What is Libertarian?

[dblack]

The idea of a "society of free individuals" sounds as great as "a classless society." Libertarianism and communism are unobtainable. Why? Man is flawed, and coercion is part of social structure. Those are the basic facts of humanity and his/her organization socially.

Not really. Libertarianism is preference for freedom. As such, it's posits no utopia and is as 'obtainable' as we want it to be. The strawman of portraying libertarians as anarchists, or starry-eyed idealists longing for utopia, is popular, but it's wrong. Nothing about a libertarian view requires people to be angels, or to significantly alter their values. Libertarians simply recognize the coercive nature of modern government and want to use it only when necessary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dblack, you just underlined why straight-thinking say those things about libertarianism. Your 'strawman fallacy' of libertarianism is to state that man exists in splendid isolation from his neighbor. Not so. The guy who screams about the need for libertarian society is the one who will scream for new laws when he finds his teenage daughter yoking the dealer on the street corner for a fix.

 

[dblack]

Your 'strawman fallacy' of libertarianism is to state that man exists in splendid isolation from his neighbor. Not so. The guy who screams about the need for libertarian society is the one who will scream for new laws when he finds his teenage daughter yoking the dealer on the street corner for a fix.

Well, that is the popular strawman, but it's not mine. It's the one I'm rejecting. Libetarianism isn't about isolation. That's the ridiculous caricature that's whipped up to make libertarians look crazy, but it has nothing to do with reality.

I think statists see the libertarian viewpoint as 'isolationist' or radically 'individualist' because they can't conceive of community without a government mandate. They assume that anyone who is opposed to authoritarian solutions to our problems is opposed to any kind of communal effort to solve those problems, and that's their mistake. In my experience, libertarians are more likely to help a neighbor in a pinch than those who assume the government will (or should) take care of it.

The thing is, the libertarian ideal is already the default. The vast majority of the problems we face, we solve without government. But that capability of community to solve problems through voluntary interaction is eroded daily by those who would have us believe that only the coercive power of government can save us.

 

[deepthunk]

I just thought I'd throw this one out there for discussion. It's my guess, based on many of the posts around here, that there will be wildly divergent views. I've been associated with libertarian causes, including the Libertarian party since before Ron Paul's first run for president ('88). I even ran for local county offices on the Libertarian ticket a couple of times as a 'paper' candidate ('paper' meaning I was on the ballot but didn't run an active campaign - and frankly had no expectation of winning).

For me, libertarian ideology is pretty simple. It's about taking the ethos of 'live-and-let-live' seriously. It's about real tolerance and diversity. It's based on the idea that the whole purpose of government is to maximize freedom.

What you want is to give total freedom to the upper class to stick it to the lower earning 50% of Americans in every possible way.
Because we must have money to survive and therefore must work and receive payment for services rendered, the fundamental nature of society is to enslave us to the upper class.
What libertarians want, is to repeal OSHA safety standards so that we can be senselessly maimed and killed in workplace accidents that could be easily prevented, take away our right to negotiate for fair wages so that our slave masters can force us to take whatever pathetic wages they feel like forcing on us, and take away all social services so that after our corporate upper-class masters have chewed us up and spit us out (maimed from industrial accidents no doubt) we can die in the streets.
What you want has nothing to do with freedom, it’s rather the opposite in fact, it has to do with power. What you want is to give all possible power to the upper-class to enslave me. You want to institute an Ayn Rand based rich mans utopian fantasy where I have no police protection because I can’t afford it. Where I can be trapped in a fire and the fire department doesn’t come, because I don’t have sufficient credit. And most importantly (to you), an America where I am a slave to my employer and must accept endless abuse and mistreatment while being forced to accept working conditions such as those that existed in factories during the industrial revolution, until such conditions cause permanent disability (assuming I’m “lucky” enough not to be killed outright), whereupon there will be no social safety net (hell there’s hardly any safety net left now) and I’ll spend the rest of my life maimed and disfigured wondering the streets begging for handout’s from the vary same upper-class slave masters the libertarians so desperately want to enact laws to serve.
What is a “libertarian”? Some might say they are the tea-party without funding, and that’s fairly accurate. Personally I feel they have a lot in common with the French Aristocrats of the 1700’s.

 

[bripat9643]

The idea of a "society of free individuals" sounds as great as "a classless society." Libertarianism and communism are unobtainable. Why? Man is flawed, and coercion is part of social structure. Those are the basic facts of humanity and his/her organization socially.

Sorry, but a free society is easily feasible. All it takes is for government to resist coercing people who aren't bothering anyone. The classless society, on the other hand, requires massive government compulsion.

The reason you want as little government control as possible is precisely because man is flawed. These same flawed men are operating the levers of government. The results are always disastrous.

 

[bripat9643]

dblack, you just underlined why straight-thinking say those things about libertarianism. Your 'strawman fallacy' of libertarianism is to state that man exists in splendid isolation from his neighbor. Not so. The guy who screams about the need for libertarian society is the one who will scream for new laws when he finds his teenage daughter yoking the dealer on the street corner for a fix.

Your horseshit is too infantile to bother with a substantive response.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat can't argue the fact that man needs law and coercion. Libertarianism is as worthless as communism. End of story.

 

[dblack]

What you want is to give total freedom to the upper class to stick it to the lower earning 50% of Americans in every possible way.

Sorry, your mind-reading powers have failed. Try again.

Seriously, you don't seem to have the slightest understanding what I (and most of the libertarians I know) want.

 

[flacaltenn]

The idea of a "society of free individuals" sounds as great as "a classless society." Libertarianism and communism are unobtainable. Why? Man is flawed, and coercion is part of social structure. Those are the basic facts of humanity and his/her organization socially.

Jake:

You just hit on the nuts of the diff between me and you philosophically. People are CAPABLE of great things. I believe in the potential of EVERY person to achieve and perform to a high potential. No lowered expectations in my political baggage.

Not this "man is flawed and coercion is part of social structure" deal. In all of time I've spent with (mostly :LOL: ) wonderful people of ALL political beliefs -- this is the fundamental difference behind their political motivations.

For example -- those that make fun of "people of faith" because their morals come from the Bible and church on Sunday often assert that "I do just fine with my own moral code, and you can't tell me it's inferior to your biblical code"..

I tend to believe that --- that moral structure of a lefty agnostic or atheist COULD be equivalent -- because I believe that moral structure is INHERENT in individuals. Therefore I can not believe that "coercion is part of social structure" -- not naturally occuring.

So the left needs to decide which it actually is --- Do you TRUST and have faith that people are equally endowed with MORALS, honesty, intelligience, potential and ability to thrive? Or do they need external coercion, structure, and govt to avoid becoming savages?

Plenty of other examples related to academic potential, economic potential, ect.
Where the lefty view of "lowered expectations" is just too depressing for me to bear...

 

[bripat9643]

Your horseshit is too infantile to bother with a substantive response.

bripat can't argue the fact that man needs law and coercion. Libertarianism is as worthless as communism. End of story.

Thanks for proving my point.

You're right in the top 5 of the dumbest posters in this forum.

 

[sealybobo]

I just thought I'd throw this one out there for discussion. It's my guess, based on many of the posts around here, that there will be wildly divergent views. I've been associated with libertarian causes, including the Libertarian party since before Ron Paul's first run for president ('88). I even ran for local county offices on the Libertarian ticket a couple of times as a 'paper' candidate ('paper' meaning I was on the ballot but didn't run an active campaign - and frankly had no expectation of winning).

For me, libertarian ideology is pretty simple. It's about taking the ethos of 'live-and-let-live' seriously. It's about real tolerance and diversity. It's based on the idea that the whole purpose of government is to maximize freedom.

Are you doing well in life? What do you do for a living?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet you are a mod, flacaltenn, a position that entails powers inherently coercive on this Board.

All of us who wish to post here accept the rules of the Board.

By living here in the US we inherently accept the legal authority of our governments.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yet you are a mod, flacaltenn, a position that entails powers inherently coercive on this Board.

All of us who wish to post here accept the rules of the Board.

By living here in the US we inherently accept the legal authority of our governments.

We’re not free to leave the country as we’re free to leave this board. Flacaltenn can’t extract a toll from you if you decide to leave this board for another.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Difference of degree there, Kevin, not kind.

The question is not "leaving" but "accepting" the authority of the institution.

 

[John Shaw]

A party that is insignificant.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Difference of degree there, Kevin, not kind.

The question is not "leaving" but "accepting" the authority of the institution.

No, it's definitely kind. A difference of degree would be comparing this website to a Starbucks. Starbucks is bigger than USMB, but we're still free to take our business to Dunkin Donuts if we want. A difference of degree would be the United States and Luxembourg. A difference of kind is comparing USMB to the U.S. government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The difference is comparing "leaving" to "authority", which you failed to do, Kevin.

Leaving does not equal accepting authority.

You can argue this all day, and you will always be wrong.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The difference is comparing "leaving" to "authority", which you failed to do, Kevin.

Leaving does not equal accepting authority.

You can argue this all day, and you will always be wrong.

You'll have to explain your argument here to me better. I wouldn't say I compared "leaving" to "authority," so I'm not quite sure how to respond.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We can agree to disagree then. You are on the truly good guys and honest posters in the history of the Board. I have always admired your even keel approach no matter how much the flak.