I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Okay Laz, what do you think of this idea? We abolish the entire welfare state except for support of those disabled Americans who can't support themselves and don't have families to support them.

Interesting theory. I'd have probably starved to death, or ended up in prison in 1990 if that had been our social system.

Poor bloody families of handicapped kids requiring 24-hour support. Who would support them? I think there might just be a bit of a rise in abandonment and infanticide rates, don't you? Still, it's not your fault if there are dead babies. Just walk on by.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I'll have to write a LazBlog on libertarianism at some point. It'll help get a few things out of my system.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Interesting point. All I can say is if you read Republican or Democrat plank philosophies, you will see incredible extremism there as well. Here I see alot of extreme Libertearian positions being taken to the extreme. We are human, believe it or not.

I was a paperboy for about 5 years, from 5th grade to 10th grade, and I in no way feel exploited. In fact, I was very glad, as a kid, I had the chance to make money.

Public Schools: A much more teneble and workable solution is simply more local control. So yes, Libertarians would be in favor of abandoning the department of education. But something as extreme as ditching all public education is akin to Al Gore wanting the death penalty for dealing drugs. It was an extreme position, but opinions in America, no matter what the media tells you , are quite diverse.

As I have said before, I have talked face to face with 1000's of strangers about politics, and they say unbbelievable things when they lean in close to you and say things under their breath. Many didn't even know what LIbertarian was, so they would say things to me like "Mexicans are not ready for freedom" or "I think draft should be mandatory for everyone" or "I let my 14 year old smoke pot" or "Bush was connected to 9-11"

Back to public education: the Libertarian philosophy says privatize, privatize, privatize. Now, with the common American wisdom that Public Schools are the only way, even though our education system only standard, but our spending per student is #1 by far, why not let some counties, perhaps even some states attempt a private Education System? I wonder if Idaho, or Wyoming or Nevada could come up with a working model?

This is the United States of America, and our strength is supposed to be in our diversity, but if we are not even allowed to be diverse, nay even have politicians run who caryy diverse opinions....

Ok, but what about paedophilia? Are child porn and child prostitution legal in your libertarian society?

[Monk]

Berzerker, Floyd, others,

It seems to me you've made a choice to live in the U.S instead of some lawless country without authorities of any sort. I'm sure such countries exist out there in the third world, countries where you can own any guns you'd like, take all the drugs you'd like and never see a tax collector. I understand why you prefer a place that has running water, peace and prosperity, but as far as I can see, your decision to live in the U.S means you've actually valued your material goods and your personal security higher than your freedom. So the question is how this can be consistant with the rest of your beliefs?

[Dr Strangelove]

In the 1960s one county in Virginia abolished its school system. They did so not for strictly Libertarian principles, but to avoid integration. The result was that the average level of education fell and that county is still one of the poorest in ther state.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Freedom is simply the lack of coercion.

Death by starvation is a very strong form of coercion.

Originally posted by David Floyd
I know that you lefties like to equate freedom with money, but that just isn't the case. There is a difference between being FREE to do something and being able to AFFORD that same thing.

No difference.

Suppose you need conditions a1, a2, ... an to do E, lacking any one of these means you are not free to do E. Free as in the ability to do something as per your wish.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

a greater good that surplanted, went beyond mere morality, something higher and more important

But isn't the greater good 'morality'? Maybe not the common morality of that time and place, but for the greater, better morality that would be vindicated in the future. It's still morality.

They aren't the same thing, which is WHY people feel the need to then rationalize. The "greater good" is a value beyond Morality, and such a realm does exist. Now, as you did , one can try to ratiponalize something and put it still in moral phrases, but that quickly breaks down.

Nowadays the one thing valued above morality is survival only, which is why people excuse immoral and cruel bahavior as long as it is in the name of a "life struggle", or "self-defense": no one ever asks though the probbing moral question of what moral value there is to someone willing to act immorally surviving? If you are willing to do anything to win and live (including the deeply immoral), then how much do you differ from the other? And even if not in scale, have you joined in kind? [this is not creating an answer, simply pointing out this question, which to me seems the obvious followup, is rarely definitively answered, if commonly brought up].

