I don't comprehend libertarian ideas...

[Vesayen]

"I haven't seen anyone on this forum or in history prove their truth is 100% accurate. It is always colored by their biases and what they want the truth to be. Just read some the Reagan debates here."

Again, no correlation. Even if everyone on this forum was actually a trained seal, taught to post on forums, that dosent make me one.



" So whoever is in power at this moment decides what the absolute truth is? Wow... I may believe the might makes right, but even I don't go THAT far. What immense power we modern people have. We can change truth by using 'new evidence'!"

Am I, or libretarians in power at the moment? I didnt claim that might makes truth, I claim that truth makes truth.



"How do you know they were wrong? It also does not mean you are right if they were all wrong. You have to prove to me that you are 100% correct and to date no one has come close in doing so."

You implied every person ever born was wrong, therefore I must be wrong too, I am saying if you flip a coin 20,000 and its heads, the odds of it tails on the 20,001'th flip is still 50/50.



"Who says the Catholic Church in the 1500s wasn't correct? If there is a God (unprovable, of course) and his son gave the keys of heaven to the Bishop of Rome, then perhaps they were the ones who had the 'absolute truth' (as they beleived)."

Relevance?




"Why are you so quick to answer no? What is your justification for saying no? What is your evidence? You merely stated a question and then a one word answer. Why is it so self-evident to you?"

Every single human being has desires that they wish to do-a desire to choose-they are born with them, they are natural. Can you think of a better way to give most people the most amount of choice other then freedom?




I have to go for the night, Bezerker, continue on the fight!

[Berzerker]

Imran -

And being a right winger, that shows how extreme you two are .

"Extreme" is a word "moderates" use to hide the fact they can't tell right from wrong.

If the fatal blow is being powerless and 'moral' then so be it. I don't consider that a fatal blow.

I do if the goal is a moral life, but if you prefer standing before God on judgement day with a long line of victims pointing their fingers at you, telling God "Hey, but I was powerful" won't cut it.

And his black/white thinking comes out again... you can ONLY be moral and powerless or immoral and powerful to Floyd, you can't be a little immoral with a little power or a little immoral with a lot of power, etc.

Rape is immoral, or would you argue it can be moral because life is not black and white? The power you desire is the power to compromise away other people's freedom, a compromise with those who don't want freedom. So if you ally with them, they might throw you some crumbs and you get to call it "power". You remind me of the one time witch in that movie "The Craft" blathering on about the power she lost after she used it to screw other people, "But I could fly, I could fly"...

Being 'moral' matters little without any power in order to make others as 'moral' as you. Wow... you are 'moral' in a sea of yourself. Big deal .

So stop peeing in our sea.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's a sad thread when I find myself agreeing more with che over government policy rather than the 'capitalists' . That's the problem with extreme libertarians... they turn off those who would be a moderate wing of their party, and I guess they like it that way (no power, no compromising, I guess ).

Ha ha.... you moderate? I don't think so. That's the problem with right wingers, they are so convinced their twisted way of thinking is such common sense, they don't realize how one man's common sense is another man's lunacy.

[Ned]

Speer, as a good national socialist, how can you be against national health care? The NAZI's gave Germany the world's first national health care system.

I too am warming to the idea because today we primarily have employer-based health care which is becoming a real drag on business. Freeing business from these costs is a good idea.

The problem I have with the socialist-plans is that they pay for such government programs with hugely progressive taxation which itself cripples business. There is a whole thread on the consequence of the demoralizing effects of massive taxation in Finland by Pekka that gives one pause.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Libertarians are hypocrites, because they claim their morality and rights are absolute, but then draw a line in the sand at reparations for the decendents of the wronged. "Oh, it would be too difficult to figure out who proffited from slavery/genocide/invasion/theft by government and who the decendents are and who were should divvy up the reparations, so we just won't do it."

Of all the rediculous things I've seen you write, this is by far the most ludicrous. Your logic isn't even linear, and a misrepresentation of our beliefs. The core belief of a Libertarian is one man should not control another, it is dehumanizing. So, to make someone to pay for the sins of someone else is totally un-American and injust at it's core. It has nothing to do with the complexity of the task. In fact, people who are pro-reparations are a tiny, tiny minority of this country.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Who ever said we thought the government was moral? Morality is besides the point. No society is moral. All have a foundation of theft and genocide and slavery. We commies simply say, we feel free to take the whole of society since you have no just claim anyway, as you stole it from others.

Libertarians are hypocrites, because they claim their morality and rights are absolute, but then draw a line in the sand at reparations for the decendents of the wronged. "Oh, it would be too difficult to figure out who proffited from slavery/genocide/invasion/theft by government and who the decendents are and who were should divvy up the reparations, so we just won't do it."

Libertarians are interested in preventing abuses in the present and future, not in trying to get justice or vengeance for the long deceased.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Ned
There is a whole thread on the consequence of the demoralizing effects of massive taxation in Finland by Pekka that gives one pause.

And yet Finland is the most competitive country in the world
Just because one individual looses his faith doesnt mean that most Finns wouldnt understand high taxes as a necessity to run the country. And in fact the taxes are being cutted and will be continued to be cut. High taxes have their ups and downs you know, not just dowsn

Someone said: "Does a human being have the right to dominate another for any reason? No"

So why would you have the right to defend your home? Why would it be right to throw people to jail? How are you not dominating other people if you have more money and therefore more opportunities in life? How are you not dominating the poor guy if you get to have the best medical care and he wont be taken in because the doctors prefer paying customers?

[Sikander]

"Oh Libertarianism! People will be murdering each other for fun, and it will be against the law for you to help someone!"

Give me a break, please. Almost any system can work when the people who work within it have a belief in it. It may or may not have a competitive advantage to other systems, and that may or may not have a lot of meaning. But people who live as they wish have a satisfaction advantage that may or may not be important on a global scale, but is paramount on an individual scale.

The political realities in this country are that any libertarians who manage to wield official power of one sort or another are almost certainly going to have to deal with large majorities of demo-publicans wherever they are. There is little chance that any of their agenda is going to be passed, and most of their influence will be eaten up in attempts to make the laws that do pass a little more palatable to libertarians. Today that probably means a shift in the drug war from criminalization and interdiction to medicalization and treatment, a reduction in or an attempt to restrain our activities abroad, an attempt to shift monies sent to the public school system into voucher programs that at least give parents a choice of schools rather than simply forcing everyone to support the incompetence allowed by the NEA due to their political power, and in general attempts to preserve the liberties that we retain while pushing government away from some of the liberties it has already usurped. Libertarians are never going to be strong enough in my lifetime to even fit one plank of Floyd's platform into law. I'd be happy simply moving things in the right direction.

[Ben Kenobi]

And I don't care if a person who robs a grocery store was starving - he should STILL go to prison for a good long time.

DF:

Remind me not to give you money on the street.

You ask why should you be responsible for events beyond your control? Many things happen in life, and we have to deal with them as best as we can. One thing I think you'll find is that when you give a fellow a boost, is that you might hope for such a boost in your affairs later.

Secondly, you ever hear of mercy, of compassion? I would take the fellow for a meal, (I have in the past), because that is how I would want to be treated if the shoe were on the other foot. He is still a human person, deserving of respect.

What were the first words of Cain, after he slew Abel? "Am I my brother's keeper?" These are the same words I hear from you, that I do not have a responsibility to help those in need as I find them.

Or again, "whatever you did not do for the least of these, you also did not do for me."

I agree in that no one should be forced to help someone in such situations, it should come naturally. I have had many people help me out and I hope to do the same for others.

Now, I want to ask if this is the compassion you show to the man on the street, how will you treat your fellow libertarians?

[David Floyd]

Remind me not to give you money on the street.

OK, but giving someone money on the street is voluntary. I'm talking about involuntary action.

Secondly, you ever hear of mercy, of compassion? I would take the fellow for a meal, (I have in the past), because that is how I would want to be treated if the shoe were on the other foot. He is still a human person, deserving of respect.

Yes, and I'm a human as well, with certain rights. Other than that, see above.

What were the first words of Cain, after he slew Abel? "Am I my brother's keeper?" These are the same words I hear from you, that I do not have a responsibility to help those in need as I find them.

I would think that you, of all people, would know that this was Cain's way of trying to get out of having committed a murder.

I agree in that no one should be forced to help someone in such situations, it should come naturally. I have had many people help me out and I hope to do the same for others.

So what are we arguing about, then? You don't think I should be forced to help others, and neither do I.

Now, I want to ask if this is the compassion you show to the man on the street, how will you treat your fellow libertarians?

Might wanna be careful saying that I never try to help others....I'll leave it at that, but some people know what I mean.

[Vesayen]

"Secondly, you ever hear of mercy, of compassion? I would take the fellow for a meal, (I have in the past), because that is how I would want to be treated if the shoe were on the other foot. He is still a human person, deserving of respect."

Since it seems your coming from a religious perspective, there is no merit to a "good deed" if your being forced to do it. If you stop supporting welfare, stop paying taxes, you get locked in a big stone building for a few years.

ALSO secularly, shouldnt it be MY CHOICE if I want to help him or not?



"What were the first words of Cain, after he slew Abel? "Am I my brother's keeper?" These are the same words I hear from you, that I do not have a responsibility to help those in need as I find them."

If I CHOOSE to be my brothers keeper I can, but why should the goverment make that choice for me?





"Or again, "whatever you did not do for the least of these, you also did not do for me."

But did Jesus not also say, give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to bring up famous quotes with no relevance and he'll post on message boards all day?

[Whaleboy]

Paying for police protection
Fully private healthcare
Court representation

I wasn't aware that these were necessarily libertarian ideas. They are capitalist ideas, and libertarianism is necessarily capitalist, but capitalist is not necessarily libertarian. Penguins and birds.

Now as for vigilantism, it is crucial to have a fair and objective justice system, not the way it is now where it is oriented to the rights of the victims. The penal system ideally should be about the specific removal of a right of a proven and convicted criminal, not an orgy of repression and wholesale elimination of human rights! Otherwise, the criminal system will merely become a conduit of vendetta and subjective morality, where others may not be free to express themselves in what would otherwise be a legal manner under libertarianism. Needless to say, more police spending and most importantly, better education is required to make that work, so narrow minded idiots don't feel the need to take the "law", or rather their own moral position into their own hands. Even the most repugnant criminal is entitled to a fair trial where they can prove themselves, humane treatment, the opportunity to redeem and rehabilitate themselves and become useful members of society again. In a case of society vs the individual (and the victim is surely society in both ways), justice must be objective as the word implies, not a tool of the plaintiff.

Capitalism that will destroy itself: Lasseiz-faire capitalism has the odd attribute of being so capitalistic, it can only destroy capitalism. You have complete free trade and no regulation at all and monopolies form... trusts form... and suddenly, competition is effectively destroyed.

For classical libertarianism, yes, however that sucks. I have been working on a philosophy called the "Mill Limit" where one places a limit on rights, in order to keep liberty at its theoretical maximum. This would serve to place a limit on capitalism, preventing it from getting so big it breaches others Mill Limits. Such a concept imo is required to make libertarianism work, however, since it will reduce the role of government substantially, it will work well, under certain conditions of course .

similiarly, let's take the libertarian hatred of public education

wtf?? Firstly, public education is required to make libertarianism work, the danger with rights is that people will not know how to use them, and thus we have social breakdown unless the education system is good. I dont know any libertarians with a dislike for public education. You must get away from the notion that taxation and public spending is antithetical to libertarianism.

I think DF makes an interesting point- libertarians don't care about anyone else. The concept of freedom they espouse begins and ends with themselves. There is no hint of a society in their ramblings, just a desire for anarchy.

Anarchism, or rather, libertarian communism in fact proposes a very orderly society, based on the premise of education. Libertarians, indeed most liberals do care about others, its a common strawman and ad hominem I have commonly faced that argument and found it to have very little basis in reality. As PLATO would say, all political systems seek to make the world better, just in different ways. For example, take the care of totalitarianism. As a libertarian, I despise it, but I would never support a war of a lib society against a tot society because I recognise the fundamental subjectivity of my position. It comes down to another liberal premise: to each, his own.

NeOmega:
Sikander:

One thing. A lot of you are talking about morality. I find this to be a strange concept, that is very individualistic, that is to say, my morality will differ from yours. For example, I smoke cannabis and am bisexual, which will counter other perfectly reasonable people who believe I shouldn't be allowed to smoke pot or to practice anal sex. Both can coexist in a given society provided one does not impose on the other, a state of affairs that sends us well on the way towards a libertarian situation anyway. As such, again, to each his own, and no-one to impose on another. A society can be geared in a particular moral direction, for example, guidance given in education, but this should not become law and only at most a social custom... thus one would not be breaking the law by countering that... for example say nudists walking down the street where it is the social norm to wear clothes etc. Lets leave morality out of politics imo.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would think that you, of all people, would know that this was Cain's way of trying to get out of having committed a murder.

My point is the same. Your attitude uses the same concept, that we have no moral responsibility to help other people.

Might wanna be careful saying that I never try to help others....I'll leave it at that, but some people know what I mean.

Just going by your words, that you would prefer to have the boy who steals food thrown into jail for a long time, and on nothing else.

I don't know why you made that point, DF. It seems to me superfluous to your overall message, and downright contradictory if you would help that person.

[David Floyd]

My point is the same. Your attitude uses the same concept, that we have no moral responsibility to help other people.

We have a moral responsibility not to harm other people. Your example of Cain and Abel is invalid because Cain failed in his moral responsibility by harming Abel - NOT by "failing to help" Abel.

Just going by your words, that you would prefer to have the boy who steals food thrown into jail for a long time, and on nothing else.

Absolutely. Anyone who steals should go to prison (OK, fine, not a 4 year old, but you get the idea).

I don't know why you made that point, DF. It seems to me superfluous to your overall message, and downright contradictory if you would help that person.

Unless it happens to be in my self-interest to help others, of course

And helping others quite often IS in our own interest, which is the primary reason we choose to do it.

And you weren't meant to understand the point, by the way - if you don't get it, I'm not explaining it, and those of you who DO get it will damn well know to **** off with that "David is an uncaring bastard" argument.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, no correlation. Even if everyone on this forum was actually a trained seal, taught to post on forums, that dosent make me one.

Every human = x
You = human
Therefore: You = x

Good enough correlation for you?

You implied every person ever born was wrong

Where did I imply that? I don't know if they are wrong. I don't know if they are right either. I will only know if there exists a God and he (or she) tells me what is 'right'. Aside from that, everyone is just guessing.

Relevance?

You don't agree with the truth of the Catholic Church of the 1500s, I'd surmise. So why is your 'truth' better than theirs? Or is theirs better than yours? and why?

Every single human being has desires that they wish to do-a desire to choose-they are born with them, they are natural. Can you think of a better way to give most people the most amount of choice other then freedom?

But you don't give every single human being all his 'natural' desires. Every human wishes to be well fed and have shelter. Shouldn't that mean you should give every person a house and enough food to survive?

Secondly, where do you get the idea that it is 'natural' for humans to desire to choose. Most humans, from what I've observed, are sheep who rather desire to follow as long as they are well fed and have shelter.

You have to prove to me that it is the desire to 'choose' is so great that it should override everything else (note: I'm not saying I disagree, but I want to know why you come to your reasoning, because you haven't proved it yet).

"Extreme" is a word "moderates" use to hide the fact they can't tell right from wrong.

No, it's a word the moderates (you know the people that get things done ) use for wackos that can't learn to live in society and play well with others.

I do if the goal is a moral life, but if you prefer standing before God on judgement day with a long line of victims pointing their fingers at you, telling God "Hey, but I was powerful" won't cut it.

This presupposes that there is a God and if there is, then this God will judge humans.

Furthermore, what is more 'moral', staying ideologically pure and watching the world go to Hell (pun not intended), or compromising a little bit and making the world a more 'moral' place (according to your beliefs)? Only when you get in power can you attempt to put your ideas into place and make the society 'better'.

Rape is immoral, or would you argue it can be moral because life is not black and white?

Of course rape can be 'moral'. If the society believes it to be moral, then it is. QED.

The power you desire is the power to compromise away other people's freedom, a compromise with those who don't want freedom.

I didn't know that those that want freedom, but not total freedom are considered people that 'don't want freedom' at all. Libertarians don't want total freedom. They don't want people to have the freedom to steal (after all the first definition of freedom is being 'free of constraints'... and isn't the law a constraint). Are libertarians thus those that don't want freedom?

Libertarians merely want more freedom than other groups. Of course there is disagreement over how much freedom should be given. After all, people live in a society. Other ideals such as equality are considered important by most people as well. There must be some sort of balance struck between the two... or else you have socialist revolution, and I'm sure you'd hate that .

Ha ha.... you moderate? I don't think so. That's the problem with right wingers, they are so convinced their twisted way of thinking is such common sense, they don't realize how one man's common sense is another man's lunacy.

So amusing and ironic. After all, libetarians are 'right-wingers'. Berzerker even puts libertarians on the extreme right wing of his scale (I wouldn't do so on mine). Yes, your 'common sense' is lunacy to other people .

And ask around the forum. I'm considered a moderate libertarian / moderate Republican / moderate right-winger. I don't think the words 'extreme' are used to describe me.