Author Topic: Libertarianism (Read 2059 times)

culero · « **Reply #75 on:** February 21, 2005, 11:19:02 PM »

Quote

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".

Quote

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

Nash · « **Reply #76 on:** February 21, 2005, 11:20:33 PM »

Quote

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?

Nash · « **Reply #77 on:** February 21, 2005, 11:21:24 PM »

Quote

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.

culero · « **Reply #78 on:** February 21, 2005, 11:29:42 PM »

Quote

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

Nash · « **Reply #79 on:** February 21, 2005, 11:38:46 PM »

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?

Toad · « **Reply #80 on:** February 21, 2005, 11:50:52 PM »

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?

Nash · « **Reply #81 on:** February 21, 2005, 11:52:04 PM »

Same 'ol.

You sayin' that's the case with the Libertarians?

culero · « **Reply #82 on:** February 22, 2005, 12:01:54 AM »

Quote

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

Toad · « **Reply #83 on:** February 22, 2005, 12:05:16 AM »

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.

Nash · « **Reply #84 on:** February 22, 2005, 12:23:43 AM »

Quote

"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. "

Quote

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!!!!

Toad · « **Reply #85 on:** February 22, 2005, 12:44:10 AM »

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.

Nash · « **Reply #86 on:** February 22, 2005, 01:01:28 AM »

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?

Creamo · « **Reply #87 on:** February 22, 2005, 01:33:48 AM »

I read each and every word you posted Nash. Good points.

Still, rolling enchiladas, and Sp4de knows what the ladies like.

Chairboy · « **Reply #88 on:** February 22, 2005, 01:42:24 AM »

Quote

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.

Toad · « **Reply #89 on:** February 22, 2005, 01:45:31 AM »

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.