Now, in the good old days, the Glory of God and Honor were also some of these "higher" values beyond morality.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But that would mean the King defined morality because he had the power.

Ding, ding, ding! You get a cookie .

Nowadays the one thing valued above morality is survival only, which is why people excuse immoral and cruel bahavior as long as it is in the name of a "life struggle", or "self-defense":

I'd contend that this IS a part of morality. It is moral to act in such ways if it is in the name of self-defense or life struggle. I don't see how you can seperate the 'greater good' from morality.. isn't morality a greater good in the first place?

[GePap]

NO, and someone like Bez is reat proof..he has a very strict moral code, in which the "greater good" is meaningless and in fact, Immoral. MOrality is a code by which individuals in a society should be have..how can "survival" be part of that?

Just think of the phrase "a necessary evil": if everything feel under morality, anything that was necessary to do woul be 'good'. We know that not to be true.

[Odin]

Libertarianism will never work because humans, by natue, are communal, we do things to help the "tribe" as a whole. When agriculture was invented it became possible for some people to exploit others because people began to specialize, they were at the whim of others if they wanted to live. Communism closely matches human nature, Libertarianism conflicts with it.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Sandman
Ok, but what about paedophilia? Are child porn and child prostitution legal in your libertarian society?

Re-read my post until you understand it. I am not wasting any more time on your troll.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Odin
Libertarianism will never work because humans, by natue, are communal, we do things to help the "tribe" as a whole. When agriculture was invented it became possible for some people to exploit others because people began to specialize, they were at the whim of others if they wanted to live. Communism closely matches human nature, Libertarianism conflicts with it.

So communal, people will sue anything at the drop of a hat.
So communal, some people live in apartments and others in mansions.
Agriculture ended communism? Perhaps. But remember who the oppressed were. Your logic is flawed, because the ones producing the necessities were the ones oppressed. The "specialists" were the oppressors. The economic system had nothing to do with the oppression. It was the people who weilded the swords. Just like in many capitalist and communist nations in the past century.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
In the 1960s one county in Virginia abolished its school system. They did so not for strictly Libertarian principles, but to avoid integration. The result was that the average level of education fell and that county is still one of the poorest in ther state.

I never heard of this. You wouldn't perchance know the name of the county would you?

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Monk
Berzerker, Floyd, others,

It seems to me you've made a choice to live in the U.S instead of some lawless country without authorities of any sort. I'm sure such countries exist out there in the third world, countries where you can own any guns you'd like, take all the drugs you'd like and never see a tax collector. I understand why you prefer a place that has running water, peace and prosperity, but as far as I can see, your decision to live in the U.S means you've actually valued your material goods and your personal security higher than your freedom. So the question is how this can be consistant with the rest of your beliefs?

What country would that be? Portugal perhaps. This is just that tired old "If you hate it so much why don't you go somewhere else?" nonsense. you know "It's people like you that make our country go down the toilet" grr.... we could go round and round all day.

And, surely you have heard of the free state project? Libertarians are going to move somewhere, which can be not only difficult socially, but economically as well.

[Berzerker]

Laz -

I think it's highly unlikely that an unsupported person with profound disabilities will retain much dignity. Playing the PC trap doesn't work on me, Berzerker- it tends to fail on the brutally pragmatic. It all boils down to what "taking care of them" means, you see. Take a look at the status of the profoundly disabled in nations where they receive inadequate support (these theoretical libertarian nations or poor, backward 3rd world hellholes. To me the two are interchangeable) and see what their prospects are like.

3rd world nations are theoretically libertarian? Dignity is not obtained by stealing, "legally" or not.

Cobblers. Having seen you define the libertarian stance I'm now conceding that a tiny minority of the overall levels of disabled might just support libertarian causes. As "dancing away" goes, that's the fall of a single snowball off the face of a glacier.

Is that a retraction? A tiny minority of "abled" people support libertarianism so what does that say about your indictment? away, Laz...

So your government's useless? That's no argument for scrapping support to those already suffering from their incompetence, is it?

Freedom is useless? Spoken like a true lefty. You didn't answer my question, Laz.

Charity fails. It never worked even back in medieval times, and that's why the Poor Laws were passed. That's why in Britain every donkey receives 10 times as much charity funding as every handicapped child. **** that.

Laz, people weren't free in medieval times. If charity fails, it's because liberals don't put their own money where their mouths are. But charity succeeds in this country, look at how much money was raised in the wake of 9/11.

Yes! "Liberal = Thief"! The battlecry of the struggling Libertarian.

Just speaking the truth, do you think Swiss and German institutions should have to return wealth stolen from Jews? If so, why? You obviously believe stealing isn't stealing if it's "legal".

Well, as far as I can see Libertarianism is just an botched attempt to slap an oily veneer of pseudo-respectability on rampant sociopathy, propagated only by the plumply-smug. If it's your lifestyle choice, go get 15 pit bulls and an M-16 and go live in a bunker somewhere because that'll get you a darned sight closer to your dream than impotent flailings on the internet. Until then, pay your taxes like a good civilian.

I have a better idea, try stealing from others without hiding behind government.

Interesting theory. I'd have probably starved to death, or ended up in prison in 1990 if that had been our social system.

Why? I was "homeless" and without government handouts and I didn't starve or end up in jail. Contrary to this liberal mindset that the poor need you, I sure didn't when I was poor.

Poor bloody families of handicapped kids requiring 24-hour support. Who would support them? I think there might just be a bit of a rise in abandonment and infanticide rates, don't you? Still, it's not your fault if there are dead babies. Just walk on by.

You aren't paying attention, I asked if you would support abolishing the welfare system except for the disabled who can't be supported privately. Btw, it isn't my fault if you kill your child because I refuse to take food from my family to support yours. You are responsible, doh! Let us know when you get back from Africa and your mission to help the disabled there... Oh wait, you say that's their problem?

sandman -

Ok, but what about paedophilia? Are child porn and child prostitution legal in your libertarian society?

No, age of consent.

Monk -

Berzerker, Floyd, others,

It seems to me you've made a choice to live in the U.S instead of some lawless country without authorities of any sort.

Libertarianism doesn't require the absence of authority, just the opposite.

I'm sure such countries exist out there in the third world, countries where you can own any guns you'd like, take all the drugs you'd like and never see a tax collector. I understand why you prefer a place that has running water, peace and prosperity, but as far as I can see, your decision to live in the U.S means you've actually valued your material goods and your personal security higher than your freedom. So the question is how this can be consistant with the rest of your beliefs?

You assume we would be free where we moved and by your own description of this "paradise", not even you accept it would be free. But most of us have roots, families, and friends. Now, why should we have to move and leave behind what we love just to avoid other voters stealing our property? Would you tell the victims of the Mafia they can simply move if they don't like it? Tell us Monk, why don't you move if you don't like Bush and Ashcroft? You are pulling a bait and switch, citing services libertarians would gladly pay for in a free society and using them to "justify" the massive "re-distribution" of wealth to pay for your "compassion".

UR -

Death by starvation is a very strong form of coercion.

Freedom is not an immunity to life, just an immunity from the actions of others. Try reading the definition of freedom...

Odin -

Libertarianism will never work because humans, by natue, are communal, we do things to help the "tribe" as a whole. When agriculture was invented it became possible for some people to exploit others because people began to specialize, they were at the whim of others if they wanted to live. Communism closely matches human nature, Libertarianism conflicts with it.

Being communal does not translate into theft or "communism", it translates into cooperation.

Imran -

Ding, ding, ding! You get a cookie

While I'm enjoying my cookie, I'll think about where you got the idea that "might makes right".

It is moral to act in such ways if it is in the name of self-defense or life struggle. I don't see how you can seperate the 'greater good' from morality.. isn't morality a greater good in the first place?

And I'll think about why you keep contadicting yourself.