Author Topic: Libertarianism (Read 2055 times)

Nash · « **Reply #90 on:** February 22, 2005, 01:50:32 AM »

Well.... gee....

I still don't know towards WHAT the pendulum would be pushing. I just know that a pendulum would be pushing something.

Fantastic.

Chairboy · « **Reply #91 on:** February 22, 2005, 01:52:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
IWHAT... does it look like under a Libertarian government? What happens? What happens a week from inauguration? A month? A year? Four years? 8 years?

Maybe you won't see a lot of changes, and as I put in my last message, that's the state of affairs that's probably best. I'd like to assert that a Libertarian party might not get swaths of widescale changes, but the changes that DO happen will favor individual freedom, stress personal responsibillity over the centralized, soviet style planning we seem to be sliding towards. Ironically, both democrats and republicans are creeping towards less freedoms and bigger governments. The new boss seems same as the old boss, and I've decided that I won't be fooled again.

Toad · « **Reply #92 on:** February 22, 2005, 01:57:23 AM »

I really gotta go to bed.

Did you even glance at the link I posted?

No?

1.

No person may initiate or threaten to initiate the use of coercive physical force.

2.

Libertarianism does not concern itself with morality. To the contrary, libertarianism is probably best understood as being inherently non-judgmental: it intentionally rejects the making of moral judgments. Whereas a given libertarian may have a code of ethics - while he or she may have an understanding of good versus evil - libertarianism itself has no code of ethics and refuses ever to have one.

3.

Rather than aligning itself with any particular moral philosophy or code of ethics, libertarianism focusses on what it conceives of as justice. The belief underlying the libertarian's attachment to the Non-Aggression Axiom is that:

No injustice is done to a person against whom the Non-Aggression Axiom has not been violated.

Even if, under some code of ethics, a certain sort of conduct is evil, that conduct is not unjust from a libertarian point of view provided that the conduct did not involve the initiation of the coercive use of physical force.

4. Libertarianism sees the achievement and preservation of liberty as its ultimate goal. The means by which it aims to achieve its goal is by defending against injustice: by acting in self-defence when there is a violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom. Accordingly, the libertarian view equates liberty with the absence of injustice.

Now, I really am off to the sack.

Silat · « **Reply #93 on:** February 22, 2005, 03:02:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
...I'm a twentieth century man but I don't want to die here.

I was born in a welfare state
Ruled by bureaucracy
Controlled by civil servants

Gotta love Ray:)

wrag · « **Reply #94 on:** February 22, 2005, 06:46:49 AM »

Hmmmm.......

A day in the life of kinda thing?

You could read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Robert A. Heinlien (never have gotten the spelling of his name right before probably got it wrong here too)

His "Starship Trooper" has some interesting portions politically speaking.

Then there is L. Neil Smith's two books that come to mind.

"The Probability Broach" and "Pallas"

Some stuff written by H. Beam Piper tends to point in that direction too.

"Space Vikings" the name is kinda off for the actual story.

"Lord Kalvin of Otherwhere"

"Little Fuzzy"

Several of your questions regarding sexual action/activities done in public could result in financial ruin or even your death in such a society. While you would be free to do such things the reaction could be fatal. Admittedly your executioner might have to pay your surviving family members a great deal. Then again they might not.

The argument would probably be that you preformed a violent act (undue mental stress?) upon someones kids.

Violence is not always physical. You forced others to watch your actions and they found them distasteful/offensive. Your rights stop at mine and vice versa. How would you know? Guess you could rely pretty much on the morals and values of your community.

The legal system would be somewhat different.

Producing those mosquitoe's could cost you everything you own. That species is probably the greatest killer of humanity in all history. A proven disease/parisite carrier. In court, where you would probably find yourself, you could be held accountable for some serious cost.

Such a society would require each individual to THINK allot more then our current society about their every action word and deed and the result of the same.

You don't want to send your kid to public school? No problem as there would probably be NO public school. You would have NO RIGHT to a PUBLIC education. Yet education would probably cost a lot less and be more meaningful.

Don't wanna educate your kids? No Problem but your kids might sue you later. Or they might elect to educate themselves.

The age of maturity would probably be different to. If you could support yourself and conduct your own business you would more then likely be considered by others as mature.

In short yes you would be FREE to do many of the things you asked about. But the cost could be VERY HIGH if you were actually inclined to carry them out.

Oops almost forgot. Ya might want to read up on a person named Lysander Spooner. Very interesting individual.

oboe · « **Reply #95 on:** February 22, 2005, 07:21:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
...2. Libertarianism does not concern itself with morality. To the contrary, libertarianism is probably best understood as being inherently non-judgmental: it intentionally rejects the making of moral judgments. Whereas a given libertarian may have a code of ethics - while he or she may have an understanding of good versus evil - libertarianism itself has no code of ethics and refuses ever to have one.

3. Rather than aligning itself with any particular moral philosophy or code of ethics, libertarianism focusses on what it conceives of as justice. The belief underlying the libertarian's attachment to the Non-Aggression Axiom is that:

No injustice is done to a person against whom the Non-Aggression Axiom has not been violated.

Even if, under some code of ethics, a certain sort of conduct is evil, that conduct is not unjust from a libertarian point of view provided that the conduct did not involve the initiation of the coercive use of physical force.

After reading #2, I conclude Libertarians are a fringe party that will never go anywhere. It might gain popularity with the "thinkers", but there are just not enough of those to go around. Not enough to make any political headway anyhow.

And if that's not enough, #3 is a looks to be a signoff on corporate monopolies and Enron-style bilking of investors. I read it as "anything goes" except physical violence.

I was intrigued for a while, but not anymore. Maybe 200 years ago in a sparsely populated, untamed country, where everybody held a common set of values about ethics and decency, but not today.

Martlet · « **Reply #96 on:** February 22, 2005, 07:44:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
After reading #2, I conclude Libertarians are a fringe party that will never go anywhere. It might gain popularity with the "thinkers", but there are just not enough of those to go around. Not enough to make any political headway anyhow.

And if that's not enough, #3 is a looks to be a signoff on corporate monopolies and Enron-style bilking of investors. I read it as "anything goes" except physical violence.

I was intrigued for a while, but not anymore. Maybe 200 years ago in a sparsely populated, untamed country, where everybody held a common set of values about ethics and decency, but not today.

Libertarianism to the letter wouldn't work overnight. Neither would full blown conservatism or full blown liberalism. We have a mix now.

The Libertarian website lists their ideals and the direction they promote we head. We need to inject MORE libertarianism into our system.

The Libertarian Party is relatively new. It's growing, though.

lazs2 · « **Reply #97 on:** February 22, 2005, 08:14:52 AM »

nash... I think you are getting the sense of it. No political system can function the way it was intended. People make limits.

It may indeed be possible to walk naked down the street under a pure libertarian government but I don't think so... It would be offensive to enough people that you wouldn't have a case.

your mosquito farm would be hard to justify in most areas as it would infringe on others.

carrying a firearm around would be fine as would smoking pot.... driving stoned out of your mind would not.... shooting guns or even threatening people with em in an unsafe manner would not be fine.

driving an unsafe car would not be fine.

in practice in America... libertarianism would probly look like a lot of rural areas. city folk would have siesures if they were given freedom... it would probly kill em. Just knowing others had freedom would probly cause them no end to anxiety.

soo.... to get back to the point... Libertarianism in America would probly look a lot like many rural areas of America or the West in the later part of the 19th century.

I like it.

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #98 on:** February 22, 2005, 08:54:12 AM »

Fearing the "absolute Libertarianism" is not really rational. We've had Republicans and Democrats for ages. Has either one of them been able to fully implement their stated beliefs?

Nope.

In this country, like most countries, you merely move the pendulum. When it gets to an extreme, what does a pendulum do?

lazs2 · « **Reply #99 on:** February 22, 2005, 08:58:10 AM »

yep.... I have stated in the past that I am for whatever party leaves me alone the most.... when that party gets too powerful I vote for the new guy who is claiming he will leave me alone..

nash... you overhink things. You spend a great deal of time trying to look clever instead of seeing what you are looking at.

lazs

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #100 on:** February 22, 2005, 09:02:47 AM »

Yup, after reading through all this, I've come to the conclusion that I was right from the start.

Libertarianism is a wishful thinking ideal. An example of a wishful thinking Ideal would be buying the yacht before you win the lottery.

Just like I said before about liberalism, communism, socialism, you can practice Libertarianism, but it doesn't work.

JB88 · « **Reply #101 on:** February 22, 2005, 09:04:31 AM »

conservativism seems to be for some...though they have to spend everyone elses money like liberals to do it.

Nash · « **Reply #102 on:** February 22, 2005, 09:20:18 AM »

Good morning, Lazs.

I'm not sure if I'm over-thinking it. Maybe. If so, I'm doing a piss poor job of it because I still have way more questions than answers.

Do you know more about life under Libertarianism than you don't? Wouldn't that be kind of important to someone considering it?

'Sides.... it doesn't so much matter if I get it. At least we're talkin', Lazs... and that's important. I like our alone times, when we just talk, ya know?

Munkii · « **Reply #103 on:** February 22, 2005, 10:58:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yup, after reading through all this, I've come to the conclusion that I was right from the start.

Libertarianism is a wishful thinking ideal. An example of a wishful thinking Ideal would be buying the yacht before you win the lottery.

Just like I said before about liberalism, communism, socialism, you can practice Libertarianism, but it doesn't work.

Define "Conservatism" and "Liberalism".

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #104 on:** February 22, 2005, 11:42:06 AM »

Conservatism and Liberalism in the american sense of the way.