An Honest libertarian Discussion Thread

[FONT=&quot]An Honest libertarian Discussion Thread[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Seems to be much discussion about what denotes libertarians (the political philosophy, not the party) of late, and the end result is a lot of confusion and a lot of trolling. So in an earnest attempt to spur an honest discussion, I am beginning this thread. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So what is libertarianism? Well to understand it, you have to understand the principal that it is based upon, the Non-Aggression Principal. The beginnings of this principal began to develop in Ancient Greece and were written about by Epicurus in “Principal Doctrines”. Throughout history, there have been many great philosophers touch on it, but is coagulation was attributed by Rothbard to St. Thomas Aquinas. The Mises Institute, a leading libertarian organization, has a good definition:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So much for the history lesson and definition, now let’s examine how libertarianism compares in today’s political philosophies. As left is opposite of right in social concerns, libertarianism is opposite of authoritarianism (were government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians). If you placed left-right on the x axis to represent social concerns, you can place authoritarianism-libertarianism on the y-axis. This lays out a more accurate representation of politics than the stand left vs. right. This chart from the Political Compass Organization is a very good start to understanding that politics in America is not the usual one dimensional left/right dichotomy as laid out by the two major parties and their adoring fans, but is more two dimensional. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The vast majority of people unwittingly fall north of the x axis, supporting various degrees of authoritarianism. However, the nation was founded and maintained south of the x axis, venturing north in the mid 1800’s. It could be argued that examples of the upper left hand corner is found in the ideals of Communism and the upper right in the ideals of Nazism, but that is a subjective assertion best discussed in another area of the post. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is an excellent illustration that lends an overlay (although the y axis is inverted) to the political compass that illustrates how many political belief systems falls on it:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now, just like the left/right dichotomy of authoritarianism, libertarianism has a left right dichotomy as well. This is why I think the Libertarian party has such a “big tent” organization. For all intents and purposes, there should be at least two Libertarians parties. Why not? Authoritarians have the Republicans and the Democrats. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So, from here we can open discussion- so do you think my observations are fairly accurate? I want to explore your observations as well, and develop sources and origins from which your beliefs evolved. What influenced you? What would you amend? However, be forewarned: all attempts to troll this thread or take it off topic will be reported. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

Your picture makes no sense. You have neo-liberals next to communists. Neo-liberals are economic libertarians (colonialists).

 

Libertarians are economic conservatives, and social liberals.

They are generally republicans because the economic liberties trump any social liberties, even though they support both liberties.

 

It's hard to say that the nation was founded and maintained south of X, given the knife-edge of compromise that had to be walked to get the Constitution ratified in the slave states, and what happened for the next 80 years regarding it. But you could argue that the Federal government was attempting to deal with a difficult situation as best it could, which it was. And yeah, Lincoln's draft laws turned the corner on that one, overlaid as they were with the Emancipation Proclamation.

But it's very difficult to be a real libertarian, and it's doubtful most people could violate their natural instincts to boss others around "for their own good", if given the opportunity, and thus it's extremely difficult for a nation succumbing to mob rule to even consider such a silly idea.

Certainly things work best when there's fewer rules. If nothing else, resources aren't wasted funding a hundred levels of police and snoopers just to baby-sit the citizens.


Well written post, btw.

 

Real libertarians recognize that the woman's right to choose starts and stops with her ability to say "no" to sexual activity. In the case of rape, this ability must be enhanced with her personal freedom to carry a gun, and her obligation to learn how and when to use the thing.

Since the rapist isn't executed, it makes no sense, anywhere, to execute a person who didn't even exist when the crime was committed.

It's just morally wrong, since killing an unborn child violates the rule that people aren't property.

The liberals love to say, in regards to capital punishment, that "two wrongs don't make a right", auotmatically assuming that executing baby-raping scum like Jose Avila is wrong. Well, if executing a convicted baby-raper, for whom there is absolutely zero doubt of his guilt, is wrong, then so too is the Libertarian (see the "L"?) position that killing unborn children is A-OK. More wrong, in fact.

As far as the victim of rape goes, check the logic of the people advocating baby-murder as an option for the rape victim. They'll refer to the child as "his" child. Whether the rape victim likes it or not, it's "their" child. In a word, it's "her" child she's killing. She has the ability to give the child up for adoption if she wishes. She has no "right" to kill others, no matter how small.

 

A common mistake made when analyzing history is placing actions and movements within thier scope and time. For the most part, slavery was an accepted world wide institution, and slaves were property. putting it in today's context, it would be akin to discussion natural rights for my Dodge truck. While there were founding fathers that wrestled with the issue of slavery, they were considered revolutionary ideas in that context (not new per se).

Thank you.

- - - Updated - - -

Clarification please- what are you specifically referring to when stating "it should be legal to kill off the next generation".

 

Your post makes no sense what so ever.

 

Communism next to tyranny? Collectivism is government related? both are for the abolition of the state ...

Guy who made that chart must be a political science drop out , way to start a honest discussion OP but again you are a libertarian...

 

If I were to guess and he means what I think you think he means (lol), I think he thinks that all libertarians believe in abortions. But I hate to make an assumption, which is why I asked for clarification.

 

Really?

The Mayor is 100% libertarian, with noted national defense exceptions because libertarianism isn't a suicide cult.

Sure, the Mayor doesn't care about "gay marriage", it's none of his business who marries who, and it's been obvious for over a decade that the issue is a soccerball, kicked around to get people over on this side of the court or the other. That trinket is going to be goaled, soon, so the propagandists will have to come up with a new one soon.

Drug use? It's unconstitutional to regulate it. Yeah yeah yeah, don't argue the Commerce Clause, there's a reason the 18th Amendment was passed and ratified. And that reason was there wasn't any legal foundation to do anything so stupid. And clearly the drug war is one of the greatest tools the statists on the left and the right have to continue their destruction of American liberties.

Racial discrimination? The only significant purveyors of that are on the left these days.

Pissing money away on the poor and useless is a "social issue". Libertarians believe that anyone who wants to (*)(*)(*)(*) their own money away on the useless should be free to do so, and they believe that the government has no business sticking their machine gun in the face of anyone who thinks pissing their money on the useless is stupid and only produces more useless people.

Nor should the government be running hospitals, MessiahCare scams, schools (read Jefferson's 6th State of the Union Adress), retirement Ponzi Schemes, or old-age medical insurance scams.

 

By the time the American Revolution happened, a strong abolitionist movement was coming to life in England and a little later, in the US. The Revolution happened on the cusp of that issue. England resolved it's slavery question without war, but South Carolina had already been divorced from the Mother Country by then.

Jefferson spoke words of emancipation....he just couldn't afford to free the slaves he inherited (he was a bit more hypocritical than was good for his historical image). The issue of slavery was biting in the US precisely because of the glaring light shone on it by the poetry of the Declaration of Indepence, the lofty ideals of the Revolution, and the Constitution itself. Just looking at it from the viewpoint of the contempories reveals the difficulty society was having with the issue.

The Mayor is not trying to put those issues, then, in today's context. It's always possible that the effort fails, of course. He certainly re-instructs his children in history after they've been misinformed by the public schools. (Today's assignment, explain what really happened at the Boston Massacre to an 11 year old. Given the stupidity of today's media, the one, the only Boston Massacre happened on March 5, 1770. Call the more recent event the Marathon Massacre to keep them straight).

You're welcome.

 

I am vaguly familiar with Lord mansfield's decision, but you have to consider that he, along with some of the founding father that were influenced by the likes of Locke, were the Vanguard of the abolishings. Besides Russia, it was still a predominant institution.

I understand you intent, and it is appreciated. It is the purpose of the thread, after all.

 

In theory communism is supposed to lead to the abolishment of the state, but communism sucks so bad, you need a state to force people into such a flawed ideology, thus the state never goes away. Next, how is striping private property(Collectivism) from individuals, not the very meaning of authoritarianism?

 

How we can debate if you ignore the very basic concepts of communism and collectivism ?
I will respect your ignorance on the subject since i do not judge people for the books they chose to read in their free time.
Don't take it as an insult and don't feel embarrassed but communism does not strip anyone from his property rights ,this is from the Soviet constitution of 1936 and yeah Stalin signed it.

 

Lol, so dictating what possessions are protected under law, and what isn't protected proves your point?
Hip hip hurray!!!, my household furniture and utensils are protected under law.

 

You have to divorce your pretty theories from fantasy land and figure out how they work in reality.

In reality they not only never work, but can't work. You ever read Hayek's "the Road to Serfdom"? Do so.

There's a critical stumbling block between the childish wishes of the collectivist and achieving the dream. That reality is that the first stages always entail surrendering all power to a central government to control things in the [hoped for] transition period. But humans being what they are, once they get their hands on that power....they don't let go, and, in fact, they grab more and more. Happens all the time, from Bonaparte to Lenin/Stalin to Hitler to Mao to Castro to Mugabe to Obama.

 

Heh , i guess you do know what the social contract is about ...
I can understand failing politics but failing logic is kind of rare.

 

How can a debate begin on those subjects when the roots of those concepts are not grounded in an accurate understanding of human nature?

The United States Constitution was written for one purpose...to make it as difficult as possible for politicians to follow their base natures and seize power. The Constitution worked very well indeed, better than any other similar document, because it provided "checks and balances" everywhere on the exercise of power. The Constitution pits the self-interests politicians against each other, harnessing a strong human motivation, the desire to keep their jobs, in the process.

When did the Constitution fail and the governemnt start assuming excessive power? The Constitution didn't fail, the people failed the Constitution and have been simply ignoring it for over a century now. What happened? The politicians harnessed a stronger human motivation, the individual's greed for unearned money and their jealousy of those with better financial outlook, to drive them away from Constitutional government. Alexis de Toqueville predicted this.

What is the basic problem with all forms of collectivism, including the foolish experiment the United States is making now? Collectivism is an altruistic belief system. Which means it's based on what would most charitably be called transient feelings of pity and concern for others. The evidence of the failure of any atruism-based ideology can be measured by the strength of the threats employed to collect taxes and enforce "volunteerism" in the so-called altruistic state.

Libertarians aren't altruists unless they feel like it.

Of course communism doesn't strip anyone of their property rights. They're just not allowed to have any.

 

Watched the below vid the other day with Thomas Sowell. He'd studied Marx extensively and liked it until he figured it could never work, which im pretty sure he says it in the vid.

Thomas Sowell on the Vulgar Pride of Intellectuals
[video=youtube;Wln6lNTxVpY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wln6lNTxVpY[/video]

 

I think conservative and libertarian match fairly well, at least both can head closer to the goal anyway. leftism is just from another planet. Anyway what you appear to be talking about here seems close to RockingMrE vid below, whos channel ive subscribed lately

Minarchism or Voluntaryism?
[video=youtube;gsnSlU0boRw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsnSlU0boRw[/video]

 

Your post doesn't make any sense, collectivist experiments in the states????
Collectivism is not what you think it is ( yes i can write a 1000 words post to open your eyes on the subject but from my experience people here are too lazy to change their terminology ) and also :

I feel like i am derailing the thread and this was not my intention , what OP presents is not new or innovative , we had that stuff in Europe and the result was "eurosocialism" which is rotting centrism at it's worst form .

In the states you have a radical right party (Republicans) and a center-right party (Democrats) , i think your Greens can touch the left in some subjects and that's it.

*note : i have studies in political science so i do know the basic concepts behind USA 's system

 

The problem I have always had with the x axis is that where you fall depends largely on the framing of the questions being asked. For example, asking someone if they support abortion and them answering no will tend to land them in the authoritarian category. Which is not an accurate representation of their position since the idea is not to tell people what to do but rather to defend the child's basic right to life. I don't see how that's any more authoritarian than supporting anyone else's right to life. It's the same way that if we were to take the completely hands-off position of "just let people do what they want," then ultimately that would have meant that the more libertarian position on slavery would have been just to have left it as a states rights issue and to have left the south alone.

Personally, I have no problem owning the places where I actually do sit above the x axis. And there certainly are some. As I always say, I'm not interested in having a pissing contest with anyone over who can be more libertarian. That's a contest I'm not going to win. But I just won't accept allegations that falsely represent my level of authoritarianism. I think it's dishonest.

 

You can't judge American parties by European standards and expect to come out accurately. America largely has an increasingly outwardly moving left/hard left party (Democrats) and a weak-kneed follower center-right/slowly moving left party (Republicans).

By our standards, nobody outside of America even has a right. All other western countries simply have left and further left. Your right wing extremists would be liberals here.

 

The rapist has no right to tell his victim what to do with the baby.

 

Yes US political parties are to the right of the average mainstream EU ones but we have to define what is left.
A center-left government will have never force citizens to buy private insurances but instead open a public fund (or more)
A center-left government would have nationalised and keep national all banks / businesses that went bankrupt
A center-left government would never have trust issues with their citizens (drones?)
A center-left government would have actively look to decentralise leaving state matters to states
A center-left government would have protect ISPs from the financial burden of policing the internet in the name of copyright holders
A center-left government would have never pass a sequester

are we okay with this ?