So, what the heck is libertarianism?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 6 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Thanks NOBC. I have some questions but I need to save them for later.
Hey, throw 'em out there. I'm actually enjoying this thread, and it hasn't yet turned into a flame war. Maybe we could all get a worthwhile discussion going on, and keep it running for a while.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So there I am on my own plot of land not bothering anyone. But directly upwind of me, on THEIR own plot of land, a battery recycling facility gets built. Now all of the sudden I'm breathing lead fumes; and lead, arsenic and cadmium dust; as well as generically harmful ultrafine particles; and having my health and lifespan slowly chipped away at. Not to mention the dust, traffic, and noise, and that I think the place is an eyesore. Surely they haven't taken out a gun and FORCED me to do anything. OTOH they didn't exactly give me a choice about whether or not I wanted to breathe toxic air. I suppose I could always stop breathing. Or I could sell my property and move away. But somehow that doesn't seem very libertarian to me - I didn't create the problem, so why should I have to be mitigating it?
Who in this circumstance wins the coveted 'allowed in libertarian-land' award? Me and my right to 'own' my own health and the qualities of the property, and the air and water that flow through, as I bought it? Or the battery recycler to do what they want on their own property as long as they haven't 'forced' anyone else to do anything.
That case SHOULD be covered in the "freedom to do whatever they want, up to the point where it harms someone else" , which is to say "you", rule, but you'd probably have to PROVE that they were harming you. Which would involve a court or voluntary arbitration, and if they had enough influence (money) could stretch out until you die of the cancer they caused. Which would (maybe, or maybe not) be enough to prove that they harmed you. Your descendants might win, eventually.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders."
- http://www.lp.org/our-history
I can't quite claim to be a libertarian, notably because I believe in an active foreign policy, that stated there are many points of which I agree with libertarians with.
"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it the most?"- Mark Twain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
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.
Of course you could say the same about "so-called" democrats (small "d"), "so-called" communists, "so-called" socialists, and probably some "so-called" anarchists.
Seems to me that Governments work (assuming that "work" means most benefits, as defined by the particular system of government, for most people) or don't depending in large on the quality of the people. If they're philosophically minded to support, say, "...the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association..." then you can have an effective libertarian government. If it's "...all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination." then democracy is possible. Common support of "...a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order." would result in successful communism. I think you get the idea. (And thanks Wiki for the definitions)
As folks have noted before, power tends to concentrate. What has happened in many countries (Russia, China, to an extent the U.S.) is that the power has concentrated in the hands of the government, which is supposed to be the guarantor of the function of the system the people wanted. Since governments in these countries are so strong, relative to the people, there's not much can be done about it.
It would seem to me that one plus of a smaller and less over-reaching Libertarian government would be that the government, though able to defend citizens against coercion by other citizens or associations of citizens, would not be large and powerful enough to coerce all the citizens at one time.
Of course, people being people, this wouldn't work 100% of the time, but I'd like to think it'd be more successful than the stuff not working now.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
That case SHOULD be covered in the "freedom to do whatever they want, up to the point where it harms someone else" , which is to say "you", rule, but you'd probably have to PROVE that they were harming you. Which would involve a court or voluntary arbitration, and if they had enough influence (money) could stretch out until you die of the cancer they caused. Which would (maybe, or maybe not) be enough to prove that they harmed you. Your descendants might win, eventually.
That's why many Libertarians, myself included, fall into the Minarchist category. There'd still be enough government in place to adjudicate on such cases, and enforce any decisions. Then again, to have a Libertarian government, a majority of folks would have to believe in the Non-aggression Principle, so the populace as a whole (and the folks they elected) would be more supportive of prompt and fair resolution of such aggression on your property.
And I wouldn't look upon our current system as such a shining exemplar of fairness in property damage claims.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, what is the purpose of libertarianism? Usually, political/ economic philosophies have some sort of stated goal: prosperity for all. Prosperity for some now, so that there will be more in the future. The genetic improvement of the human race in a dog-eat-dog system. Equity. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
I've heard no such overarching goal for libertarianism. Now usually if people won't tell me why they're doing something and why I should too (What's in it for me and mine?) I get the strange feeling that either they don't know, or they don't WANT to tell me because... well, I probably wouldn't agree with it.
So, for anyone who has an idea of what the end goal of libertarianism is, please feel free to speak up!
I don't think it has one. It's kind of, generally, about individual freedom for everyone, about the right to be left alone, and it's kind of a rule about the process of going forward-- sort of, "Under our libertarian rule, we, the rulers (I was going to strike that word. I'll let it stand, free of connotation, but also substitute the word "legislators.) need to keep these limitations in mind, and not do these things, not interfere in these matters, but leave as many individuals alone to do whatever they want, however they want." a great speil, as mentioned above. But how does it play out?
Maybe it doesn't-- maybe the complexity of industrial, inter-connected modern life makes it impossible.
It's a very hard subject to pin down-- there are a lot of denominations, just as there are in "Christianity." I looked, again, at Geezer's link to Wikipedia-- there's a sidebar of related topics, 2 screens and more long, a lot of sometimes contradictory options to choose from, a lot of varied ideas to research.
Gotta run, it's chow time. And I want to come back, later, to the comments about diversity raised by several posters. Maybe libertarianism doesn't work because society REQUIRES diversity, and libertarianism can't accommodate too much divergence of opinion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to take this discussion sideways a bit - what's all this about 'rights'? Rights are an imaginary concept: people have as much rights as the society they tolerate enough to live in says they have. And people live within those social definitions until the society around them becomes overall not useful enough to hew to, and then there's a 'revolution' and a new set of rules comes about. There's no god, or natural order, or universal law that somehow creates an idealized set of 'rights' that people somehow 'deserve' just b/c of being human. Those 'rights' as imaginary as the 72 virgins that people attribute to Islam (not found in the Koran btw).
Taking a step back historically, just to get this off my chest b/c it bugs me and it applies: the American experiment was NOT democracy. The British had been tinkering with democracy for a few centuries before the American revolution. And globally and over the thousands of years of human evolution I'm pretty sure there were other democracies as well.
No, what distinguished the US revolution from the more recent European history was the creation of a system of government that didn't have a king. And POOF! went the whole rationalization of the natural order of authority that went from god the father down through kings and nobles and to the lowest of the low, peasant female infants.
So, the 'FOUNDERS' had to invent a rationalization for a system with no king. And they found it in the writings of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rosseau which outlined the notions of the 'natural' rights of man. Remove 'god' and spell it 'nature' and you have the same justification by appeal to a really big - and equally non-existent - authority for your particular philosophy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So there I am on my own plot of land not bothering anyone. But directly upwind of me, on THEIR own plot of land, a battery recycling facility gets built. Now all of the sudden I'm breathing lead fumes; and lead, arsenic and cadmium dust; as well as generically harmful ultrafine particles; and having my health and lifespan slowly chipped away at. Not to mention the dust, traffic, and noise, and that I think the place is an eyesore. Surely they haven't taken out a gun and FORCED me to do anything. OTOH they didn't exactly give me a choice about whether or not I wanted to breathe toxic air. I suppose I could always stop breathing. Or I could sell my property and move away. But somehow that doesn't seem very libertarian to me - I didn't create the problem, so why should I have to be mitigating it?
Who in this circumstance wins the coveted 'allowed in libertarian-land' award? Me and my right to 'own' my own health and the qualities of the property, and the air and water that flow through, as I bought it? Or the battery recycler to do what they want on their own property as long as they haven't 'forced' anyone else to do anything.
Well...
Okay, I am most empthatically NOT a libertarian, I am an Anarchist, so take that into account, right ?
This would constitute violation of the non-aggression principle, and violence WOULD ensue, not just from that individual, but all those negatively impacted, plus friends and family.
Anarchists don't pretend this doesn't happen, whether one calls it government or not, nor do they pretend such things can be prevented - but they resent, quite bitterly, being told they HAVE to lay down and take it, or the corp will set government guns on them.
Consider well that in EVERY engagement of unions vs corporations that turned violent, WHICH side the govt took, often under the thin fiction of restoring order, but nonetheless find me even ONE case where the govt intervened to protect the workers FROM the corp...
Believe me, you will not, not even one, in all of american history, none.
Which is why Anarchists don't make too great a distinction between the two, cause from our perspective, it is immaterial.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
'Anthony and Serg x, as well as Frem'
Those are names I've not heard for a long time ...
That sounds like it goes years back ... ??? If so, that would be some digging.
I am not doing anything else for a little while (save getting slightly drunk) and maybe remember enough to go dig them out, I will see what I can do.
SergeantX left in disgust at the rightwingnut sockpuppet horde some time ago, and AnthonyT bailed out in revulsion at the abject and blatant hypocrisy of supposedly "liberal" folk who really just wanna change which hand is holding the leash, so yer left with me, and I am not fond of discussing it cause of the endless strawmanning and rhetorical games which ignore what I am saying in favor of manufactured setpieces to be conveniently dismissed...
Frankly, HKCavalier does a better job of explaining it than I do, so I will see if I can't pull a couple of his posts in relation as well.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Necrodredging FTW!
Libertarian Vs. Minarchy Vs. Anarchy
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=35023
Sadly, parts I and IV return a 404, but here is part II and III
The Libertarian and Anarchist Society- Part II
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=32312
Libertarian and Anarchist Society Part III
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=32384
Yay me, I found the "Story of Burt" post - Siggy no doubt remembers THAT one!
A story and a question.
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=32089
Here's a shorter thread which seems useful.
For those thumbing through the brochures..
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=33044
Help from Libertarians/Anarchists
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=32253&p=1
Smallish thread, more spiritual perspectives.
What do I as an individual owe to society and/or mankind?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=37006&mid=6
78918
Ah, and one of the be-all-end-all arguments, a five pager, right to travel vs right to protest.
Stop the Traffic
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=43940
That'll keep ya busy for a while, I think.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME