So, what the heck is libertarianism?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 3 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
* Simply put, I believe in freedom. I believe the Constitution should be amended with a clause which states that neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a persons right to life, liberty or property, a crime. I firmly believe that if liberty is to be preserved in America, it will be libertarian thought, if not the Libertarian Party, that saves it.[1]
* http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Neal_Boortz#cite_note-asg-1
This is the spiel, but what do you actually mean by it all? How does it really work? How, in a large and complex society, where your individual rights start to infringe on anothers individual rights, and how does this get defined and sorted?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I like it, Frem. I think that's what's implied in my posts. That's certainly MY POV.
Yah, but theirs seems more a pay-to-play, ONLY for them, while making rules for everyone else, which is bullshit.
Rules should apply or not apply to all or none, anything less reeks of a caste system and is by design, a tyranny - and make no mistake, a lot of so-called libertarians are really just a false front for the NeoFeudoFascists who want exactly that and have ever since Robespierre put paid to that divine right of kings crap.
Speakin of, that is one of my concerns in regards to other Anarchists, cause sadly, from a historical perspective if they do somehow obtain enough concensus to "rule", or maybe un-rule.. language fails, an area, you know what their first move often is ?
Lynching the corpie bastards and their cronies.
I am not entirely sure that's inherently a bad thing, but surely there's a better way to handle the problem than partaking in the same might-makes-right garbage which encouraged the revolt in the first place, you know ?
(See Also: Catalonia)
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
And isn't folks organizing to "stand up to power and force change" the exact kind of outside interference libertarians would say is improper? Two examples: isn't it OK for Alex Rodriguez to stand up and demand a $125 Million contract from the Yankees for 10 years service, as an individual talent, but not for 500 workers to organize and strike of a 10 cent an hour raise for 3 years, and safer working conditions, as a group?
Exactly. Unions are not allowed in right winged libertarianism, which there is no recourse to address power inbalance, because that all will work like magic.
For example, the assumption that workers and employers have equal power. As I worker, if I am being paid pittance or my employer makes me work in unsafe conditions, I can always go elsewhere according to libertarianism? That assumes that my skills are more in demand that the opportunities out there, so that I can have some bargaining power. What about in a market where there are 100 people seeking the same job?
It's a very small percentage of the workforce that find themselves in the position of having skills in high demand, the rest are competiting with one another.
It also assumes that the economy will always be healthy enough to be able to provide jobs to all of the population, so that if you are not working, you are choosing not to work. What happens in recessions and depressions when you get high unemployment, do you let people starve?
And if you rely only on charitable contribution, what happens to those people who don't attract charity capital because their cause isn't noble enough?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So...
If I were a "libertarian", as some here claim to be...
Would I have a problem with Iraq or Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons program? And if so, why wouldn't I have the exact same problem with France, India, South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, the United States, England, or Russia having the exact same kinds of weapons programs?
Also,
Should I have a problem with people in other countries preaching hatred of America and the West, to the point where I would bomb them and invade and occupy their countries?
After all, if I *REALLY* believe in freedom for all to do whatever they like, so long as they aren't causing me direct harm, then what care I if Iran wants nukes or if someone in Dubai says "Death to America!"?
As so many want to point out, it's not the weapon or the words that are the danger, right? They're just the tools; the actions are where the problems lie. If Iran has a nuke and doesn't use it, what harm is done to me? If someone hates America, how am I endangered by that?
Libertarian thought should have prevented our involvement in every war we've been involved in for the last 60 years.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FREM- sometimes a baboon tribe needs to be purged of its alpha males and wanna-be's in order to find some kind of stability.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks NOBC. I have some questions but I need to save them for later.
Altho, I have to say I think that the libertarians on this board are a pretty pathetic lot if they won't even speak for themselves.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
You're aware, of course, that the 2nd didn't happen until the war was won...
Even then, not everyone could have a gun. Slaves, in particular.
Which was one of the main reasons the 2nd was put in at all - to appease Southern slaveholders who feared uprisings if they were unarmed.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Thanks NOBC. I have some questions but I need to save them for later.
Altho, I have to say I think that the libertarians on this board are a pretty pathetic lot if they won't even speak for themselves.
From what I've seen of them, they aren't actually libertarians. They're just the sad leftovers of 2004's "neo-conservative" gang with a slapdash paint job thrown on and a cheap, Chinese-made Gadsden Flag sticker trying to cover it up.
There's a reason I refer to them as "lie-bertarians", you know. It's an apt moniker.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So...
If I were a "libertarian", as some here claim to be...
Would I have a problem with Iraq or Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons program? And if so, why wouldn't I have the exact same problem with France, India, South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, the United States, England, or Russia having the exact same kinds of weapons programs?
Also,
Should I have a problem with people in other countries preaching hatred of America and the West, to the point where I would bomb them and invade and occupy their countries?
After all, if I *REALLY* believe in freedom for all to do whatever they like, so long as they aren't causing me direct harm, then what care I if Iran wants nukes or if someone in Dubai says "Death to America!"?
As so many want to point out, it's not the weapon or the words that are the danger, right? They're just the tools; the actions are where the problems lie. If Iran has a nuke and doesn't use it, what harm is done to me? If someone hates America, how am I endangered by that?
Libertarian thought should have prevented our involvement in every war we've been involved in for the last 60 years.
Libbers would say, I think, that all those activities should be opposed because they are the actions of groups , that have an effect on the rights of the (libbie) individual. If it was Raptor, or even Kwicko or NOBC or Niki, who had created the nuke, a single person, that should be OK.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
FREM- sometimes a baboon tribe needs to be purged of its alpha males and wanna-be's in order to find some kind of stability.
Ook Ook Eek Ack!
Dun even get me started on that, more and more I am wonderin if Robespierre had a point, and didn't also deliberately engineer his own cabals demise along the way in order to forever break the power and credibility of the so-called elite over the masses... cause the more I look at it, the more it LOOKS like he intentionally created a circular firing squad which would leave all of them, and most of the hangers-on and wanna-bes deader than doornails till the population themselves got sick of the constant bloodshed and turned their back on that whole system of governance.
Or, I could just be going even crazier from cognitive deterioration, but yanno, being a clever bastard to begin with, I'd have to fall pretty far to be as dumb as an RWA, so there's that...
Gawd, now I know how GLaDOS felt!
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME