Why I am a libertarian, and you should be too

Yup. Click ignore.

I have no patience to deal with people that are johny-tough-guys hiding behind the internet.

 

Blech. Everyone who disagrees with you is on the right? Very tolerant of dissenting opinions. Guess what? People can disagree with BOTH parties.... Do you want to know how I know? Here I am, right here, hating both parties at the same time!!!

 

I just did the same. Hating the federal school system makes you a right wing supremacist. Blech.

 

No tough guy deal involved actually. A lot of disrespect for your media. When you lose an argument you run away. the trademark of the ignorant. Or violence.

 

And voting GOP I bet

 

You are unable to give me an example of the terrible things the department of education has done. Run away then

 

I’m trying to avoid party designations that have the word “Arian” integrated in their spelling

 

Lol

-arian
Learn to pronounce
Filter definitions by topic

See definitions in:
All
Astrology
Christian
suffix

1. (forming adjectives and corresponding nouns) having a concern or belief in a specified thing.

 

I think he just doesn't know how to spell Aryan .

 

It’s just that there are so many “arians” that make me nervous
Like:
Vegetarians
Librarians
Proletarians
Authoritarians
Totalitarians
Extra Terrestrialarians

I’m okay with Agrarians as long they are not using human slaves or abusing their farm animals

 

humanitarian

 

USA's Libertarians are pretty awful. They'll get half of their platform passed but, the missing half is the entire portion to limit the power and expansion of the state. Their members have zero backbone with enforcing anything and will ultimately result in a collapsed society due to the ever increasing state.

 

I really laughed out loud.

Extra Terrestrialarians

hahahahaha

 

*rolls eyes* again, because our Democrats and Republicans are doing such a ****ing bang up job. amiright?

By saying the state (no capitalization) I am assuming you mean the fed. I still have no idea what this sentence even means.

WTF? We have "zero backbone" enforcing anything because we believe in nearly unlimited individual liberty. That doesn't mean we don't have a backbone, that means we don't give a **** what you do with your life and we would really appreciate it if you stopped giving a **** what we did with ours.

Only an authoritarian is incapable of understanding that not wanting power and control over other people is "weak".

 

So you’re supporting Justin Amash’s potential candidacy for President?

 

Nice post. You made more sense of that word salad than I could.

 

Everyone might not agree with your assumption that one wants to live in his or her country, nor that everyone has opportunity to move within the US. It seems to me, when you have considered "individual rights", you ended up thinking only about your own rights (and rights which are relevant to your situation and assumptions), leaving other people's concern by the wayside.

 

In that system, a business sick of taxes can move to Oklahoma, but a poor person can't move to a place that means that rich kids won't have an unfair leg up (both in that rich people won't move there and in that states will alter policies to compete for rich people). There are ideologies which argue that if governmental redistribution is to counteract unfair accidents of birth, then those laws should be no more avoidable than the accidents of birth are now, i.e. they should be federal or even arguably global. They would suggest the ability to dodge taxes is a bug of the system, not a feature.

Now, I don't suggest that we adopt those other ideologies (the most clear examples have other issues that make them unsuitable), but the contrast presented above gives a hint of what kind of questions I want answered before we can really claim to put forward good reasons to accept those ideologies.

 

I'm inclined to agree, however, it is not an answer to my question. I didn't ask you whether you would throw the constitution out (I figured I already knew the answer to that question, and now that you answered it, it seems I was right). I am asking you what makes the constitution good. I'm not expecting you to fail to provide a good reason and for me then to conclude that the constitution is thrown out, I'm expecting you to give me the reason you think it is good, and when we apply that principle to the constitution, we can see if we can do even better by (for instance) amending the constitution.

 

A free capitalist and competative system allows class migration.

A system designed to acheive equality and income redistribution..is simply bad if that is the primary focus.

Poor people and people with less means find ways to move to areas that suit them...especially in a free society which offers more life long opportunity.

It sorta feels like you are arguing against freedom and choices for the sake of equality?

 

I mean first a tid bit that I'm not actually arguing for systems that focus on equality, I'm well aware of some of their flaws. I'm merely pitting the two against each other so that I can see how Libertarianism deals with that sort of challenge. I want to see what metrics you use to compare systems. (Don't get me wrong, I personally lean towards more "equal" systems that Libertarianism, but I'm trying to drag out of you guys arguments that would stand up on their own, not ones that cater to my personal preconceptions. I use some sort of communism as one spring board for some of the discussion).

Secondly, a central point of a hypothetical argument that I'm going to make is that calling it "freedom vs. equality" is skipping half of the battle already. A person who starves to death, is he free? That's the sort of question that I would like to see resolved before I would say that this is freedom vs. equality It seems to me libertarianism isn't about freedom per se, or freedom of "the individual", as much as it is people with certain interests picking out freedoms that are important to them and then defending those, leaving people with other needs for freedom by the wayside. The world has many unfreedoms in it, those who find themselves at a point where their freedoms are seen to are fortunate indeed.

I'm sure they do, the question is how it should work and why.

 

I'd say libertarians are 50% logical, and 50% wacko.

Is the Grand Canyon an Arizonian treasure? Or, is it a national treasure?

Despite legal logistics, I'd say the latter, and thus policy should be commensurate with upholding that ideal.

 

It is a natural treasure. There is no reason to think that the state of Arizona can't manage the park as well or poorly as federal government.

 

I understand. But my position is limited to the U.S. I wasn't referring to other countries. Also it is about freedom of choice and competition which I consider better than the opposite. If someone doesn't like the way their state is managed but can't leave it for another, that doesn't change the fact that they have that freedom of choice.

Personally, I have lived under a dictatorship and have more sensitivity to the value of freedom than people without that experience.

 

I'm not sure I totally understand your post but I will give it a shot.

How someone rates a government system is based on world view. It colors everything. I could be classified as a libertarian based on the original post...but once we get to "world view" issues me and the original poster start a drastic divide where l see the ideology as more authoritarian then free. Like I said at the beginning...libertarians believe in the freedom of individual states deciding issues not delegated in the perimeters of "federal" powers....unless it's a state decision they passionately disagree with. Then it would be pushed across all states as federal degree. So I'm not libertarian.

My world view is that there are realities that can not be changed. We can never make life fair and we cant manipulate fairness through income distribution because that in itsself leads to unfairness. It's like a big circle...
So what is the best system under my world view?
A constitution that restricts federal powers to specific boundries and allows state and local control as long as individual rights are upheld under the constitution.

The government, especially state and local governments should have a safety net as a hand up and a society should be charitable to those experiencing hard times...but to create a situation where poor people receive other peoples money so that they can have the same standard of living as those who are taxed...is not a healthy endeavor for anybody in a society.