libertarianism (small L)

I never claimed libertarianism= communism. Dejacque's form of libertarianism is "reformulated communism"

 

One of the primary functions of the brain is to minimize effort and maximize reward. While those calculations are different for everybody, they are, essentially, economic calculations. Socialists want to move all economic calculation into the hands of central planners, who, apparently, can determine the right formulas for an aggregate of individuals to meet every want and need, or, at least, do a far better job of it than those individuals can do for themselves. I can see how it might work, on a very small scale, for a tiny community of libertarians. At the point where the planners are not intimately familiar with those over whom they plan, and not everyone is voluntarily going along with the plan, it stops working and only violent coercion can make it continue, working or not.

 

If it has anything to do with modern libertarianism, then you've said libertarianism=communism. If not, it was a stupid f***ing post and a waste of everyone's time.

- - - Updated - - -

If it has anything to do with modern libertarianism, then you've said libertarianism=communism. If not, it was a stupid f***ing post and a waste of everyone's time.

- - - Updated - - -

If it has anything to do with modern libertarianism, then you've said libertarianism=communism. If not, it was a stupid f***ing post and a waste of everyone's time.

- - - Updated - - -

If it has anything to do with modern libertarianism, then you've said libertarianism=communism. If not, it was a stupid f***ing post and a waste of everyone's time.

- - - Updated - - -

If it has anything to do with modern libertarianism, then you've said libertarianism=communism. If not, it was a stupid f***ing post and a waste of everyone's time.

 

That's a good summary of government in general and why coercion is involved.

Organizing a society to meet collective goals sometimes requires coercion.

The level of coercion that you consider tolerable is essentially what determines where you are on the economic spectrum.

Anarchists and voluntarists are on one end, while authoritarians and totalitarians are on the other. Most other philosophies fit somewhere in between.

 

They usually claim to solve the problem with some form of market socialism.

 

I also equate libertarianism with the non-aggression principle. Most, if not all, positions can be derived from that very basic premise. It is a political philosophy based on principle as opposed to 'might makes right', on which many other philosophies rely (neo-cons and so called liberals, I'm looking at you).

 

QUOTE=Troianii;1062371302]If it has anything to do with modern libertarianism, then you've said libertarianism=communism. If not, it was a stupid f***ing post and a waste of everyone's time.[/quote]
no I've said libertarian communism is a reformulation of communism.

Anarchist communism[1] (also known as anarcho-communism, free communism, libertarian communism,[2][3][4][5] and communist anarchism[6][7]) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property),[8] and in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[9][10]direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[11][12]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

 

Well Ken, actually I'm not saying society needs to be government. You can hire a private company to enforce the law if you like but you still have to decide what the laws are going to be. We'll assume that will be done by a majority in any size jurisdiction you choose. As long as it's not an anarchy. And I don't say laws can't exist without the state. You can become a member of a commune which is closed off to outsiders if you like and make your own laws. Again, the majority will decide what laws to uphold.

No, anyone can't go to any lengths he chooses to protect others from harm. There are prescribed limits and you will live within those limits or be charged and arrested. You have to live within the rules of your society. If a police officer first arrests someone for a crime and then the person is put in a cage, the society has chosen to believe that the crime suits the punishment. You 'will' abide by those laws until you are successful in electing enough libertarians who have a will to change them. What are you trying to argue Ken? And if a police officer breaks the law then the police has the authority to arrest him and charge him.

If I haven't answered one of your questions then I apologize for missing it.
If you don't like the choices in an election then you should have nominated one you do like. If you fail to get your choice on the ticket then you are on the fringe of society and don't have a candidate that apppeals to enough people. You must understand that Ken! And I'm sorry Ken but if a majority in a democracy elect a rep and that rep chooses to make a crime punishable and he has support of the majority then it's perfectly legitimate. If you had elected enough libertarians you perhaps would be having your problems with a majority decision. There's nothing circular about that Ken.

You will live by the rules of your society until such time as you can bring about change. You might as well get used to that Ken because only armed revolution will change it if it's not in the majority's interests. Go for it Ken, if you think you can pull it off.

Well Ken, that "is" the way it is. You can leave it but you don't have to love it. You are free to seethe with hate over it as long as you don't choosed to act out on that hate in an illegal manner. What's the problem Ken? What don't you understand? If you want a libertarian state then elect reps that will give you it. If you can't do that then I've been generous with you in letting you know what your choices are. They range all the way from loving it to getting some people together with guns. Gee Ken, I don't see a problem?

 

In a political context, what I consider tolerable, and what I consider moral are two different things. So, I ask myself, why is it right for me to impose a certain amount of violence upon peaceful people, but wrong for someone to impose more? There is no objective answer to the question that does not boil down to a principle of might is right. If it's right to put a marijuana user in a cage because the government wants it, then it's right to put a dissenter in a concentration camp because the government wants it or a person of a particular religious persuasion to death because the government wants it. All of the trappings of "due process" and "democracy" are just deceptions to justify what are moral wrongs. If you can define system of ethics which objectively allows for some violence to be done against peaceful people for some reasons, but not, objectively for others, I'd be glad to hear it.

Perhaps, it's this idea that society must be organized that should be challenged. Why must it be organized, particularly if the only means is by violence against peaceful people?

 

No, Ken's argument is stupid and a waste of his time. If Ken wants to change things he's not going to do it by crying about the status quo. He needs to convince enough people that his ideas are the right ideas and then get them to vote in some libertarians who will push his ideas forward. It won't happen of course and so the only other alternative is an armed revolution by Ken and his pals. Ken needs to get over it and get himself behind an agenda that has a chance of succeeding.

Maybe Rand Paul but I think Rand is toast before he even gets started on his march to the presidency. Worse than his wacked out daddy actually. And he's a closet racist to boot!

 

Society has decided what crimes are punishable by caging the perp Ken. Would you like me to spell out your options again on how you can change it? Why are you not getting this Ken? Sure, I agree that marijuana laws need to be changed and they are too harsh but I know that crying about it like a libertarians is not going to change it.

But why do you think that smoking marijuana is not hurting anyone Ken? Society has decided that there is harm done to a person or his society if he smokes marijuana. And not to belabour the point Ken, you know what you can do about it if you don't like it!

I would recommend it doesn't consist of gun play and whatever you decide to do is within the law.

 

Why is it the majority? Is there something wrong with a dictator? What if the laws are natural and private courts decide? You're really stuck on that "majority rules" idea. Even in the US, the majority does not rule, except on extremely narrow issues. The majority doesn't even choose who is in charge, except from a small pool of well-vetted candidates.

I didn't say "chooses", I said "necessary." I might have qualified that further with "reasonable" so I will allow for your confusion. To give an example, if someone has trespassed on my property, it is probably reasonable for me to eject him by telling him to leave and if he doesn't leave, resorting to threats of violence or perhaps obtaining the help of others to eject him. The last resort, injuring him (possibly killing him), would only be necessary (or reasonable) if all other means are exhausted. "Choosing" to kill him outright would be wrong regardless of government rules on the matter.

That is such a cop out argument. You complain about libertarians not having strong arguments, and then you throw out weak tautologies. The "law is the law." Yeah? So what. Do you want to have a discussion about libertarianism (you started the thread, if I recall) or do you want to hide behind mundane facts of the way things are right at this moment?

And, society doesn't make rules. Society is not a thing that exists. Governments exist. people exist. Societies are just conceptual labels. So, what you are arguing is that either one "has to live within the rules made by governments" or that one "has to live within the rules made by other people." Which is it? And why "must one"? Is there a moral obligation to follow rules made by individuals or governments, regardless of the rule, or when is it morally right to discount a rule made by others?

Again, "society" believes no such thing. Some men and women believe that the alleged crime suits the punishment. Some men and women do not. How do you determine who is right? By your arguments so far, it seems as if you believe that might is right. If the people with political power make the rules, then the rules are right. So, I'd ask you, how would you know when the rules are objectively wrong and should be ignored or even actively resisted? Is that ever, in your mind?

Are you now telling me what to do as a way to avoid having to articulate your principles or find some objective disagreement with mine? I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily. The government does not have the right to define what is or is not a crime, for it has no legitimate authority to do so. If I choose to abide by the rules made by governments that are not consistent with what I believe to be ethical principles by which interactions can be determined to be right or wrong it is only because there is the implicit threat of violence should I choose not to follow those rules. That there is the threat of violence and that government makes rules does not make the violence or the rules legitimate.

You keep answering it with circular arguments.

Your argument boils down to this "the system is right and good because it is run by democracy; democracy is right and good because it runs the system." That's as circular as it gets. You can't define why your system is legitimate, other than that you believe it is. It's like a Bible thumper who insists that the bible is entirely true because God wrote it. If God wrote it, how can it be wrong?

And here I thought you wanted a discussion. You just wanted to patronize. Next time, start your thread off with "I have no way to defend what I believe to be true, so I want to patronize some people for not believing what I believe." You'll save us all a lot of time and effort. I can get the same sort of reasoning out of my grandmother when she wants to save my immortal soul from the hellfire of damnation, and, since I love her, I'd be spending my time far more fruitfully with her than with a stranger.

 

Seeing libertarianism as a marriage between "left and right" is a huge mistake and mischaracterization. Libertarians often argue against the left-right paradigm entirely, and use it only to explain to people in simple terms what they believe because people are socialized to think in that erroneous way already.

There are not two sides to philosophy, despite the many simplifications. A libertarian would argue that both conservatives and liberals apply their views inconsistently, hence why they do not align with either.

In general, all libertarians follow the Non-aggression Principle. Wikipedia sums it up quite well:

Libertarians may be more oriented toward markets or towards socialism depending if they view property as a right. Those that do are typically labeled "right libertarians", and those that do not are labeled "left-libertarians". I simply call left-libertarians socialists, and reserve libertarianism to those libertarians that believe in private property. A "right" libertarian believes that "left" libertarians violate the non-aggression principle by violating property rights, and a "left" libertarian would argue that "right" libertarians violate the non-aggression principle by instituting a right they believe is an aggressively enforced privilege.

Therefore government intervention in the economy and government intervention in social choices are equally aggressive and impermissible according to libertarians. A libertarian would say conservatives claim to support small government, but love big government when it comes to advancing their own social policies. They would say the same about liberals with regards to economic policy. Conservatives care a lot about tradition and efficiency, liberals care a lot about equality and fairness, and libertarians care a lot about liberty. Those are the key differences between the three very distinct political belief systems.

You can disagree with libertarianism, but suggesting it is incoherent or something of that sort probably does in fact mean you do not understand it very well.

 

Given the answers of the OP, I'm inclined to think that most people have no political philosophy at all. They believe the party line, and that what government says is a rule is right and good and if it doesn't "feel" right, then the system is perfectly good for changing it, eventually, no matter how many people are harmed or killed in the process.

 

What I want from you is an answer as to why you believe that the system we have is valid. And, I'd like to know why any other system is invalid. For instance, why is North Korea wrong to imprison three generations of families in horrid, squalid concentration camps if they believe it is for the good of society? Or, maybe, in your mind, they are right to do so.

Try this: Go buy some marijuana. Carry it in your pocket for a little bit. Then, smoke it. Now, identify the victim of any of those three actions. Bonus if you can identify the victim of your use of the smoking paraphenalia.

If there's no victim, there's no crime.

"Society" doesn't decide anything. You constantly conflate government with society. Why is that?

 

Ken calm down and let's start again. I'm trying to help you but you refuse to be helped. You know your options now so what point are you trying to make? Things aren't the way you want them to be Ken but there's really nothing much you can do about it if you don't want to accept one of my options that will help you.

Really Ken, I would strongly suggest that you choose a different ideology while you're still young. People waste their whole lives on libertarian nonsense. Just look at Ron Paul because he never really changed a damn thing other than cause the rabid right lowlife to hate blacks more.

Any more questions you have please feel free to ask, but I suggest that you ask in a civil way.

 

Technically, you could say this same exact thing about libertarians as I pointed out in another thread. It is only the anarchist that does not use government to socially engineer at all. The rest is all just subjectively acceptable degrees of authoritarianism.

 

monty,

I don't believe 'libertarianism' is nonsense. Let me state that first. Then, by looking at some of your posts, on various threads, allow me to a comment on some.

