What Is Libertarianism?

[my2¢]

Don't take this as me trying to make any point, I'm asking the following question purely as a matter of better understanding the Libertarian viewpoint. Okay here goes: how do Libertarians view the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that oversees the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics? Specifically what, if any, should be the government's role in review of what drug manufacturers want to place on the market?

On the matter of drugs all I've ever seen discussed or asked of Libertarians are about illegal ones that I have little interest in.

 

[Foxfyre]

Don't take this as me trying to make any point, I'm asking the following question purely as a matter of better understanding the Libertarian viewpoint. Okay here goes: how do Libertarians view the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that oversees the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics? Specifically what, if any, should be the government's role in review of what drug manufacturers want to place on the market?

On the matter of drugs all I've ever seen discussed or asked of Libertarians are about illegal ones that I have little interest in.

I don't know what position the Libertarian Party takes these days as I have not been nor have any interest in being part of that.

But where libertarianism (the ideology) is concerned, that is closest to my own political convictions. And libertarians have no problem with an FDA evaluating and advertising the safety of various drugs and other substances and ensuring that an unsupecting public, unable to determine for itself, is not subjected to harmful products they have no way of evaluating for themselves. Such both protects and defends our unalienable rights and promotes the general welfare.

Where libertarians do depart from the more pro-authoritarian government crowd, however, is when government presumes to dictate whether we can consume a legal substance that is no danger to anybody else when we use it, for instance fat content, sugar content, salt contect etc. of foods. It is fine for government to make the public aware of studies and issues re varous foods. It is not fine for government to presume to dictate whether we will have the option to choose them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Libertarianism is the descendant of Anarchism, which in turn is second cousin to Communism. It is a sick weed of American politics and has nothing to do with the Founders.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Don't take this as me trying to make any point, I'm asking the following question purely as a matter of better understanding the Libertarian viewpoint. Okay here goes: how do Libertarians view the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that oversees the safety of food, drugs, and cosmetics? Specifically what, if any, should be the government's role in review of what drug manufacturers want to place on the market?

On the matter of drugs all I've ever seen discussed or asked of Libertarians are about illegal ones that I have little interest in.

The government has no role in reviewing what drug manufacturers place on the market. The government wastes our money in attempting to do so, and keeps potentially life saving drugs off the market for years, perhaps forever, in an effort to "keep us safe," all the while people who could be helped by this medication are forced to suffer.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarianism is the descendant of Anarchism, which in turn is second cousin to Communism. It is a sick weed of American politics and has nothing to do with the Founders.

Free market capitalists are "second cousins" to communists? An interesting point, that makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Foxfyre]

Libertarianism is the descendant of Anarchism, which in turn is second cousin to Communism. It is a sick weed of American politics and has nothing to do with the Founders.

We generally agree on more stuff than we disagree Rabbi, but you've stumped me with this one. I don't understand where you're coming from at all.

Can you clarify?

 

[The Rabbi]

Libertarianism is the descendant of Anarchism, which in turn is second cousin to Communism. It is a sick weed of American politics and has nothing to do with the Founders.

We generally agree on more stuff than we disagree Rabbi, but you've stumped me with this one. I don't understand where you're coming from at all.

Can you clarify?

Go and look at some of the works of anarchists, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. They lay out what anarchism is. And one school of anarchism was communist, maintaining that no one could own anything because everyone had a role in its making.
Libertarians are descended from the anarchists intellectually. So second cousins to communists.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarianism is the descendant of Anarchism, which in turn is second cousin to Communism. It is a sick weed of American politics and has nothing to do with the Founders.

We generally agree on more stuff than we disagree Rabbi, but you've stumped me with this one. I don't understand where you're coming from at all.

Can you clarify?

Go and look at some of the works of anarchists, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. They lay out what anarchism is. And one school of anarchism was communist, maintaining that no one could own anything because everyone had a role in its making.
Libertarians are descended from the anarchists intellectually. So second cousins to communists.

Except that libertarian-anarchists believe in private property rights, which would be anathema to a communist and thus debunking your assertion that they're "second cousins."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarianism is the descendant of Anarchism, which in turn is second cousin to Communism. It is a sick weed of American politics and has nothing to do with the Founders.

We generally agree on more stuff than we disagree Rabbi, but you've stumped me with this one. I don't understand where you're coming from at all.

Can you clarify?

Also, if you want to read the works of actual anarcho-capitalists, as opposed to the anarchists that the Rabbi recommended, try Murray Rothbard or Hans-Herman Hoppe. Or you could try the individualist anarchist that Rothbard emulated Lysander Spooner.

 

[Foxfyre]

Libertarianism is the descendant of Anarchism, which in turn is second cousin to Communism. It is a sick weed of American politics and has nothing to do with the Founders.

We generally agree on more stuff than we disagree Rabbi, but you've stumped me with this one. I don't understand where you're coming from at all.

Can you clarify?

Go and look at some of the works of anarchists, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. They lay out what anarchism is. And one school of anarchism was communist, maintaining that no one could own anything because everyone had a role in its making.
Libertarians are descended from the anarchists intellectually. So second cousins to communists.

I don't see it.

Anarchism assumes that doing whatever a person wants to do is the ultimate freedom. It errs however in failure to acknowledge human nature and the propensity of some to take what others have just because they want it. Therefore, without acknowledgment and enforcement of human rights, there is no freedom and eventually only the strongest will benefit from the system or possibly even survive.

Communism assumes that the law of the land dictates that all share and share alike with the assumption that if all contribute what they can and agree to take only what he or she needs, all will receive what he or she needs. It is not a lawless system. The only thing it shares with anarchy is a failure to take human nature into account which in this case includes laziness and resentment. Some will be willing for others to do all or most of the contributing while still receiving benefits. And many or most of those doing the contributing will resent being taken advantage of and will cease contributing until there is equal want and misery shared by all.

Libertarianism is neither anarchy nor communism. It promotes government and laws that will protect and defend the rights of all and ensure that nobody's rights will be infringed by anybody else without consequence. Then the people are truly free to pursue whatever and wherever their imagination or desires or hopes may take them and achieve or succeed whatever their abilities allow.

 

[JBeukema]

Libertarianism is the descendant of Anarchism, which in turn is second cousin to Communism. It is a sick weed of American politics and has nothing to do with the Founders.

Free market capitalists are "second cousins" to communists? An interesting point, that makes absolutely no sense.

Both advocate a lack of government and the magical 'invisible hand'.

Recall that true communism is minarchist democracy (usually direct democracy, though some systems and ideologies espouse a representative system)

 

[Foxfyre]

Libertarianism is the descendant of Anarchism, which in turn is second cousin to Communism. It is a sick weed of American politics and has nothing to do with the Founders.

Free market capitalists are "second cousins" to communists? An interesting point, that makes absolutely no sense.

Both advocate a lack of government and the magical 'invisible hand'.

Recall that true communism is minarchist democracy (usually direct democracy, though some systems and ideologies espouse a representative system)

Even a direct democracy is government, however, so whatever structure communism presumes to put into force does require rules, and regulation; i.e. government. And it requires an extremely authoritarian and sometimes brutal government in order to bring communism into being. One fallacy of the theory is that those with power in that authoritarian and sometimes brutal government will voluntarily give that up as Marx envisioned they would. The most glaring fallacy is that people in such a system will willingly serve others to the same degree that they serve themselves even if the service is not reciprocated.

Anarchy does not allow any authority over the individual nor does it provide any benefit to anybody other that what he or she can take for himself/herself. Therefore there is no structure, no law, no government, or presumption of a shared economy or society and no presumption of any obligation of one person to another. The most glaring fallacy is that such a system will include a presumption that those who leave others alone will be left alone.

 

[JBeukema]

Even a direct democracy is government, however, so whatever structure communism presumes to put into force does require rules, and regulation; i.e. government.

No shit. I already said that. Nice to see you caught the late bus, though.

And it requires an extremely authoritarian and sometimes brutal government in order to bring communism into being.

No, it doesn't. Of course, you probably have never seen communism in action. Communism was the primary form of government for thousands of years and can still be found in some places. See: ACORN, TWIN OAKS, Amazonian tribes

One fallacy of the theory is that those with power in that authoritarian and sometimes brutal government will voluntarily give that up as Marx envisioned they would.

So I care what Marx said? No, because I'm not a Marxist. Communist thought neither begins nor ends with Marx. Marx was but one thinker in one of many lines of thought. Perhaps the biggest of all schisms in Red thought is that between revolutionary communists and reformists. Marx and I are on different sides of that schism. The revolutionary communists are a minority and Marx's ideological descendent's, Mao and Lenin were both opposed by the vast majority of the world's socialists and communists. Lenin was derided from the very beginning as a tyrant and a traitor to the cause.

The most glaring fallacy is that people in such a system will willingly serve others to the same degree that they serve themselves even if the service is not reciprocated.

Anarchy does not allow any authority over the individual nor does it provide any benefit to anybody other that what he or she can take for himself/herself.

Anarchy only exists when everyone is dead except one person. As soon as two persons meet, there cannot be anarchy, for they must determine the manner in which they interact and cooperate and/or compete. The fundamentals of the social contract are established within moments.

 

[sweetie]

A REPUBLICRAT PARROTS: "Anarchists are retards and you [libertarians] advocate anarchy.



....(too many randy road shows for some ?democreep cheerleading dunces?)

..jb and the rest of you republicrat parrots, i believe you'll find that 'an' is a ?privative prefix meaning 'without'...'archy' from the ?greek meaning 'rule'..from which, 'anarchy'..literally, 'without rule'..that's not what 'libertarianism' means to me or any others i know..

...i find it impossible to 'comm'unicate about 'government' with you republicrat peckerheads:..decent libertarians are aware of the hideous coercion, fraud, inherent in any 'government action' and seek to ELIMINATE/MINIMIZE coercion and fraud whereas you stoooooopid **** republicrats are unaware of the hideous 'reality of government' and run to 'government' (force/coercion) every time you goddamned fools find 'a problem'..

..republicrats, and etc. assorted authoritarian dick-heads, it seems there are only two ways to get someone else to do what you want them to do:.. you can (honestly) persuade them to do it voluntarily or you can force, coerce, defraud them into doing it.....decent libertarians seek a society in which the former reigns supreme whereas you monstrously stooooooopid **** republicrats consistently favor the latter..

...of course there will always be disputes amongst people....and you stooooopid **** republicrats will quibble forever as to how 'justice' is served..here 'government' might justly be employed...but as an impartial 'umpire' in 'the game of life'..not 'a player' in the game of life as you dunces favor..

...i prefer to think of 'justice' (?maybe the proximate goal for 'society') as that 'perfect combination' of individual freedom and personal responsibilty..alas humans can't attain it..but i think we can get a LOT closer than to where you stoooopid **** republicrats have lead us!..

...the rest of you, have a good day!..