Finally a place for INGO libertarians

[steveh_131]

Still waiting for someone to explain to me how an abortion isn't a violation of "nonaggression."

I think it is.

You'll have to ask D-Ric902

 

[steveh_131]

I've waded thru this whole thread (whew!). What follows is strictly my opinion, which is mine. I do see a tendency to favor absolute idealogical purity on the part of (self declared?) Libertarians/libertarians. This makes me think/fear that LibertarianLand would pretty quickly have a Fuhrer and a Geheime Statpolizei equivalent. But the trains might run on time.

Yes, this makes perfect sense. Any nation that attempts to be guided by the principle of individual liberty will become Nazis.

 

[jamil]

D-Ric's waffling and your never-ending defense of wafflers

I don't support D-Ric's position on drugs. I think the civil justice system could be at least as effective against the harm they cause "society" as the war on drugs. And without making criminals of a lot of people who would otherwise be law abiding.

But I see D-Ric as being consistent in HIS philosophy. He's not consistent in YOURS but he is consistent in HIS. I know, I know, not a philosophy, "principle". Whatever. It's an opinion. But you go on about it as if it's not just an opinion of how things ought to be.

 

[D-Ric902]

I don't support D-Ric's position on drugs. I think the civil justice system could be at least as effective against the harm they cause "society" as the war on drugs. And without making criminals of a lot of people who would otherwise be law abiding.

But I see D-Ric as being consistent in HIS philosophy. He's not consistent in YOURS but he is consistent in HIS. I know, I know, not a philosophy, "principle". Whatever. It's an opinion. But you go on about it as if it's not just an opinion of how things ought to be.

See, there you go defending waffling

(I like waffles btw)

 

[jamil]

Yes, this makes perfect sense. Any nation that attempts to be guided by the principle of individual liberty will become Nazis.

In fairness, that's not exactly what he said. He said a Fuhrer and secret police equivalent. You know, in case anyone defends a statist.

 

[steveh_131]

I don't support D-Ric's position on drugs. I think the civil justice system could be at least as effective against the harm they cause "society" as the war on drugs. And without making criminals of a lot of people who would otherwise be law abiding.

See, look at this explanation. This is exactly the difference I'm talking about.

You support drug legalization. So do I. Does this make you pro-liberty? Not really. Not a single one of those reasons has anything to do with individual liberty. This is purely utilitarian.

So while we may agree on 90% of specific issues, our philosophy is still quite different.

But I see D-Ric as being consistent in HIS philosophy. He's not consistent in YOURS but he is consistent in HIS.

I agree, he is. He is consistent in his utilitarian viewpoint. The inconsistency comes when he claims to be pro-liberty. He's really pro-safety. Liberty takes second place.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, this makes perfect sense. Any nation that attempts to be guided by the principle of individual liberty will become Nazis.

Well we do have a current example of how meddling libertarians can be while claiming to be maximum freedom and maximum responsibility and all. The most recent and presumptive next LP presidential candidate is quite vocal in his support of using the oligarchy-type-power of the SCOTUS to countermand the wishes of voters in several states in regards to "same-sex marriage". While there are legitimate arguments that can be made on both sides of this issue, there are a lot of libertarians that don't like the fact that groups of people choose to exercise the freedom to govern themselves in manners they disagree with that are perfectly reasonable under the Constitution of our country and state.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yes, this makes perfect sense. Any nation that attempts to be guided by the principle of individual liberty will become Nazis.

Like committed ideological communists, you appear to be ignoring the history of human nature. Where there are enough people around, SOMEONE or SOMEONES will eventually be in charge of the group. Perhaps you think we have evolved beyond that apparent flaw in our makeup, but you can't tell it from the run-of-the-mill "joe and Jane" on the street. It's taken us 200 + years but we're getting to the same point as every other society. Personally, _I_ think it's because Man can't have "true freedom" when he's living in too close proximity to other Men. If we want to gain individual liberty in the Libertarian Ideal again, we're going to have to find a _bunch_ of elbow room somewhere. I need to edit this: Steveh, I am NOT calling you a communist, nor am I making fun of your beliefs, here.

 

[steveh_131]

Well we do have a current example of how meddling libertarians can be while claiming to be maximum freedom and maximum responsibility and all. The most recent and presumptive next LP presidential candidate is quite vocal in his support of using the oligarchy-type-power of the SCOTUS to countermand the wishes of voters in several states in regards to "same-sex marriage". While there are legitimate arguments that can be made on both sides of this issue, there are a lot of libertarians that don't like the fact that groups of people choose to exercise the freedom to govern themselves in manners they disagree with that are perfectly reasonable under the Constitution of our country and state.

You won't find me defending Gary Johnson on this, or several other issues. I think he's dead wrong.

 

[steveh_131]

Like committed ideological communists, you appear to be ignoring the history of human nature. Where there are enough people around, SOMEONE or SOMEONES will eventually be in charge of the group. Perhaps you think we have evolved beyond that apparent flaw in our makeup, but you can't tell it from the run-of-the-mill "joe and Jane" on the street. It's taken us 200 + years but we're getting to the same point as every other society. Personally, _I_ think it's because Man can't have "true freedom" when he's living in too close proximity to other Men. If we want to gain individual liberty in the Libertarian Ideal again, we're going to have to find a _bunch_ of elbow room somewhere.

1. Many of these problems could be solved by the free market, if we'd stop immediately looking to the government.
2. Neither I nor any other libertarian is claiming to have solved the faults in human nature.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I
But I see D-Ric as being consistent in HIS philosophy. He's not consistent in YOURS but he is consistent in HIS. I know, I know, not a philosophy, "principle". Whatever. It's an opinion. But you go on about it as if it's not just an opinion of how things ought to be.

Yep. There are probably as many versions of opinions of how things ought to be as there are people on this planet. And just because a person can defend his and assail yours with all the vigor he can muster doesn't mean it's THE correct one. It just means it's the one he agrees with.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

1. Many of these problems could be solved by the free market, if we'd stop immediately looking to the government. 2. Neither I nor any other libertarian is claiming to have solved the faults in human nature.

But if you recognize those faults in human nature, how do you propose to implement your libertarian principles in the face of them?

 

[steveh_131]

But if you recognize those faults in human nature, how do you propose to implement your libertarian principles in the face of them?

Think about capitalism. What is it, at its core? Individual liberty. Do what you want, but don't use force.

Greed is a fundamental human flaw. Greed is the reason that communism always fails. Capitalism, on the other hand, leverages our greed and turns it into wealth.

I think that libertarianism is similar. It leverages our desire for independence and autonomy, but pairs it up with personal responsibility in an almost brutal fashion.

At the same time, it allows our better traits to flourish. How much more charitable would we be to one another if the government wasn't already forcing us to feed entitled, lazy, worthless people?

I think it wins, even in the utilitarian realm.

 

[D-Ric902]

I agree, he is. He is consistent in his utilitarian viewpoint. The inconsistency comes when he claims to be pro-liberty. He's really pro-safety. Liberty takes second place.


you do realize that there is a whole world of middle in between Liberty and safety right?

 

[steveh_131]

you do realize that there is a whole world of middle in between Liberty and safety right?

that's what the liberals say about guns, too.

 

[D-Ric902]

[/COLOR]

that's what the liberals say about guns, too.

liberals think you can ban targets and everyone will get rid of their guns

conversational devolution is becoming apparent

 

[MisterChester]

Think about capitalism. What is it, at its core? Individual liberty. Do what you want, but don't use force.

Greed is a fundamental human flaw. Greed is the reason that communism always fails. Capitalism, on the other hand, leverages our greed and turns it into wealth.

I think that libertarianism is similar. It leverages our desire for independence and autonomy, but pairs it up with personal responsibility in an almost brutal fashion.

At the same time, it allows our better traits to flourish. How much more charitable would we be to one another if the government wasn't already forcing us to feed entitled, lazy, worthless people?

I think it wins, even in the utilitarian realm.

Greed is good. Too much greed is bad.

 

[LPMan59]

i like turtles

 

[D-Ric902]

i like turtles

And waffles
but pancakes are kickin'

 

[LPMan59]

And waffles
but pancakes are kickin'

throw in some chicken with those waffles.....favorite late night IHOP treat *drools*