So, what the heck is libertarianism?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 17 of 21

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 6, 2013 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Seems to me that you've ended up with a society where there aren't any "unfortunate, poor, oppressed by reality, or ruled" people. Whatever happened to them? Do they not exist? How, exactly, do we evolve from where we are, where those folks are, to where you want us to end up? DO you not care about them? When or where have YOU focused on them in your postings, in this thread?

Hey, that question sounds familiar. Are you planning to ever answer it, or do you just hope it'll go away?

Not sure how you get there. I'd guess there would be unfortunate (whatever you mean by that. Unlucky?) poor, or oppressedy by reality (Once again, what? people with mental health problems?) in most societies.

No one would be ruled. Everyone supports individual liberty for everyone. Everyone is willing to act to obtain this liberty for everyone.

About the poor. Libertarian philosophy, from what I understand, is that with more opportunity through lack of government constraint on trade, and the extra money available in a society with little or no taxes, it'd be easier for anyone with a philosophy of independence, which would include sel-reliance, to make a buck if they worked for it. Remember that I don't expect a Libertarian society until a good majority of folks are libertarians. If there are folks who don't want to work, they'll be poor. I'd guess there would be voluntary organizations (like soup kitchens, food banks, Salvation Army, e.g.) to provide for these folks.

Define "unfortunate" and "oppressed by reality" and I'll discuss those.

"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."

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 6, 2013 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's so very one-sided.

Yes it is.

Since you wish me dead, I'm dead to you, and will no longer respond to your posts.

Have a nice, bitter, life.

"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."

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Tuesday, August 6, 2013 1:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Seems to me that you've ended up with a society where there aren't any "unfortunate, poor, oppressed by reality, or ruled" people. Whatever happened to them? Do they not exist? How, exactly, do we evolve from where we are, where those folks are, to where you want us to end up? DO you not care about them? When or where have YOU focused on them in your postings, in this thread?

Hey, that question sounds familiar. Are you planning to ever answer it, or do you just hope it'll go away?

Not sure how you get there. I'd guess there would be unfortunate (whatever you mean by that. Unlucky?) poor, or oppressedy by reality (Once again, what? people with mental health problems?) in most societies.

No one would be ruled. Everyone supports individual liberty for everyone. Everyone is willing to act to obtain this liberty for everyone.

About the poor. Libertarian philosophy, from what I understand, is that with more opportunity through lack of government constraint on trade, and the extra money available in a society with little or no taxes, it'd be easier for anyone with a philosophy of independence, which would include sel-reliance, to make a buck if they worked for it. Remember that I don't expect a Libertarian society until a good majority of folks are libertarians. If there are folks who don't want to work, they'll be poor. I'd guess there would be voluntary organizations (like soup kitchens, food banks, Salvation Army, e.g.) to provide for these folks.

Define "unfortunate" and "oppressed by reality" and I'll discuss those.

A couple of little things that speak volumes:

I deliberately phrased the question, "How, exactly, do WE evolve from where WE are?" To which you replied, "Not sure how YOU get there." Emphasis added. Are you sure you aren't Ross Perot? Wasn't that HIS thing? "YOU PEOPLE have to solve YOUR OWN problems."

and

"About the poor. Libertarian philosophy, from what I understand,..." All of a sudden, you're not so knowledgeable, not such a great expert, don't believe something yourself, you just "understand.."

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Tuesday, August 6, 2013 2:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Seems to me that you've ended up with a society where there aren't any "unfortunate, poor, oppressed by reality, or ruled" people. Whatever happened to them? Do they not exist? How, exactly, do we evolve from where we are, where those folks are, to where you want us to end up? DO you not care about them? When or where have YOU focused on them in your
postings, in this thread?

Hey, that question sounds familiar. Are you planning to ever answer it, or do you just hope it'll go away?

Not sure how you get there. I'd guess there would be unfortunate (whatever you mean by that. Unlucky?) poor, or oppressedy by reality (Once again, what? people with mental health problems?) in most societies.

No one would be ruled. Everyone supports individual liberty for everyone. Everyone is willing to act to obtain this liberty for everyone.

About the poor. Libertarian philosophy, from what I understand, is that with more opportunity through lack of government constraint on trade, and the extra money available in a society with little or no taxes, it'd be easier for anyone with a philosophy of independence, which would include sel-reliance, to make a buck if they worked for it. Remember that I don't
expect a Libertarian society until a good majority of folks are libertarians. If there are folks who don't want to work, they'll be poor. I'd guess there would be voluntary organizations (like soup kitchens, food banks, Salvation Army, e.g.) to provide for these folks.

Define "unfortunate" and "oppressed by reality" and I'll discuss those.

Well, in my original point to Sig, the one you objected to, I wrote

Quote:

1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.

Ya see, there was a neat match-up of categories there: the successful and the unfortunate, which certainly could mean unlucky; the rich and the poor; the powerful vs the oppressed by reality (I chose not to say "in reality." Too polite for my own good); the rulers and the ruled.

