Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on February 21, 2005, 07:38:57 PM
-
It got brought up a coupla times today, but I don't think I've ever seen it discussed here other than the passing "Well, you're wrong... I voted Libertarian."
What does Libertarianism mean to you? Aint it like anarchy? What does an America under Libertarianism actually look like?
-
...Girl we gotta get out of here
We gotta find a solution
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
And people dressed in grey
Got no privacy, got no liberty
Cos the twentieth century people
Took it all away from me.
Don't wanna get myself shot down
By some trigger happy policeman,
Gotta keep a hold on my sanity
I'm a twentieth century man but I don't wanna die here.
My mama says she can't understand me
She can't see my motivation
Ain't got no security,
I'm a twentieth century man but I don't wanna be here.
This is the twentieth century
But too much aggravation
This is the edge of insanity
I'm a twentieth century man but I don't wanna be here.
-
What does an America under Libertarianism actually look like?
Snowcrash :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
What does Libertarianism mean to you? Aint it like anarchy? What does an America under Libertarianism actually look like?
It looks like the founding fathers intended. Not a watered down socialist nanny state paying lip service to liberty.
-
Yeah but, see.... I have no idea what that actually means.
-
Ahem... Do the research (http://lp.org/)!
;)
-
Thanks Sand. :p
Now I know that:
The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
individual liberty and personal responsibility
a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.
Whatever that means....
Nah... I'm trying to get a picture of how this would play itself out... What a day in the life under Libertarianism looks like.
Not much different? A lot different? What happens?
-
It's simple really... in the Libertarian universe we can all smoke pot if we want to. ;)
-
I've heard that one.... here actually - a couple a days ago from someone. And appearently, so it went, you can smoke pot while walking down the street naked.
This is the kind of thing that's really puzzling. You get these sorts of glimpses into it... but that's all.
Considering how many people here support or have indeed voted Libertarian (if they are to be believed), you'd think a bigger picture would emerge somewhere along the line. But nah...
Smoke pot naked.
Libertarians - throw me a fricken bone here.
-
to me its kinda like Republicrat-light.
Alot of what you dont agree with in your own party R OR D you'll agree with the libertarian stance.
For instance, the whole "moral majority" and "moral compas" that the right likes to use so often doesnt play well with me. The fact that the right refuses to legalize or at least decriminalize certain drugs just dumbfounds me. Read up on their stance on drugs and you might find it interesting
That's just one thing that I dont find I like about Libertarion.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Thanks Sand. :p
Now I know that:
The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
individual liberty and personal responsibility
a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.
Whatever that means....
Nah... I'm trying to get a picture of how this would play itself out... What a day in the life under Libertarianism looks like.
Not much different? A lot different? What happens?
Then read the link SM posted. If you take the time to actually read past the first page, they explain it in detail.
-
Republican Light or Armed Liberals... take your pick. :)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Republican Light or Armed Liberals... take your pick. :)
yup I'd have to say you pretty much nailed it :aok
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Then read the link SM posted. If you take the time to actually read past the first page, they explain it in detail.
Martlet means this part (http://lp.org/issues/).
-
I dunno...
I mean yeah... okay.... stuff like "Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity" is all well and good.
But like, whatever. What does that mean?
It's obviously kind of a revolutionary brand of politics... but... What does a day in the life of a citizen under a Libertarian government actually look like? What changes? What's different as it pertains to you. What do you do differently? What gets done to you differently?
This is the kind of thing I cannot get the sense of by simply reading policy grafs off of a Libertarian webpage. Some have taken the step of actually voting Libertarian, so I imagine that they've thought through these things carefuly. But why am I starting to get the feeling that that's not the case?
-
Originally posted by Nash
What does a day in the life of a citizen under a Libertarian government actually look like? What changes? What's different as it pertains to you. What do you do differently? What gets done to you differently?
It's pretty much the same except that government (especially the one in D.C.) is not involved nearly as much. You can do what you want as long as you don't harm others. Your income is not confiscated before you ever see it. If you want to share your income and property to others, you are free to do so, but it is not mandatory.
-
... and we get to smoke pot.
LOL
-
Originally posted by Sandman
... and we get to smoke pot.
LOL
naked
-
****... I always forget that part... :)
-
Cool....
Don't take this as being antagonistic because I'm not trying to be. I guess I like to narrow in on the gist of things by starting at the extremes, so....
By "You can do what you want as long as you don't harm others" and "if you want to share your income and property to others, you are free to do so, but it is not mandatory," is it safe to say that one is free to move into a neighborhood, set up a crack house and create a tent-city by jamming every homeless person you can find into yer yard?
Heh, an ad just came on now Funked and the music was the Kinks. :)
-
Crackhouse, tent city, good times, as long as they stay on their property.
-
Really...
Can we have sex on our front lawn? Not you and me.... But people... Can people have sex on their front lawn? Can we charge kids for watching - as a sort of additional source of income?
-
You go girl.
-
Libertarianism, just like communism, socialism and liberalism, is an ideal that does not work in the real world.
It'd be awesome if it did. But eventually with these ISM's you have to grow up and realize it ain't happening.
And that's why I'm conservative.
-
That's right... there's no such thing as conservatism. ;)
-
For me... some random thoughts in no order: Free market without interruption or attempted control. Drastically less legislation (no bloated carcass nappy hair cat vomit dog **** log jam bunk, heh!). Emergency services and necessary government programs (meaning little or none). National defense, not global police. Non-intervention unless requested - no wasted "selling security." No corporate wellfare or bail outs. If you fail as a business, thanks for playing!
.... and sprinkle in a little nekked reefer and yer golden.
As Grun so elegantly put it a few months ago, 'pseudo-anarchism.' Rolls of the tongue, I kinda like it. :cool:
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Libertarianism, just like communism, socialism and liberalism, is an ideal that does not work in the real world.
It'd be awesome if it did. But eventually with these ISM's you have to grow up and realize it ain't happening.
And that's why I'm conservative.
I like to think of it as a lack of ideals. And that's why you've got some reading to do misther sthailor. "Real world" - try finding a definition of that, then I'll argue.
-
Hmm... okay.
I suppose jackin' off at the foot of a swingset in a public park is okay also?
Hows about building a wall around my property in some suburb, flooding it with water, and laying out a whole ton of mosquito larvae?
Do my neighbors like Rap at 4 in the morning? Only one way to find out.....
Serously... Libertarianism is starting to sound like college kid nirvana. Is it basically all about being free to do just whatever the hell you get inspired to do?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hmm... okay.
I suppose jackin' off at the foot of a swingset in a public park is okay also?
Hows about building a wall around my property in some suburb, flooding it with water, and laying out a whole ton of mosquito larvae?
Do my neighbors like Rap at 4 in the morning? Only one way to find out.....
Serously... Libertarianism is starting to sound like college kid nirvana. Is it basically all about being free to do just whatever the hell you get inspired to do?
No, it's what takes place in your house is your business, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.
Flooding the neighborhood with mosquitos would most likely do that, but of course you realize that.
If you come up with any intelligent questions, feel free to ask. I won't hold my breath, though.
-
Oh... so it's no longer "property"..... but "house".
I suppose some Libertarian by-law or ordinance would cover that. Uh oh...
-
lazs will explain when he sees this thread. He's a big libertarian.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh... so it's no longer "property"..... but "house".
I suppose some Libertarian by-law or ordinance would cover that. Uh oh...
No, it's property also. You could flood your HOUSE and have all the mosquitos you'd like. That doesn't affect me next door. However if you flood your property, and grow mosquitos, it affects me. Unless you enclose your yard. Of course you could have just read the link Sandman posted and answered your own question.
Nahhh, then you wouldn't have the opportunity to ask stupid questions.
You jump from dumb question to accusation. I should have known from past experience where you were going.
-
Your rights end where my rights begin, there :cool:
-
"Public park" wouldn't exist. Whoever owns the land would make the rules.
As far as these neighborhood nuisances you keep fantasizing about, do a search for "deed restrictions". It's a very efficient private method for handling this issue.
-
Ah... take it for what it's worth. Nash is exploring the boundaries.
Even freedom has limits. It's worth a thought even if it's ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ah... take it for what it's worth. Nash is exploring the boundaries.
Yeah, but it's like he ran through the gate at Disneyland and ran past all the rides to go explore the fenceline. If he was really interested in it he would be reading instead of spouting. He's just looking for some trollage on a boring Monday night. :aok
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Snowcrash :)
Burbclaves are pretty much the ultimate extension of deed restrictions.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Yeah, but it's like he ran through the gate at Disneyland and ran past all the rides to go explore the fenceline.
I bet it's happened. ;)
-
K, I looked up deed restrictions... and they're basically zoning by-laws. Mmm... kinda like what we have now? Maybe slightly different...
Oh - hang on a sec. Martlet? Bite me, you tool.
Back to deed restrictions... Sandman is exactly right, I'm just prodding the boundaries. My sense is that society has imposed certain limits on itself in order that it can function as a society. There were fewer limits in teh olden ages, but as people have become increasingly packed together, with their well being and livelihoods becoming evermore dependent and entwined with everyone else's, these limits just evolve to address that.
Uhm.... like, say, a bunch of people like to go hunting. Another bunch of people just bought multimillion-dollar homes with an amazing view. A log company buys some adjacent land and wants to chop down all the trees. Boom! A law is born. The company can't cut trees here but they can cut trees there.
That's how these laws evolved, right?
So when ya propose to take all these annoying laws away, isn't it like going back into teh olden times?
-
Originally posted by Nash
K, I looked up deed restrictions... and they're basically zoning by-laws. Mmm... kinda like what we have now? Maybe slightly different...
Different because they are completely voluntary. If you don't like the restrictions in a certain neighborhood you are free to buy a house in another neighborhood which has different (or nonexistent) restrictions.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Uhm.... like, say, a bunch of people like to go hunting. Another bunch of people just bought multimillion-dollar homes with an amazing view. A log company buys some adjacent land and wants to chop down all the trees. Boom! A law is born. The company can't cut trees here but they can cut trees there.
The homeowners should have bought the land with the trees on it, or negotiated ($$$) with the owner of the trees. Ditto the hunters.
One person's asthetic values are not a valid reason to restrict the liberty of another.
-
We'll all get along fine, 'cause we're all basically anarchists around here. ;)
-
That's the way it is now...
I got a friend in one of those gated communities that actually restrict your door color to just a few choices. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a home there.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
The homeowners should have bought the land with the trees on it, or negotiated ($$$) with the owner of the trees. Ditto the hunters.
So only the wealthy can hunt? Have you told anyone in the red states about this?
-
Originally posted by Nash
That's the way it is now...
I got a friend in one of those gated communities that actually restrict your door color to just a few choices. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a home there.
But the police will indeed force people to obey 8 zillion other rules that aren't covered by the gated community rules.
It's all about choice vs coercion.
-
doh
-
Originally posted by Nash
So only the wealthy can hunt? Have you told anyone in the red states about this?
Not at all. Much of the land that is hunted on today is private land, that sportsman open to other sportsman. People hunt on my property in Maine all the time.
-
Originally posted by Nash
So only the wealthy can hunt? Have you told anyone in the red states about this?
If people want to hunt but can't afford to buy land, they can negotiate a hunting fee with a landowner. Or hunters can band together to buy land that they share for hunting. Both of these examples have a long history of success here in the US.
-
Hunters have to buy the land they.... erhm....
Is there, right now at this very moment, a single square foot of land that isn't already owned by anyone? Do hunters primarily hunt on private or government land? I know it's a mix, but in general....
Speaking of that... Poachers are good times under a Libertarian government, right? Because there wouldn't even be such a term. Game limits? Conservation? Meh, what world am I living in... right?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hunters have to buy the land they.... erhm....
Is there, right now at this very moment, a single square foot of land that isn't already owned by anyone? Do hunters primarily hunt on private or government land? I know it's a mix, but in general....
Speaking of that... Poachers are good times under a Libertarian government, right? Because there wouldn't even be such a term. Game limits? Conservation? Meh, what world am I living in... right?
Game limits is set by property owners. You own the wildlife.
Why would Poaching be good times? You can't steal from me.
-
And I'm sure wildlife has a solid grasp of your property lines.
Hows about a property owner extending a net upstream of a whole lotta downstream?
-
Originally posted by Nash
And I'm sure wildlife has a solid grasp of your property lines.
Hows about a property owner extending a net upstream of a whole lotta downstream?
What do property lines have to do with anything? If it's on my property, I own it. If it isn't, I don't.
-
Obviously, if all hunting land were owned by hunters and people who sold hunting rights to hunters, the owners would have a great incentive for conservation on their own lands.
Nash you are running out of steam and I am getting bored. I advise you to explore the libertarian literature online if you are interested in anything other than nitpicking. Nite.
-
Yeah, unchecked capitalism has such a great track record with conservationism.
-
I don't think so... Hell, if we talked about it for a mere coupla hours I'm sure we'd come up with a whole whack of new laws, by-laws, and deed entitlements that come close to mirroring what we've already got. Maybe they'd all be called something different under a Libertarian government?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I don't think so... Hell, if we talked about it for a mere coupla hours I'm sure we'd come up with a whole whack of new laws, by-laws, and deed entitlements that come close to mirroring what we've already got. Maybe they'd all be called something different under a Libertarian government?
So? There are aspects of libertarianism in our current foundation.
And we have talked about it for two hours so far, and all you've done is hit a few walls and show your lack of desire to educate yourself as you originally claimed.
With that, I'm off to bed myself.
-
Wow, I was getting all enthusiastic when I saw this thread.
Then I read it.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Wow, I was getting all enthusiastic when I saw this thread.
You have to be kidding me.
-
Tough when they ain't biting the artificials, isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Nash
snip
Serously... Libertarianism is starting to sound like college kid nirvana. Is it basically all about being free to do just whatever the hell you get inspired to do?
Simple answer: No.
If you're really interested, you might start by looking at the Libertarian Party website someone else posted the link to, but then go a little deeper and click the "Issues and Positions" link there. That will give you a little more of an idea as to what the political party with that name is using as platform planks.
Keep in mind that just as the Republican Party platform doesn't necessarily define "conservative" values, and likewise for the Democratic Party and "liberal" values, you can't trust a bunch of politicians about philosophy.
Libertarianism goes a long way back, and is alive and well today - and isn't necessarily congruent with support for the "Libertarian Party" itself. You could do a little historical research, and might be surprised by how accurate the earlier comment in this thread regarding the original founding father's ideals was.
There was a fellow named R.C. Hoiles who was a noted Libertarian and who founded Freedom Communications Inc. This outfit owns over 30 newspapers nationwide, along with a few TV stations, and in addition to providing a quality media product FCI also promotes Libertarian values in its editorial commentary.
Their flagship paper is The Orange County Register, and you can look HERE (http://www.ocregister.com/commentary/) to see their "Commentary" page that has a bunch of links that will keep you busy a long time if you're interested in finding out what this is all about. In particular, I recommend author Tibor Machan, his writings about current events and politics are particularly insightful.
I happen to work for a Freedom company, a medium-sized community newspaper here where I live (about 50,000 daily paid circulation). I'm on the sales/distribution end of things, so the only real input I have as to content is my opinion as to what stories will make the best headlines in terms of sales. That said, I'm pretty proud of our editorial department. THIS RECENT EDITORIAL (http://www.themonitor.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=5666&Section=Opinion) is an example of why.
Bottom line, to some extent you're right in your characterization of Libertarianism as overly idealistic if you refer only to the Libertarian Party itself. However, in practice Libertarian philosophy may also be applied in realistic ways to develop opinions that fit into current political situations. Core principles that sound like generalities can be applied in ways that take political reality into account and be used to develop opinions as to how to deal with what we have on our plate now, in addition to wishful thinking about how society could be "in the best of all worlds".
There's more to this than immediately meets the eye ;)
culero
PS - I had the "HERE" link above wrong, edited to fix it
-
They're called "stimulators", Toad, not "artificials". I think we've had that discussion.
But seriously... It's fascinating to me. I can't tell if when people buy into Libertarianism that they chuck reality to the curb, or if I'm just not understanding Libertarianism whatsoever.
A few questions:
As a property owner, can I put a net across a river that runs through my property?
If not, what law would forbid it?
As a parent, could I keep my children entirely out of the school system, teaching them Klingon instead?
If not, what law would forbid it?
As parent, could I keep my children from recieving critical medical help if it ran counter to my religeous beliefs?
If not, what law would forbid it?
What would the laws of the road be? Speed limits? Drunk driving? Reckless endangerment? Oh....all those same laws here too, huh?
Hows about emissions? No? Scrap all that?
Can I totally con people out of money under a Libertarian government?
Drugs..... everywhere and legal, right? Crack, PCP, coke, heroin... right from the local corner store, right?
If not, what law would forbid it?
Seriously... I don't get at all - one bit. But there's folks here who quite literally walked up to the ballot box a few months ago and sincerely asked for this to happen.
Just lookin' for a little light on it, is all.
-
The hell are you getting at Nash? You're jumping all over the place like a coked up ADD stricken tard.
-SW
-
So what?
-
So do you want to make out?
-SW
-
Originally posted by Nash
They're called "stimulators", Toad, not "artificials". I think we've had that discussion.
Hehe...I kinda thought so, just couldn't resist anyway :)
Originally posted by Nash
But seriously... It's fascinating to me. I can't tell if when people buy into Libertarianism that they chuck reality to the curb, or if I'm just not understanding Libertarianism whatsoever.
Seriously. Define "conservatism". Or "liberalism". Then, if that doesn't convince you, let's discuss how the two major parties in the US relate to all that.
Dismiss this as silly if you like, but its your loss. Like I said in my prior post, there's plenty of serious discussion available out there if you really are interested.
culero
-
Originally posted by Nash
You have to be kidding me.
Nope. With all the retardation on this board, I was thinking something like "Wow, a thread on a topic I'm interested in and can contribute constructively to."
But like I said, then I read it. G'night.
-
Okay come on... Enough pointing me to websites or Libertarian literature and whatnot. I wouldn't have posted this if I didn't have even just a rudimentary grasp of it.
But here's my problem.
I see all these sorts of little policy statements, a whole ton of idealism, and nary a shred of how - when all these things come together to form reality - life would actually be under a Libertarian government.
I don't hear it there, I don't hear it here, I don't hear it with a spoon, I don't hear it in the afternoon, I don't hear it with a fox and I don't hear it wearing socks.
(and by "stimulators", it's a type of dry fly. There's no such thing as "artificials.")
-
The light is on at the Lib web site.
Tune in, turn on, understand.
It's not like it's a real difficult concept. Well, if you read up on it.
-
Well, I did Toad... I have.
I even watched a coupla hours worth of that Micheal (that his name?) talking about it a few months ago.
I still don't get it. I'm sorry.
No amount of linkage is gonna help at this point, I'm afraid.
Really... There's nobody here who can put Libertarianism into a day-to-day man-on-the-street reality format for me? Just a coupla paragraphs?
S'all I'm asking.
-
Ponder this.
We read that website and guess what? It puts Libertarianism into a day-to-day man-on-the-street reality format for most of us.
Sorry.
-
Oh yeah.... like I've got a birth defect or something. (shaddup don't answer that).
I guess what you're saying is that you read all their positions, and fashioned up a scenario in your head of what life would be like.... day to day life... under a Libertarian government... correct?
I couldn't. I couldn't put those peices together. I couldn't shape them into anything resembling a viable reality.
So congrats to you.... that's just great. But I'm lookin' for a little help here with this. And you come off as just bragging because you happen to get it.
-
Nash, perhaps the problem is that you've already, in your mind, trivialized the issue. That's what makes you think you can easily compartmentalize it. "Day to day life under a Libertarian government", indeed.
Substitute "conservative", "liberal", "nazi", canadian", whatever you like for "Libertarian" in the above scenario and then YOU summarize it in a couple of neat paragraphs, eh? :)
culero (has a few more minutes to waste before bedtime)
-
Because I feel kind tonight though........
http://www.mondopolitico.com/ideologies/libertarianism/whatislibertarianism.htm
-
Well true.
I guess I would explain both liberal and conservative as what we have right now. A mix... and the day-to-day life, my rights, my interactions with the private and public sector, not much different no matter which of those two is at the helm.
So to explain it really wouldn't amount to much more than "see?"
But Libertarianism is... different.
Okay, how about this. What changes?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Republican Light or Armed Liberals... take your pick. :)
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Nash
snip
But Libertarianism is... different.
Is it? Are you so sure?
I mean, here you are saying you don't understand, yet you are able to somehow dismiss it as "out there".
Originally posted by Nash
Okay, how about this. What changes?
I know you said "no links", but bear with me on this just once and go look at the editorial I linked in my first post (THIS RECENT EDITORIAL). Its short, won't take long, and addresses a current issue. Its an example of what I am talking about.
Hint: what a Libertarian believes on any particular issue might not necessarily be unique to Libertarians. Its all about core values, and applying them to everyday life.
culero
-
Originally posted by Toad
Because I feel kind tonight though........
http://www.mondopolitico.com/ideologies/libertarianism/whatislibertarianism.htm
Thanks Toad.
I swear.... I don't want to be a difficult salamander about this, but that page was not unlike reams of it I've already seen (and btw, why are so many Libertarian factions almost at complete odds with one another?)
Here's a graf from that site:
---------------
"To the libertarian who believes that no person should have a right to exclude others from the use of property (sometimes called "left libertarians" or "socialist libertarians"), inaction is sometimes coercion, and inaction can sometimes constitute a violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom. Under this understanding of coercion, if Frank said to the starving man "I will not give you any of my food or water unless you mow my lawn", that would be coercion, not persuasion, because - according to this view of property - the food belongs to all persons in need of it, and Frank is effectively stealing food from the starving man by not allowing him to eat it without mowing Frank's lawn. For these libertarians, Frank's actions are equivalent to taking food from the hands of the starving man by the initiation of coercive physical force.
----------------
Now I'm certain that this makes complete sense to you. It doesn't to me. Or it tells me that there are a truckload of Libertarians out there who have a completely different idea of what Libertarianism actually is.
Let me try this....
Lets pretend that the Libertarian party got voted in last November. What changes, and how?
-
Originally posted by culero
I know you said "no links", but bear with me on this just once and go look at the editorial I linked in my first post (THIS RECENT EDITORIAL). Its short, won't take long, and addresses a current issue. Its an example of what I am talking about.
I read it, culero.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I read it, culero.
OK, then obviously you read the last line: "Congress should not place anyone above the law, not even in the name of homeland security." That's a statement commenting on a current issue that expresses an opinion derived from a Libertarian core value.
Its obviously also something that people who don't describe themselves as "Libertarian" might believe.
But it does give you an idea of how a "Libertarian government" might deal with a suggested law like this.
But that's only one situation.
That's the point I'm trying to make. It isn't as simple as you're trying to make it. Philosophy never is.
But, again, if you're really interested, you could find out what you want to know. Its just not gonna happen in a couple of spoonfuls.
culero
-
Yeah, when I read that last line it rang a bell about a recent thread here re "above the law". And btw, I agree totally with that op ed.
There's one thing that a BBS can do that a policy webpage can't. That an op ed can't seem to.
And that is to put it in real terms, using real language with real people from really different backgrounds.
It's just a question, asked to those who are familiar with it and/or people who even voted for it.
You wake up tomorrow. There is a Libertarian government in place. A week from now, a month from now, a year from now and 4 years from now.... WTF happens?
-
You wake up tomorrow. There is a Democratic government in place. A week from now, a month from now, a year from now and 4 years from now.... WTF happens?
-
Same 'ol.
You sayin' that's the case with the Libertarians?
-
Originally posted by Nash
snip
You wake up tomorrow. There is a Libertarian government in place. A week from now, a month from now, a year from now and 4 years from now.... WTF happens?
You tell me :)
That's a serious answer, BTW. WTF happens in those time frames under a "Pick Your Label and Put It Here" government? Doesn't that depend on circumstances?
Again, I direct you to core values. Past that, we live in a society where everyone has an opportunity to contribute.
Take into consideration that at the core of the Libertarian philosophy is personal freedom. Look at a roomful of Libertarians, and you're seeing a roomful of people who each may have his/her own ideas of exactly how to apply that.
Then, resist the urge to assume they're all nutcase idealists. Give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are responsible and intelligent folks who want to have a benefical and prosperous society to live in.
Finally, realize what you are asking. Its like you want two paragraphs from the quotes page in Readers Digest magazine to define what society is. That's folly, it simply isn't that simple.
Propose issues, we can discuss. Over time, you may begin to get a picture that makes sense.
One subject that's been brought up in this thread is the drug prohibition. Now, I'm just one guy and don't claim to speak for every Libertarian (just as I assume you don't claim to speak for every musician ;))
I do believe the prohibition is counter-productive and should be abolished.
But, I don't believe that means drugs aren't a problem, and that we shouldn't do anything about it. I think some governmental regulation is appropriate. I think controls that exist outside of government are important, too. We're dealing with alcohol and tobacco and making headway towards allowing folks the freedom to indulge while helping folks avoid ruining their lives over that stuff. I think how we handle pot, coke, etc should more closely model those examples.
Others may differ, in the end a consensus will decide. But, if you want to anticipate what a Libertarian approach to any issue will be, think in terms of what allows the most personal freedom and relies the least on government. That's as close to a summary as I can give you. It has to be applied issue by issue, and the answers will vary.
That's as much as I can help now, its time for this old fart to go to bed. Toodles.
culero
-
Realistically, given our form of government... Executive, Legislative and Judicial not much would really change in one term.
This country is like turning a supertanker.
-
"Look at a roomful of Libertarians, and you're seeing a roomful of people who each may have his/her own ideas of exactly how to apply that. "
Realistically, given our form of government... Executive, Legislative and Judicial not much would really change in one term. This country is like turning a supertanker.
I think I can answer both of your posts with just this... er, I may be totally off base. Here goes.
Because of an already heavily beauracratic and divided government, and because there's enough division within the Libertarian party itself about what Libertarianism even is, a Libertarian government won't change things a whole hell of a lot.
Close?
Come on! Jeezuz!!!!
-
It'd take multiple Libertarian administrations with support in Congress to see any real difference IMO.
It'd be something in the nature of a HUGE political miracle for a tiny minority party to pull that off.
-
I kinda think that if a Libertarian got voted President, it would be a sure sign to the legislative and legal branches that something's afoot. Know what I mean? I think they would make nice. If Bush has a man date now, this guy would have a man orgy.
Maybe not.... or it's civil war... or whatever.
But please... can we unburden the original question of all these practicalities? Because the very practicalities that you pit Libertarianism against, are the practicalities that prevent Libertarianism.
We already know it's going nowhere.... or at least anytime soon.
Besides the restrictions... and imagining that a Libertarian party gets to do whatever it is that you voted them in to do....
WHAT... does it look like under a Libertarian government? What happens? What happens a week from inauguration? A month? A year? Four years? 8 years?
-
I read each and every word you posted Nash. Good points.
Still, rolling enchiladas, and Sp4de knows what the ladies like.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Realistically, given our form of government... Executive, Legislative and Judicial not much would really change in one term.
This country is like turning a supertanker.
And THAT is exactly the way it SHOULD be!
Our government was clearly designed so that would be exactly how things work, and there's a good reason. To oversimplify, bad judgement is usually a spur of the moment thing, while good decisions are the only ones that usually survive for any length of time.
Anything that is done to make our country turn on a dime will, guarenteed, eventually result in something terrible happen. That's what happened in Germany, that's what happened in Yugoserbislaviastan, and so on. Fast changes might seem great in the beginning, but laws are like a crowd of people in a soccer arena. If they get moving too fast, someone is gonna get trampled.
-
If you bother to read the links others posted and the one I posted, you know the position.
I'd expect the government to move the society in that direction. I don't see any big mystery about where it would trend or go. I'm suprised you do.
As to the timeline.... pffffffft. Who the krell knows? For example, they've been talking about overhauling the IRS and making taxes simpler for my entire lifetime. Pretty much the same with Social Security. How's all that going, do you think?
Sorry, I don't have a crystal ball. I'd just expect them to move to enact their principles, much as Bush moves to enact his or Clinton moved to enact his. Remember when Bill and Hill were going to overhaul our healthcare system to be more inline with Democratic party principles? Think that went according to plan?
It'd still be politics Nash; they'd just be trying to push the pendulum in a new... yet very old.. direction.
Nighty-night.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
conservativism seems to be for some...though they have to spend everyone elses money like liberals to do it.
-
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?
-
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".
-
Conservatism and Liberalism in the american sense of the way.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Conservatism and Liberalism in the american sense of the way.
Nice try at a dodge. Define them for me, I'm ignorant of their definitions.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay come on... Enough pointing me to websites or Libertarian literature and whatnot. I wouldn't have posted this if I didn't have even just a rudimentary grasp of it.
But here's my problem.
I see all these sorts of little policy statements, a whole ton of idealism, and nary a shred of how - when all these things come together to form reality - life would actually be under a Libertarian government.
I don't hear it there, I don't hear it here, I don't hear it with a spoon, I don't hear it in the afternoon, I don't hear it with a fox and I don't hear it wearing socks.
(and by "stimulators", it's a type of dry fly. There's no such thing as "artificials.")
God almighty, Nash, stop throwing chum in the water, you got enough folks on the line, take your pick and set the damn hook (s)already!:lol
-
Nash,
It's kinda like this....
...In Montana, while I lived there, there was no speed limit on the freeways, but you could still get a ticket for speeding.
You could go as fast as you liked, as long as your speed did not endanger the other drivers.
If your speed created an unsafe condition, you got a ticket. YOU were responsible for understanding what would cause an unsafe condition and setting your speed accordingly. Not an arbitrary number posted on a sign.
-
The seeds of Libertarianism got their genisis from the original concept of Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson did not beleive in a strong central government but instead the common land owning man. He beleived that each man would respond to the inherit morality\virtue imbued by the all creator into each man and this would guide each in their activities towards others. Jefferson's vision was in line more with the vision of the French Revolution and it's princepels, rather than those of the American Revolution. Jefferson distrusted a strong urban industrialised based government. Power would ultimately land in the hands of a few on the backs of the many.
Funny origianlly they were called Reupublicans or Democratic Republics. Later to become the Democratic Party.
-
nash... you are the defenition of overthinking things. I would like a libertarian candidate to win because it would be better for me. They would start a TREND toward leaving me to decide things for myself. They could in no way achieve even most of their ideals and you know it.
I vote Republican now to keep the democrats out. Why? do the republicans have the perfect platform desighned exclusively for me? hell no.
Libertarians? nope.
Like I said... I vote for the party that most claims they will have the least influence in my life. When they get big and start to interfere I will vote for the next party that claims they will get out of my life if they win.
really now.... how hard is that for you to understand?
lazs
-
Originally posted by bustr
The seeds of Libertarianism got their genisis from the original concept of Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson did not beleive in a strong central government but instead the common land owning man. He beleived that each man would respond to the inherit morality\virtue imbued by the all creator into each man and this would guide each in their activities towards others. Jefferson's vision was in line more with the vision of the French Revolution and it's princepels, rather than those of the American Revolution. Jefferson distrusted a strong urban industrialised based government. Power would ultimately land in the hands of a few on the backs of the many.
Funny origianlly they were called Reupublicans or Democratic Republics. Later to become the Democratic Party.
Yup, not much has changed over the years, Jeffersonian's were known as the liberals and Hamiltonian's the conservatives.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Nash
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.
snip
That's pretty much the way its gotta be, Nash. Governance isn't suited to a cookie-cutter approach.
Here's a try at a short answer for you, albeit an answer that has much less specificity than you're prolly looking for:
I think what you would see as a result of an emergence of Libertarian-influenced policy in the USA would not be anything radically different immediately. From what I can tell, Libertarian Americans want the same basics as Democrats and Republicans. The differences would be subtle - leaning toward more personal choice and responsibility, more local autonomy rather than federal, less tendency to create solutions to problems by exerting government control (more tendency to encourage private sector action).
Libertarians don't want to turn the world upside down. They want to see less in terms of government, more in terms of personal freedom and responsibility. As in any political movement, there is a wide variance amongst Libertarians on any specific issue. That's what you can draw on to be assured that the actual result of more Libertarian influence would be moderate (they don't all march to the exact same beat ;))
culero
-
Well, okay. For now, Libertarianism can stay. But I've got my eye on it, and I don't want to see any monkey business.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Conservatism and Liberalism in the american sense of the way.
I'd also like to know. Please, define!
Perhaps Hagbard Celine knows ;) :
DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS
FREE MARKET: That condition of society in which all economic transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion.
THE STATE: That institution which interferes with the Free Market through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges (backed by coercion).
TAX: That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which the State collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in defense of privilege, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, experiments, “reforms,” etc., as it pleases, not at its own cost, but at the cost of “its” subjects.
PRIVILEGE: From the latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.
USURY: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions.
LANDLORDISM: That form of privilege or interference in the Free Market in which one State-supported group “owns” the land and thereby takes tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land.
TARIFF: That form of privilege or interference in the Free Market in which commodities produced outside the State are not allowed to compete equally with those produced inside the State.
CAPITALISM: That organization of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it.
CONSERVATISM: That school of capitalist philosophy which claims allegiance to the Free Market while actually supporting usury, landlordism, tariff, and sometimes taxation.
LIBERALISM: That school of capitalist philosophy which attempts to correct the injustices of capitalism by adding new laws to the existing laws. EAch time conservatives pass a law creating privilege, liberals pass another law modifying privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until “everything not forbidden is compulsory” and “everything not compulsory is forbidden.”
SOCIALISM: The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black.
ANARCHISM: That organization of society in which the Free Market operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms of coercion or privilege. RIGHT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate. LEFT ANARCHISTS predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to cooperate more often than to compete.
— Hagbard Celine, from Never Whistle While You’re Pissing, pgs. 622-4
-
nash... that is a healthy attitude. It is allways best to keep governments and the aholes it attracts off balance..
no matter what they say.
lazs
-
Please understand, Nash being a Canadian, has problems trying to wrap his head around freedom.
When Canada started becoming automous, we didn't do because we wanted "freedom". But because we wanted "reponsible government". LOL.
-
I think that is pretty much the reason the Americans on this board and the others have so much trouble understanding why we each do the things we do.
The underlying thread is that American have a huge distrust and paranoia about government... Other countries seem to feel that anything the government does must be for it's subjects own good.... I mean... why else would they do it?
It permeates every topic on this board.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Please understand, Nash being a Canadian, has problems trying to wrap his head around freedom.
Oh absolutely! Live in the states for a while Thrawn, and you really get overwhelmed by all the freedoms. It's disorienting at first. I mean...... waaaaaaaaaaay different. It's like two completely different worlds, it is that different. So much different.
There really is a big difference.
Really.....
-
I feel free right now!
Here in Birmingham as a british citizen ( it says that on my passport before you tell me I'm a subject. )
-
Yeah but that's only because you just took your pants off.
http://www.freeballersofamerica.com/
-
freeballin'.
That's a Tom Petty song, right?
-
Nash, you're wrong and I'm right. That's all you need to know here.
-
American Libertarianism seems to be a good thing. However, there's a problem --- What about people who do, in fact, need welfare?
I've had first-hand experience with this, as have plenty of my friends. When your Dad isn't healthy enough to even get out of bed for a year, the "too lazy to work" excuse gets thrown right out the window. The same goes for when said Dad is too ill to walk for more than 100 yards at any given time.
Taxes are needed for some things. That's just how it goes.
And there's a difference between American and European Libertarianism. American Libertarianism is what's being discussed right now: Very, very small government, with no taxes or any "government handouts" whatsoever. European Libertarianism is Socialist: A government meant to protect the civil liberties of all citizens, with free government programs to support the people.
I'd say I'm in between the two. American Libertarianism just has too few (or none at all) programs for people who can't make money, and European Libertarianism has a bit too many restrictions on business actions.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Nash, you're wrong and I'm right. That's all you need to know here.
I thought that went without saying. :)
-
Originally posted by Furious
freeballin'.
That's a Tom Petty song, right?
Sounds more like Ron Petty song.
Harrrharrrr... I'm killing myself.
-
Originally posted by Fruda
When your Dad isn't healthy enough to even get out of bed for a year, the "too lazy to work" excuse gets thrown right out the window. The same goes for when said Dad is too ill to walk for more than 100 yards at any given time.
1. Without the government confiscating so much income and property, people will have that much more money for charity.
2. Dad can choose to get private disability or unemployment insurance.
3. Dad can choose an employer who provides such insurance as a benefit.
-
I hate having to choose bloody everything. Life complicated enough as it is.
Choice is a word used by politicians to absolve themselves of any responsibility.
I said that
:aok
I like my European Socialist libertarians. I pay them thay take care of all the complicated crap. Every few years I get to choose if they stay in their job or not.
The B**tard who managed my Pop's pension fund, paid himself a whacking great salary and bonuses and virtualy lost all Pop's money condeming him to carry on working after retirement age, is still in his job his nice house his big fat car. I can't vote that wa*ker fat cat out of his job!
-
can someone give an example of people who starved to death in America in the great depression before welfare?
funked is right. People will give if they aren't being extorted by their government. I won't watch someone starve to death but...
Knowing there is welfare makes me somewhat callus... "I pay enough" "they get plenty"... etc.
lazs
-
Zulu you shoulda stayed at your parent's :lol
-
zulu... you can vote all you want but if your government gets bigger and bigger you getr more and more powerless... that is fine if you are a woman but not if you are an individual..
problem is... you vote to restrict others rights and then someone else votes to restrict yours and the whole time the government laughs and gets fatter making laws they don't have to live by but keep you in line.
If we banned all motorcycles it would save many lives.. it would save money in socialist medical benifiets and most people in your country would be better off...
and... it would be for your own good... and..
even tho I think you deserve it for your attitude.... I would fight it.
lazs