What is a small government libertarian?

[bripat9643]

You would think that the first principle of libertarianism would be unequivocal respect for the will of the People.

Nope. there's nothing intrinsically moral or just about majority rule. A lynch mob is majority rule in action.

Ironically though, most People don't want the rest of the Libertarian agenda.

IOW, the first principle of Libertarianism should be the rejection of Libertarianism as a non-viable political philosophy in a democratic society.

I do agree it's non viable in a democratic society. You're error is in your choice of which one to dispense with, libertarianism or democracy.

 

[USNavyVet]

Kaz, I'm with you on that list. While I consider myself a conservative, not a libertarian, I often agree with libertarians. I am also pro-life but that is because I took biology, not due to religion.

Great post. Thank you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Note that kaz doesn't believe there should be public schools. That in and of itself dismisses libertarianism as idiocy,

if kaz thinks she speaks for what libertarianism is.

Nothing could be more sensible or reasonable than abolishing government schools.

Yeah, it's not they ever helped anyone, or gave most American children a common, and therefor unifying, experience which allowed them to see how the rest of their peers lived.

I hated public school, and would happily fund them to the very end of time since for most kids it's a great thing, it just wasn't for me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You would think that the first principle of libertarianism would be unequivocal respect for the will of the People.

Nope. there's nothing intrinsically moral or just about majority rule. A lynch mob is majority rule in action.

Ironically though, most People don't want the rest of the Libertarian agenda.

IOW, the first principle of Libertarianism should be the rejection of Libertarianism as a non-viable political philosophy in a democratic society.

I do agree it's non viable in a democratic society. You're error is in your choice of which one to dispense with, libertarianism or democracy.

There you go, a poster who not only admits that Libertarianism won't work in a democratic society,

but one who would rather have the former than the latter.

A Libertarian autocracy...

...now there's a concept.

 

[dblack]

Libertarians have valid platforms.

then they lose a screw or two and all is lost.

IMO

Any chance you could be more specific?

birthers ... 911 conspiracy hounds etc etc

? I see nothing about that stuff in the libertarian platform, or in any of the literature. There are lots of nuts out there, some of them are libertarians. Many more are liberals and conservatives. So what?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Note that kaz doesn't believe there should be public schools. That in and of itself dismisses libertarianism as idiocy,

if kaz thinks she speaks for what libertarianism is.

Nothing could be more sensible or reasonable than abolishing government schools.

Setting aside the simple idiocy of that, how do Libertarians propose to ABOLISH public schooling?

Wouldn't that require some sort of draconian prohibition imposed by an authoritarian statist governmental power?

 

[dblack]

You would think that the first principle of libertarianism would be unequivocal respect for the will of the People.

Nope. there's nothing intrinsically moral or just about majority rule. A lynch mob is majority rule in action.

Ironically though, most People don't want the rest of the Libertarian agenda.

IOW, the first principle of Libertarianism should be the rejection of Libertarianism as a non-viable political philosophy in a democratic society.

I do agree it's non viable in a democratic society. You're error is in your choice of which one to dispense with, libertarianism or democracy.

There you go, a poster who not only admits that Libertarianism won't work in a democratic society,

but one who would rather have the former than the latter.

A Libertarian autocracy...

...now there's a concept.

Silly false dilemma between democracy and autocracy. There's other options, maybe you've heard of them. One that comes to mind is a constitutional republic, with democratic representation. Ever heard of that?

 

[dblack]

birthers ... 911 conspiracy hounds etc etc

What do those have to do with libertarians?

Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck is an ass-clown.

 

[USNavyVet]

Note that kaz doesn't believe there should be public schools. That in and of itself dismisses libertarianism as idiocy,

if kaz thinks she speaks for what libertarianism is.

Nothing could be more sensible or reasonable than abolishing government schools.

Setting aside the simple idiocy of that, how do Libertarians propose to ABOLISH public schooling?

Wouldn't that require some sort of draconian prohibition imposed by an authoritarian statist governmental power?

The key I believe is the funding. Libertarians don't feel they should have to pay for public schools.

 

[Doubletap]

"Streets, roads, and above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run. The separation of state and economics. The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run"
--Atlas Shrugged

 

[dblack]

You would think that the first principle of libertarianism would be unequivocal respect for the will of the People.