You asked where I got that opinion. By observation, of posts like yours, of posts you didn't make until pressed, of things that you "understand" but obviously don't believe

and the poor: from what you "understand":

Quote:

it'd be easier for anyone with a philosophy of independence, which would include sel-reliance, to make a buck if they worked for it.

if they wasn't so "shiftless", if "them boys would just work", if they "wanted to", they wouldn't be poor.

and:

Quote:

Remember that I don't expect a Libertarian society until a good majority of folks are libertarians.

Boy, if there was ever a circular argument, that one is it. It'll work after it works. Because-- uh-- it'll work... because--uh -- it did... if it does... NOt buyin' it.

E-T-A: missed this --

"the ruled... Would they not exist?" " No one would be ruled." Not buyin that one either.

NOBC sez: " this post violates NOBC's Rule, it's too long."

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 6, 2013 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
A couple of little things that speak volumes:

About how your mind works, perhaps.

Quote:
I deliberately phrased the question, "How, exactly, do WE evolve from where WE are?" To which you replied, "Not sure how YOU get there." Emphasis added. Are you sure you aren't Ross Perot? Wasn't that HIS thing? "YOU PEOPLE have to solve YOUR OWN problems."

Nope.

"Not sure how you get there" was in response to your idea that Libertarian society would leave out the "unfortunate, poor, oppressed by reality, or ruled". I don't know where you get the idea these people would be left out.

Still waiting for your definitions of "unfortunate" and "oppressed by reality", BTW.

and

Quote:
"About the poor. Libertarian philosophy, from what I understand,..." All of a sudden, you're not so knowledgeable, not such a great expert, don't believe something yourself, you just "understand.."

I provided what I understand the Propertarian, Minarchist, Libertarian solution to the poor would be. There are doubtless other Libertarians who'd quibble over the details. Do all Democrats understand their party to be exactly the same thing?

So you'll ignore what I said because you think I don't know everything about all flavors of libertarianism. Good dodge on your part when you have no substantive arguments.

"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."

GEEZER

Tuesday, August 6, 2013 8:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Well, in my original point to Sig, the one you objected to, I wrote
Quote:

1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.

I'm trying to square this with people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. I can't. Explain it to me.

Quote:
Ya see, there was a neat match-up of categories there: the successful and the unfortunate, which certainly could mean unlucky; the rich and the poor; the powerful vs the oppressed by reality (I chose not to say "in reality." Too polite for my own good); the rulers and the ruled.

I'll say it again.

I'm trying to square this with people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. I can't. Explain it to me.

Quote:
You asked where I got that opinion. By observation, of posts like yours, of posts you didn't make until pressed, of things that you "understand" but obviously don't believe.

So I haven't mentioned that Libertarians are people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else?

Really?

And how do you figure I don't believe this? Because I used the word "understand" to indicate that to me this is what most Propertarian, Minarchist Libertarians believe? I'm thinking your comprehension is disturbed by your biases.

b]

Quote:
[/and the poor: from what you "understand":
Quote:

it'd be easier for anyone with a philosophy of independence, which would include sel-reliance, to make a buck if they worked for it.

if they wasn't so "shiftless", if "them boys would just work", if they "wanted to", they wouldn't be poor.

Okay, so you can't think of an argument against people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. so you go to insult.

How usual.

Quote:

Quote:

Remember that I don't expect a Libertarian society until a good majority of folks are libertarians.

Boy, if there was ever a circular argument, that one is it.

Why? There wasn't a society that outlawed slavery until a good majority of folks were opposed to it. This is different how?

Quote:
E-T-A: missed this --

"the ruled... Would they not exist?" " No one would be ruled." Not buyin that one either.

Okay. You don't accept that there can ever be people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else.

Is there any reasonable argument that one could make that would cause you to accept that this might be possible, or are we done here?

"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."

1KIKI

Tuesday, August 6, 2013 11:53 PM

"Since you wish me dead, I'm dead to you, and will no longer respond to your posts."

Not exactly what I posted, but whatever. That wouldn't be the first time you misrepresented someone's post.

And, SO COOL! that you're not going to respond! YOU may not respond to my points, but other people may read them. If they find them convincing and you have no countervailing argument on offer, then they just might end up agreeing with my position. I'm glad I have the floor unopposed.

ETA: The one thing I get out of your posts is that you don't know how the system will adjudicate imbalances between conflicting rights; or provide for the young, ill, weak and disabled (let alone the poor); or protect the commons; or muster resources to sustain physical, social and technological infrastructure; or avoid the use of force on non-compliant members ... but you BELIEVE! Hallelujah! And if everyone else would just convert PRAISE THE LORD! to your superior system and reach your exalted level of development, and TRUST in the system's diviness to eventually provide, then we could all enter the promised land and live in heaven on earth AMEN!

In other words, it's a religion. Also, egotistical.

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 7, 2013 3:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Well, in my original point to Sig, the one you objected to, I wrote
Quote:

1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.

I'm trying to square this with people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. I can't. Explain it to me.

Quote:
Ya see, there was a neat match-up of categories there: the successful and the unfortunate, which certainly could mean unlucky; the rich and the poor; the powerful vs the oppressed by reality (I chose not to say "in reality." Too polite for my own good); the rulers and the ruled.

I'll say it again.

I'm trying to square this with people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. I can't. Explain it to me.

Quote:
You asked where I got that opinion. By observation, of posts like yours, of posts you didn't make until pressed, of things that you "understand" but obviously don't believe.

So I haven't mentioned that Libertarians are people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else?

Really?

And how do you figure I don't believe this? Because I used the word "understand" to indicate that to me this is what most Propertarian, Minarchist Libertarians believe? I'm thinking your comprehension is disturbed by your biases.

b]
Quote:
[/and the poor: from what you "understand":
Quote:

it'd be easier for anyone with a philosophy of independence, which would include sel-reliance, to make a buck if they worked for it.

if they wasn't so "shiftless", if "them boys would just work", if they "wanted to", they wouldn't be poor.

Okay, so you can't think of an argument against people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. so you go to insult.

How usual.

Quote:

Quote:

Remember that I don't expect a Libertarian society until a good majority of folks are libertarians.

Boy, if there was ever a circular argument, that one is it.

Why? There wasn't a society that outlawed slavery until a good majority of folks were opposed to it. This is different how?

Quote:
E-T-A: missed this --

"the ruled... Would they not exist?" " No one would be ruled." Not buyin that one either.

Okay. You don't accept that there can ever be people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else.

Is there any reasonable argument that one could make that would cause you to accept that this might be possible, or are we done here?

"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."

Is there any reasonable argument you can make to dissuade people of the idea that if, like in your perfect libertarian Utopia, people were all perfect and perfectly reasonable, then perfect socialism and communism wouldn't work just as well as your libertarian ideal?

The problem with all of these systems is that people AREN'T all the same, and the

GEEZER

Wednesday, August 7, 2013 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Is there any reasonable argument you can make to dissuade people of the idea that if, like in your perfect libertarian Utopia, people were all perfect and perfectly reasonable, then perfect socialism and communism wouldn't work just as well as your libertarian ideal?

The problem with all of these systems is that people AREN'T all the same, and they all have differing ideas of what perfection, "freedom", and liberty mean.

How will you codify what "liberty" is? And realize that once you write it down in a code of law, you've just decided that people - ALL people - need to "be ruled over".

What you're trying to propose here is your perfect world, your world without conflict. Maybe you can call it "Miranda".

Let's see.

When did I ever say it would be perfect? Or that all the people would be perfect or perfectly reasonable?

All I said, over and over again, is that a pretty sizable the majority of the people would believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and would believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. That seems a reasonable goal to me. You don't want these things?

As I've also noted, we seem to have societies where almost everyone opposes slavery pretty strongly (the U.S. Civil War comes to mind. More people were killed in a fight over slavery than any other American war), or where almost everyone believes in preserving representative democracy (American Revolution, WWI and WWII, Cold War, e.g.). And those beliefs work, sometimes at great cost to the folks who believe them, although imperfectly. Also, the people in those societies aren't all the same, as witnessed by the folks here in RWED.

All I'm looking for is less imperfectly.

I suppose that if a majority of people believed strongly enough in Socialism or Communism, such a society could exist without government coersion. I don't think I'd enjoy communal ownership, lack of individuality, and State control very much. Perhaps you would.

Now there is a flavor of Libertarian though that espouses communal ownership, so you might like that better.

From the Wikipedia article on Libertarianism:

Quote:
Non-propertarian libertarian philosophies hold that liberty is the absence of capitalist authority and argue that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Implicitly, it rejects any authority of private property and thus holds that it is not legitimate for someone to claim private ownership of any resources to the detriment of others. Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. The term libertarian socialism is also used to differentiate this philosophy from state socialism. Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions and workers' councils.

Now I have to assume that these Libertarians, to be called Libertarian Socialists rather than just Socialists, would still have to believe in the independence, political freedom, and voluntary association basic to Libertarian thought, and in the NAP.

As to defining what freedom is, define it as you will. Remember, though, that the Non-aggression Principle prohibits you from using your freedom to initiate force against anyone else. Whatever you want to do to yourself, carry on.

So, yeah, there's a rule. Don't initiate force against other people. That rule would be enforced. So, in my Propertarian flavor, would rules regarding contracts.

But remember that I'm not an Anarchist, but a Minarchis

KWICKO

Wednesday, August 7, 2013 6:19 PM

In other words, you believe in a government ruling over people, even if, as you say, it's *mostly* fulfillment of contracts and enforcing "a limited set of rules".

What's the "limit"? We already have a "limited set of rules"; it just doesn't comport with your idea of what that limit should be.

Your oppression is someone else's libertarian paradise. And your libertarian paradise looks like oppression to someone else.

You propose a majority rule. Is that not more or less what we have now, with a majority of voters deciding who gets to represent them?

"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."

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE