Libertarianism...A Parody

No country is pure anything so then no system can ever be criticized. But if a country believes in small government with very few public services, low taxes, few regulations, army never gets sent abroad, and free capitalism reigns you could call it libertarian......and Somalia.

 

Well, I'm not arguing for small government with very few public services, low taxes, fewer regulations, army never gets sent abroad, and free capitalism reigns.

I'm arguing that a person ought to be legally free to use her body or property as she wishes, as long as she doesn't uninvitedly violate the body or property of someone else.

So maybe you want to be tilting at some other windmill.

 

Oh......I thought you were a libertarian. You should read the party platform. What you are talking about is a tiny part of it.

 

"Look, another windmill. Let's go, Sancho!"

 

You are a tiny fringe group of the fringe group that is libertarian. Lol

 

And that proves.....?

 

That you are not a libertarian. It's like saying I'm a democrat but I ONLY support equal rights for gays. That's it. You are not a libertarian.....you are an activist for a single cause.

 

Okay, I'm fine with your labeling of me.

So then it's not true to say that my ideas, taken to their conclusion, result in chaos and anarchy. Since my ideas aren't libertarian.

However, like I know anything, non-libertarianism, taken to its conclusion, results in chaos and anarchy.

 

Your ideas aren't anything. Who knows where they would lead? It is one issue. You could get what you want in Somalia. You could pretty much do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone. You could also do this in a cabin in the woods by yourself. But you want the benefits of a civilized society.....and you can't have both

 

Why is that?

 

Because it has never been done in a successful current country. Everything that can be tried has been tried. Everything. Your theory does not exist in the real world because it can't. It like communism....great on paper but it also does not exist on a large scale

 

YEs you are in fact inventing them out of thin air.

None of the ideas of Friedman or Rothtard even remotely resemble your fictional narrative

 

Examples, please.

 

Somalia, Sudan, Congo....etc

 

Non-libertarianism, that is, authoritarianism, certainly has lead to the death of hundreds of millions in just the last century. It has lead to the enslavement of countless people over the course of centuries. It has held back the course of human progress by casting people against each other, usually for no good reason other than the passions of people who want power and control over others.

 

What does Somalia have in common with the Libertarian party platform?

Now, if we were to look at Somalia, we'd notice some startling facts that are inconvenient to statists. Prior to the collapse of the central government there, the US backed dictator created a number of humanitarian crises. In fact, as a person who advocates for statism, I think you should take some responsibility for voting for the politicians who back evil dictators. But you don't believe you have blood on your hands when it's someone who does it on your behalf, right?

While the US has now struggled to establish a new central government (and a dictator who murders people that you can look up to and admire or hate depending on what your rulers tell you to think), the area currently referred to as "Somalia" is still aid-dependent. It receives a lot of aid from the US and the UN and other agencies, which the warlords use to oppress their people and kill their enemies. There's not much semblance of a free market or property rights there. What's interesting, however, is that there is more semblance of a free market than there was when the US backed regime ruled.

The question is, as a new regime gains a foothold, will they prove you right that a centralized state is better than a decentralized one? Or will it be the opposite, and what little gains have been made in Somalia will come to an end or be reverted, and you statists will stick your head in the sand and blame some other source for the disaster. Just like you've all done with Venezuela.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you know that the Libertarian Party has a pledge? Do you know what that pledge is? Longshot can tell you. Regardless of the party platform (which I think you have absolutely zero clue about), the pledge is the definition of libertarianism. It is a political philosophy which has a clear principle for defining right and wrong in political action.

 

Great, come to some libertarian forums that are open to everyone, including the brilliant critics. Like you, they derive their political beliefs (how individuals should be controlled and ruled over by other individuals) from evolutionary theory, biology, neuroscience, the philosophy of the mind, and egoism. Unlike you, they are fascists, nationalists, communists, etc. The problem for all of you is that without a clear principle, you are all correct in that your and their morals are suitable for everyone to be forced to follow.

 

None of which are libertarian societies, nor have they been...anything else?

For your reference, because there is so much ordinance in this thread and in others regarding libetarianism, I started this thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...t-accurate-libertarian-discussion-thread.html

 

There are no libertarian nations or societies... because in order to function as a nation or society...the crap libertarians try to sell must be put aside. That crap, labeled "libertarianism", quickly devolves into chaos and anarchy.

Libertarianism is the enemy of society, nationhood, and civilized structure.

 

Uh, yeah. Ya think?

 

Rothbard was a anarcho-capitalist but one problem with anarcho-capitalism is that it still retains a belief in ownership of property established by Title (written or implied) and "title of ownership" is based upon the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings where the monarch bestowed the "Title" of nobility and with that "Title" of nobility also came "Title" to all that existed within the territorial confines of the Titled Nobilities' estate granted by the king.

The Natural Right of Property doesn't establish "ownership" per se but instead is based upon the "Right to Use or Consume" that which is necessary for the "support and comfort" of the person (established by their labor), and no more than is necessary for their support and comfort, and where even that is limited because the right to use and consume only exists if "enough, and as good" as remains for all other people. As Locke notes, for example, if a person is farming a piece of land they establish the natural right to use that land but if they stop farming the land then they lose the right to use it. They don't "own the land" at all and merely establish the right to use it based upon their physical use of the land for farming purposes.

We would confront a problem in todays "automated" society because a "machine" doesn't expend any human labor and therefore no natural rights are associated to what a machine produces. The farmers that's fully automated where an tractor remotely plows the field, plants the crop, weeds the crop, and harvests the crop doesn't establish any Natural Rights for the farmer that provides no labor related to the use of the land or the food being produced. How that would be dealt with can only be controlled by statutory law and not based upon the Natural Right of Property.

Commerce also falls outside of the Natural Right of Property because it involves more than one person. The natural right of property is based upon the "generalist" that provide all they require for themselves directly from nature. Commerce is based upon a society of "specialists" where each basically produces one item and combined they produce all of the items that everyone requires for their "support and comfort". Locke argued for commerce because by specializing people created more cumulatively than they would if each was a generalist. Specialization increased the total production and that total production increased what every individual would receive from commerce. In short as a generalist, based upon their natural right of property, the person would have "enough" for their support and comfort but when society specializes and engages in commerce everyone should have "more than enough" because specialization increase the total output of all of the individuals combined.

So when we compare economic ideologies like Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" and Locke's "Of Property" from his Second Treatise of Civil Government we find a distinct difference.

Smith's advocacy was for an economy/commerce of "Haves and Have-Nots" based upon "Title of Ownership" while Locke's was an advocacy for an economy/commerce of "Haves and Have-Mores" based upon the Natural Right to "Use and Consume" what is necessary for the person's support and comfort and was limited by what was necessary for the "support and comfort" of the person. There would be no "billionaires" based upon the Natural Right of Property for example because they're no way they can "use or consume" a billion dollars worth of anything.
.

 

This is false although some anarcho-capitalists attempt to claim they're libertarians. They're not of course. They're anarcho-capitalists and not Libertarians. We also have a lot of "Republicans" claiming to be libertarians and they're not libertarians either. They're Republicans.

Where I've seen a serious flaw in your arguments is that you erroneously identify what you think are "libertarian" to beliefs that clearly aren't and are more closely related to Republican ideological beliefs.

For example Republicans oppose the EPA because it forces landowners to comply with regulations designed to protect the environment. A libertarian would support the EPA because no person has a "right to pollute or destroy nature" based upon natural law. While arguably some pollution and destruction of nature necessary for society to exist it can only be allowed based upon a very compelling argument and even then it must be to the least extent possible to meet the needs of the compelling argument.

As a Libertarian I will address one issue of pollution and that's the burning of coal for electrical production. We need the electricity and that provides a compelling argument but does that argument justify the amount of pollution being created by burning coal to provide electricity? Not according to the coal industry that has claimed for at least the last ten years that off the shelf "clean coal technology" can reduce the emissions by up to 40%. When the "clean coal technology" became available then all of the coal fired power plants should have been mandated to convert to use it because it would eliminate up to 40% of the pollution that was "unnecessary" pollution. Of course we have to ask ourselves if we even need the "pollution" created by burning coal because we have vast resources of natural gas that can also be used to produce electricity with significantly lower amounts of pollution when compared to coal. Personally, as a libertarian, I'd outlaw the burning and mining of coal (both of which are highly harmful to the planet) for the production of electrical power because we can use our vast resources of natural gas to provide the same electricity without nearly as much pollution being created.

As a libertarian I would do this simply because no one has a "right to pollute" and the pollution is unnecessary based upon any compelling argument. Republicans, on the other hand, ignore the fact that no one has a right to pollute and that there's no compelling argument for the burning of coal for electrical power in the United States.

In the end, as a libertarian, I support more environmental protections as opposed to fewer environmental protections because we're not protecting the environment enough today and by not protecting the environment we're violating the rights of the people to a clean environment.

 

Nonsense. Libertarians believe in the following statement:

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine (Common Sense)

Libertarians don't believe in this statement:

"That government is best which governs least..." Henry David Thoreau (Civil Disobedience)

There is a huge difference between these two statements. Paine's argument is based upon the necessity of government to protect the rights of the people, addressing violations of those rights by others. The government that is too small to protect the rights of the person is just as intolerable as the government that violates the rights of the person.

When we address government that governs least then it will always fail to provide adequate protections of the rights of the person and, as noted, is just as intolerable as excessive government.

Republicans advocate minimal government based upon Thoreau while Libertarians advocate the much larger "necessary" government based upon Paine.

The United States is actually based upon a "libertarian" ideology, although the word didn't exist back then, and was referred to as "classical liberalism" historically. Classical liberalism is a highly progressive liberal ideology. Unfortunately then, as is also the case today, there were "conservatives" that fought against the progressive liberalism that was embodied in the ideology upon which America was founded.

Many need clarification of this ideology and that's easy because it's contained in two lines from the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The social conservatives in America in the 18th Century when America was founded fought against this highly progressive liberal political ideology and the social conservatives continue to fight against it today.

 

I am no more dumb after reading your illogical, uneducated, uniformed scenario on what you think libertarianism is.

 

Face it. Somalia follows almost all of the libertarian platform. And that is what you get with libertarianism

- - - Updated - - -

Actually they are