Actually, it is. What confuses you is that we respect the will of ALL of the people, not just the majority.

 

[Bush92]

Note that kaz doesn't believe there should be public schools. That in and of itself dismisses libertarianism as idiocy,

if kaz thinks she speaks for what libertarianism is.

Not really.

 

[Bush92]

These two:

5) Roads - To acquire and manage the massive land requirements to move freely about the country
6) Management of limited resources - Access to and distribution of things like water

are in conflict with:

7) Recognition of property rights - Land, possessions and so forth.

Private owners are far better stewards of land and resources. The government "owning" and controlling property and rights to use just leads to graft and corruption.

You are correct. Lest we forget about Article 5 and imminent domain.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Streets, roads, and above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run. The separation of state and economics. The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run"
--Atlas Shrugged

Case in point. Immoral children worshiping their little god Ayn.

 

[kaz]

Any chance you could be more specific?

birthers ... 911 conspiracy hounds etc etc

Those people exist everywhere on the political spectrum. It's not attached to Libertarian beliefs in any way.

Yes they are, Obama is a birther, he was the original one. I don't know any libertarian who is either a birther or a 9/11 conspiracy hound.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You would think that the first principle of libertarianism would be unequivocal respect for the will of the People.

Actually, it is. What confuses you is that we respect the will of ALL of the people, not just the majority.

So you want everyone to be a winner, like the kids' sports they play now without keeping score?

How can you, for example, decide what the law should be on abortion, if you have to respect both the people who want it legal and the people who want it illegal?

 

[kaz]

Someone that lets businesses do as they damn well please and hates maintaining the country...

Pretty much someone that thinks the corporate world should do it all.

You don't grasp free markets. In free markets, companies can do what they want. When they do bad things, their customers leave them, their employees quit, and they are replaced by companies that don't do that.

In your socialist system, bad companies get bailed out by government and thrive by paying them off and contributing to their campaigns. It is in reality you who victimizes people by propping up bad companies with the force of government.

 

[kaz]

What is a small government libertarian?

An irrational adult who read Ayn Rand as a teenage boy and thought he'd found god and the perfect justification for his self-centered and nearly immoral outlook on life, thereby making him immune to anything real adults call reality.

Yes, we should have read Playboy as teenage boys like you did. The country is running on your ubiquitous government solution. How's that working out for you? Unemployment, economic stagnation, running to the government to force people to bake cakes, government telling healthcare companies what they can sell and customers what they can buy. Freedom doesn't mean free stuff.

 

[bripat9643]

Note that kaz doesn't believe there should be public schools. That in and of itself dismisses libertarianism as idiocy,

if kaz thinks she speaks for what libertarianism is.

Nothing could be more sensible or reasonable than abolishing government schools.

Yeah, it's not they ever helped anyone, or gave most American children a common, and therefor unifying, experience which allowed them to see how the rest of their peers lived.

I hated public school, and would happily fund them to the very end of time since for most kids it's a great thing, it just wasn't for me.

What makes you think there's anything good abut a "common, unifying experience?" I thought you libturds believed in "diversity?" It appears that when it comes to culture, ideas and attitudes, you want mind numbing uniformity.

I doubt anyone would claim the government schools never helped anyone. The question is whether they hurt more people than they helped. When you look at the mass of brainwashed morons they are currently producing, one has to conclude that they hurt more people than they help.

 

[bripat9643]

You would think that the first principle of libertarianism would be unequivocal respect for the will of the People.

Nope. there's nothing intrinsically moral or just about majority rule. A lynch mob is majority rule in action.

Ironically though, most People don't want the rest of the Libertarian agenda.

IOW, the first principle of Libertarianism should be the rejection of Libertarianism as a non-viable political philosophy in a democratic society.

I do agree it's non viable in a democratic society. You're error is in your choice of which one to dispense with, libertarianism or democracy.

There you go, a poster who not only admits that Libertarianism won't work in a democratic society,

but one who would rather have the former than the latter.

A Libertarian autocracy...

...now there's a concept.

What I want is freedom, not rule by anyone. Rule by the majority is often just as tyrannical as rule by the minority. Not being ruled at all is what we should aim at.

Putting everything up for a vote does not make for a desirable society. The more things people vote on, the more society slides down the chute to tyranny and social unrest.