So, what the heck is libertarianism?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 15 of 21
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:
1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature. Go read his posts again. It's right there. The system doesn't change, it's only that in his utopia everyone is uniform in the way they buy into it. It all works in his fantasy because in his fantasy suddenly everyone wants the same thing and has the same values.
Yeah, it's easy to have a govt that works when there is no conflict in human nature. How about a system that can be applied in reality? Because, in reality, there will ALWAYS be conflicts in basic beliefs.
In my experience, libertarians will never admit for this inconvenient reality. Because they are so stuck in the idea that their values should somehow be universal. Because they are so very right. Why can't everyone see it? /irony
Ah, damn. Spot on, and written better, more concisely, than I ever could have. Maybe a perspective I've never had, too.
Bingo. Geezer's libertarian Utopia would work great, if it weren't for those all those darned PEOPLE! LIbertarians basically treat human nature as a rounding error in their computations.
"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
"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."
So, what was your point? Be explicit. Spell it out.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Does the irony strike anyone else? The amazing irony that Geezer's libertarian paradise relies entirely upon a mass of people all acting, believing, behaving in the exact same way, almost as if they were a gigantic hive mind, a massive collective society, one of those kinds of personless statist societies that libertarians claim to hate?
He's basically arguing that the world would be perfect if we would all just act like him. How very ecocentric of him.
"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 Geezer:
Your idea that 'force' is only physical force flies in the face of reality.
dug out my Webster's Unabridged dictionary. It's in the bookcase next to the computer desk, right here in the home office
Quote:
Force,n:
physical power or strength exerted against a person or thing;
physical coercion;
violence, as, the police resorted to force to disperse them.
A word in common usage means what the common usage says it mean. You don't get to change that. You wanta use a word, use it correctly. You mean some other concept, use the word for that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Especially b/c he claims that people will in time evolve to a higher state of perfection to be - like him! A libertarian!
Says a lot about what he thinks of himself, and us.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."
So, what was your point? Be explicit. Spell it out.
Did it really require a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop?
Before democracy, was it "human nature" to believe that kings ruled by divine right, or that one person was inherently worth more than another simply because of where they were born, or into which family?
When you watch children play, do you see it in their nature to treat one person among them as a king, far superior in every way to every other child they're playing with? Or do they tend to just treat each other as equals?
I'd posit that democracy - one person being the equal of another, having just as legitimate a voice, is closer to our default state of human nature, and it takes quite a bit of wrangling by kings and priests to try to drive that instinct out of people.
"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 NewOldBrownCoat:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Your idea that 'force' is only physical force flies in the face of reality.
dug out my Webster's Unabridged dictionary. It's in the bookcase next to the computer desk, right here in the home officeQuote:
Force,n:
physical power or strength exerted against a person or thing;
physical coercion;
violence, as, the police resorted to force to disperse them.
A word in common usage means what the common usage says it mean. You don't get to change that. You wanta use a word, use it correctly. You mean some other concept, use the word for that.
And Geezer, if you're talking about the "force of law", then you really should sit down and ask yourself exactly what that means. Behind every law is the threat of violence and a gun. If you don't agree, see what happens when you refuse to comply with even the most basic laws, like ones against jaywalking or ones that say you must pay your taxes.
"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 Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:Quote:
2. (Sig, I know you already know this one.) There used to be a concept called "the social contract"- One definition of that might be that a person gives up using certain individual rights in exchange for the benefit of the group, and for the benefit to him from the larger scale action of the group. It can be thought of as the basis of any civilization. Seems to be a concept, in any form, that I haven't heard from any libbie here.
You should read the threads Frem cited. Plenty of discussion from several folks about voluntary associations of folks in a Libertarian society to provide everything from fire services to medical care to charity.
OH, BTW, since I'm giving reading lessons, "here" means here, this thread. I haven't read others, didn't then, ain't gonna go back now.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
NOBC "ah, a critical monopoly"
NOBC, I realize you're playing devil's advocate.
Yep, hon, teasing, joking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
posted by Geezer:
(as posted by NOBC)
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.
Got any cites for this, or is it just an opinion based on nothing?
I notice that you haven't made any substantive response to my statement. What do you have to say about "the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled"? Do they not exist? DO you not care about them? When or where have YOU focused on them in your postings, in this thread?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME