Libertarianism

[Munkii]

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.

[Red Tail 444]

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

[Furious]

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.

[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.

[lazs2]

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

[Shamus]

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

[culero]

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

[Nash]

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.

[Octavius]

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

[lazs2]

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

[Thrawn]

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.

[lazs2]

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

[Nash]

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.....

[Zulu7]

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. )

[FUNKED1]

Yeah but that's only because you just took your pants off.
http://www.freeballersofamerica.com/