think I've discovered the problem with America's school system.

Not agrarian society, you moron, family.

Social Security is not exclusive to America. It has been endorsed as a basic right of human beings by the international community. And all other industrialized nations go beyond just Medicare. They cover ALL citizens.

Social Security is not an American concept. It is an international one.

Social Security is based upon a concept set forth in Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states, Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. In simple terms, the signatories agree that society in which a person lives should help them to develop and to make the most of all the advantages (culture, work, social welfare) which are offered to them in the country.[1]

Don't they teach you how to read in context in Ed School? Social security in this context refers not to the program but to having security of living in a social environment. Here is a kid's version of the UN website which explains this, kids version:

The society in which you live should help you to develop and to make the most of all the advantages (culture, work, social welfare) which are offered to you and to all the men and women in your country.​

There's nothing in the treaty which mandates that nations embrace socialism. Damn, are you ever stupid.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The real irony is that I am being accused of being a creationist, while I am arguing evolution. Attitudes and beliefs EVOLVE over time. Though Lincoln was a man of his time, he evoled a little ahead of that curve. And he was a thinking man who questioned his own beliefs and changed.

Your mea culpa doesn't make sense. You're arguing, in essence, that people who thought Fred Flintstone had a pet dinosaur given to him by God are not creationists because they recognize that cultures evolve over time.

You're a creationist because you reject the science of evolution, so your embrace of cultural change has nothing whatsoever to do with genetic mutation, selection effects as a response to environment and genetic drift.

I don't deny evolution. I reject that evolution should be the basis of a civil society.

Then why not pop back into the education thread, retract your statements and we can proceed afresh?

There is nothing to retract. When you examine education, race is not the determining factor. Poverty is.

That's already been dealt with in that thread. Look, the entire basis of Fisher vs. The University of Texas affirmative action case was that UT had to give preference to the children of upper class blacks and Hispanics over the BETTER QUALIFIED white children from more modest families. The University of Texas went to court to defend giving preferences to rich black kids. Race is the big factor that you don't want to acknowledge and I'm going to keep swatting away your feeble attempts to ignore it.

The Washington Post:

Texas needed to provide a preference to wealthy minority students such as “the African American or Hispanic child of successful professionals in Dallas” who would defy stereotypes.

​

So you will continue to stand by your white supremacy.

Is that the best response you learned in your Creationist Madrassa, to run away from evidence which contradicts your creationist worldview and to call names instead. That's all your creationist mentors have taught you?

 

[Mindful]

The FFs were liberals? Just because they didn't like George the Third?

 

[kaz]

Just correcting the record - because the word "honest" has never belonged in any sentence describing Fingerboy. Simply from a standpoint of rhetorical ability, divorced from any particular ideology, that kid is irretrievably minor league. He's never presented an "honest" discussion in his life. Certainly not here.

LOL, a lecture on honesty from the guy who denies what you post even when given the post you said it...

The offer doesn't close; you're still free to demonstrate where it is. But you do by now owe an explanation of what took so long.

But you won't do it because you don't have the backbone. You'll just continue the meme as if it's real.
Burden of proof: you.

For like the dozenth time, here you go, liar. You said honest citizens having guns is dangerous. Note dangerous is not in quotes. That means I am paraphrasing. And it was a good one. But you will need reading comprehension. Just a little, the ability to read the obvious.

People shooting back at criminals certainly does a lot to cancel it out. You shoot back at a criminal, that's additive, you are as bad as they are. That's your argument.

No, that's not cancellation, that's escalation. There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.

You said honest citizens shooting back at criminals is "escalation." So to not be a liar, you have to show now how escalation is not dangerous.

This is why I just insult you at this point, Pogo. You are a lying sack of shit who can't read and won't man up to your own posts. You deny them over and over and keep asking for posts that have been presented to you over and over.

You want to be treated like an adult? Act like one. Stop being such a douche and then whining about it. I gave up long ago on discourse with you, so I'm just trying to have fun with you. But God, whine whine whine, you're a whole kindergarten class.

 

[kaz]

In response to your concerns, however, I would merely say that the argument that anarchism will inevitably lead to the creation of a state, so we might as well just create the state now isn't all that inspiring.

Yeah, it is because the first thing that will drive us back to a state is defending ourselves from bad guys.

However, my view is that society will inevitably evolve in their thought towards anarchism as the brutality of the state, even the much touted democratic state, perhaps the most blood-soaked form of government in history, becomes clearer and clearer

What is that prediction based on as the more clear the brutality of the State gets, the more the majority are falling in love with it now? They are going in the exact opposite direction. And the left worship the State more and more as it gives us less and less freedom.

 

[kaz]

The FFs were liberals? Just because they didn't like George the Third?

No, not just because of that. Google Classic Liberal and educate yourself before posting on a subject you know nothing about and insist on proving.

 

[gipper]

The USA today is controlled by Leftism. It is a quasi Corporatist/Socialist state. Now...anyone who has studied these systems of government, knows it is unsustainable. It will ultimately destroy itself. Then what will we have? My hope is what results is a truly libertarian or classical liberal state. Please hear me out...

Under our leftist system today, we have a nation splitting apart. IMO this is due to the strong leftist belief and promotion of multiculturalism, refusal of nationalism and acceptance of globalism, and hatred for America's founding principles.

Can a nation survive with these ideals? I think not. Throughout history has any nation survived and thrived with vast societal differences in ethnicity, religious beliefs, racial composition, and political beliefs?

Consider the vast immigration of Mexicans into the USA. These people come to America for a better life, not unlike the Euros who immigrated decades ago. But since America no longer forces assimilation on newcomers, thanks to leftism, Mexicans may not assimilate.

Many Mexicans believe the USA stole the southwest from Mexico in 1848...and while most are illiterate by western standards, they truly believe the southwestern states of the USA were illegally taken. This is taught to Mexicans in Mexico...as their society is not infected by anti-nationalist leftists, unlike the USA. Fred Reed outlines it here Los Indocumentados 8211 LewRockwell.com

As soon as these immigrants are legal citizens, which will come soon in my opinion, the southwestern states will have majorities of Latinos residing in them. This is likely to have consequences. While many white Americans are appalled by this, I think the consequences could be beneficial and could it lead to a secession movement that results in the USA splitting into separate nations. (See Scotland today...and the Scots have far more in common with the English, than do Latinos and white or black Americans)

The breaking up of the USA into many smaller states, could be most helpful should it result in the development of a libertarian state. Of course, we could experience something akin to the Russian Revolution and end up with a ruthless communist dictatorship, which the radical left in this country has long wished for.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Now, back to the main topic of the thread. Libertarians aren't anarchists, the are minarchists. Not all of them prefer the Laissez-Faire type of governance. Individual freedom is key, and personal choices should not be dictated by a government. A person should be allowed to follow their own path, and shouldn't be told that they must accept one person or another when doing business with the general public. They believe that government should adhere to the Constitution. That's my take on the subject.

Well there are anarchist libertarians, but there are also minarchist libertarians.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I believe capitalism is the best economic model, but there is no "magic", "invisible hand", "religion of laissez-faire" that makes ANY sense, UNLESS you totally ignore some key parts of civil libertarian beliefs. I will highlight them for you.

What is really funny here is that YOU are the one that actually belies in the fairytale hand guiding the market - you like to call it government.

What is really not funny is you edited out my qualifiers. So tell me, should the market operate without any rules or laws? Should it be a free for all? Many corporations could maximize their profits by dumping their waste into nearby rivers, or into the air. Is THAT acceptable?

Since in the free market that would violate private property rights, no.

The problem with those who condemn the likes of Bachmann, Levin, Palin, Beck et al are that they buy into the idea that such people are extreme and a bit looney tunes--that certainly IS the drum beat mantra of the Left--but in fact, they have a difficult time coming up with any specifics to make that case. I don't know of any social or political views that any of those people hold that would disqualify them from being libertarian (little "L") Now do some have a different perspective of history or interpret things differently than other people do or have some ideas that might be considered fringe? Yes some do, but then pretty much everybody does. Sometimes I agree with them on the sociopolitical stuff and sometimes I don't. I have a tougher time catching Levin in a factual error though--in fact I'm not sure I ever have. And trust, me I try with everybody. But all of them qualify in every way as libertarian (little "L")

Ron Paul or Gary Johnson--Libertarians with a capital "L"? I am quite fond of both individuals--know Gary personally in fact--but I have a lot more problem with their point of view about several sociopolitical stances than I do Bachmann, Levin, Palin, or Beck. But all of them are good people.

But getting back to the point Kaz made in the OP, libertarians (little "L") are not opposed to government. Every single one, including those I've named here, know that some government is necessary to hold the 50 states together as one nation and that some laws and regulation are necessary to secure the unalienable rights of the individual and to prevent those in the 50 states from doing physical, economic, environmental, or cultural violence to each other.

Certainly the central government should do what has to be done and that the various states CANNOT do without assuming improper authority over each other.

But the central government should do nothing that the states, local communities, and/or private sector CAN do whether they do it or not.

Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Among the many fundamental mistakes libertarians make is to incorrectly perceive 'the government' as something separate and apart from the people – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth, as the government and the people are one in the same. The government acts at the behest of the people, representing the people, where the people are solely responsible for the government's actions.


Indeed, that the people have elected to abdicate their Constitutional responsibility to keep their government in check – either through the political process, or failing that, the legal process – is not the 'fault' of government, it is the fault of the people, where the people are wrong to perceive themselves as 'hapless victims' of government 'overreach' and 'excess' that they alone created.

Right, the government is "the people." That's why the government overclassifies its actions so that "the people" don't know what they're doing and can't do anything about it. Nice try.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In response to your concerns, however, I would merely say that the argument that anarchism will inevitably lead to the creation of a state, so we might as well just create the state now isn't all that inspiring.

Yeah, it is because the first thing that will drive us back to a state is defending ourselves from bad guys.

However, my view is that society will inevitably evolve in their thought towards anarchism as the brutality of the state, even the much touted democratic state, perhaps the most blood-soaked form of government in history, becomes clearer and clearer

What is that prediction based on as the more clear the brutality of the State gets, the more the majority are falling in love with it now? They are going in the exact opposite direction. And the left worship the State more and more as it gives us less and less freedom.

I'd say it goes in waves. Right now the trend is towards more government, but it'll eventually reach a critical point that it becomes unbearable. Though I would say if it's as hopeless as you're painting it then your minarchism is as valid as my anarchism.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Right. If you look through history, at no time did any government revert itself back to limited via choice. Like any cancerous entity, it eventually becomes too big for itself and destroys it's host. At the same time, no stateless society has ever lasted due to the wish for people to obtain power and the dupes and rubes who willingly and gleefully give it to them.

At the same time, advocating for a limited government is foolish in my opinion when put up against the idea of none at all. I mean, if we're going for idealistic conditions, then none is better than the mythical limited.

In the end more consolidated, global governance is well on its way. Which is certain to not turn out well for the average individual looking to live a free existence.

 

[Foxfyre]

Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

I Replied

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

Kevin responded

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians I see as mostly the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

(NOTE: Edited to fix the quote function I screwed up)

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What ideas would a Libertarian force others to live by that would make them even considered under the libertarian umbrella at all? Seems entirely counter intuitive.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[QUOTE="Foxfyre, post: 9768686, member: 6847
Don't tell Mark Levin you think he's a libertarian. He may get violent.

He would be the first to describe himself as a libertarian (little L) aka classical liberal in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. He does have a lot of problems with Libertarians (capital L) who would force us all to live by their particular political and ethical code.

I doubt that, but then again I don't listen to him, so I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I think you're incorrectly using the Big L and little l designations. Big L Libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, whereas small l libertarians, like myself, are ideological libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party.

So how am I incorrectly using the Big L and little L designations since I am using them pretty much as you describe? Big L Libertarians may or may not be members of the Libertarian Party, but they are the authoritarian Libertarians who would require the law to enforce their version of Libertarianism everywhere.

Little "L" libertarians are the classical liberals in the spirit of the Founders view of what government, society, and concepts of liberty should be.

Well you're incorrectly using them because "Big L Libertarian" refers specifically to a member of the Libertarian Party, and you just said that they may or may not be members. That's incorrect. "Little l libertarians" may be minarchists like you describe, though I think Beck, Palin, and Levin are disqualified outright for their big government views, but they may also be anarchists.

 

[Pogo]

Just correcting the record - because the word "honest" has never belonged in any sentence describing Fingerboy. Simply from a standpoint of rhetorical ability, divorced from any particular ideology, that kid is irretrievably minor league. He's never presented an "honest" discussion in his life. Certainly not here.

LOL, a lecture on honesty from the guy who denies what you post even when given the post you said it...

The offer doesn't close; you're still free to demonstrate where it is. But you do by now owe an explanation of what took so long.

But you won't do it because you don't have the backbone. You'll just continue the meme as if it's real.
Burden of proof: you.

For like the dozenth time, here you go, liar. You said honest citizens having guns is dangerous. Note dangerous is not in quotes. That means I am paraphrasing. And it was a good one. But you will need reading comprehension. Just a little, the ability to read the obvious.

People shooting back at criminals certainly does a lot to cancel it out. You shoot back at a criminal, that's additive, you are as bad as they are. That's your argument.

No, that's not cancellation, that's escalation. There's a critical (and, I thought, obvious) difference between one bullet this way answered by another bullet that way, and no bullets at all.

You said honest citizens shooting back at criminals is "escalation." So to not be a liar, you have to show now how escalation is not dangerous.

This is why I just insult you at this point, Pogo. You are a lying sack of shit who can't read and won't man up to your own posts. You deny them over and over and keep asking for posts that have been presented to you over and over.

You want to be treated like an adult? Act like one. Stop being such a douche and then whining about it. I gave up long ago on discourse with you, so I'm just trying to have fun with you. But God, whine whine whine, you're a whole kindergarten class.

Apparently you are congenitally dense. What's the same about these two sentences:

1) " honest citizens having guns is dangerous"
2) "honest citizens shooting back at criminals is escalation."

What to they have in common? NEITHER OF THEM ARE MY POSTS. Dumbass. Those are your what you call "paraphrases" because you can't post originals they came from BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST.

And that's because you are a lying hack. A whiny little pissant who just can't handle the point thrown at him (her/it) and needs to morph it into his own strawman you can handle. Because that's what you do on a constant basis -- strawman, ad hom, strawman ad hom, lather, rinse, repeat.

You're a complete waste of time.