You state that 'It appeared to be starting to change with Obama but now it's not so certain. When the poor and middle class can't vote in their best interests then it can't change. The 'american way' fallacy is stopping them from bringing about real change. When people aren't even convinced that their country owes them good and adequate health care for all, it's an indication that they don't want change'. It only appeared to change with Obama to those who didn't know any better. Right out of the gate, the man flip-flopped man times, just like many politicians. I'm no way stating McCain was any better, but I wouldn't stake a claim on 'change' and 'Obama'. Same type of President, same results, nothing changed.

In regards to America, as a country, you have to look at the policies that the government has enacted. The 'American Way' isn't a fallacy as free market countries (Hong Kong is a perfect example of a near free market but with limited government intervention) prosper the most. The problem with the way America is built now is there is too much government intervention. Mix that in with the 'dollar' being at or above ~60% of the global reserve currency, when the Federal Reserve tampers with the value of the dollar (Through quantitative easing and printing money to be used in fractional-reserve banking), you see variants to the global economy. When you lump that in with the higher taxes, the amount of spending occurring by the government (Especially with the banking & business bailouts), there is no true capitalism in America when we continue to bailout failing companies or give 'stimulus' to companies that are friends with the President.

If we look at the stock market of America, one would believe that America is coming back. Funny because our growth is still slow, unemployment is still high, we're doling out massive amounts of money to those who need it (Entitlement programs), in yet, the stock market is rising? That's because of the QE the Federal Reserve is doing with the treasury bonds. They are creating lower interest rates, this leads to more investments, and eventually leading to people buying more stocks. When the Federal Reserve stops their $85 billion a month expenditure, you're going to see another 'bust' occur. Thus, why I've been trying to get all of my state representatives to sponsor and push for the 'Audit The Fed' bill through the US Senate. It's already made it through the House of Representatives with another votes to be veto proof. By seeing what the Federal Reserve has been up to, we can (hopefully) get back to some form of normalcy with our currency. I still have my doubts, but I'm hopeful, nonetheless.

I also would like to add that I don't believe my country owes me anything. I do believe everyone should be treated the way they should be treated (Fairly and respected) and should have access to health care. My concern is the 'Affordable Care Act' and the way it was implemented. It left entirely too many loopholes and it's not going to help lower healthcare costs, it's only going to raise it. There are some estimates that state it would be an extra $10 an hour for companies for every worker working more than 33 hours a week and $52 an hour for 50+ employees. This probably fits in where you believe libertarian's are greedy, if I'm wrong, I apologize. However, allow me to say a few things. First, I agree everyone should have access to healthcare. I've heard too many stories of how people are denied coverage for whatever reason, I absolutely disagree with that. More to the point, this policy isn't going to effect big corporations, those who you claim we're with. This is only going to effect the small companies (Mom and pop shops in the inner cities, the exact people we're trying to help). Obviously this remains to be seen, but it's not unlikely to begin seeing companies 'tighten' the reigns a bit by laying off workers or not hiring more workers. The whole point is to get people into work and what we're potentially doing is getting them out of work. Thus, healthcare should be available to all, but at affordable ways that isn't going to hurt one group of people to benefit the next. At the rate it's going now, we're only benefiting the insurance companies, drug companies, and doctors & hospitals, not those who need the healthcare.

Again, I don't side with the big corporations. I side with the individuals themselves, no matter what race, gender, religion, or anything other category. In this economy, EVERYONE is hurting but those on the top, who can afford to do whatever they want. That's why I've been saying that government needs to leave corporations alone. The problem we have in America is corporations are massing a ton of money and buying themselves ridiculous policies that only benefit them. Small companies can't afford to do that, so they are stuck dealing with the burdens that government imposes on them with the aide of big corporation lobbyists. Then, because small companies hurt, they effectively hurt those aimed to help out the most (The lower income, poverty stricken families).

All the Presidential candidates, of the past couple of elections, have talked about how the private sector creates jobs, how the small businesses are the fuel to getting the economy going again, in yet, they all make the back door deals with the big corporations that got them into power. My beliefs don't align with that. Competition breeds better prices for consumers. If all we are left with are big corporations, they are allowed to dictate what prices we have to pay for various items. That's an improbability and one, that I know most libertarians that I've spoke & dealt with, share the same opinions. Maybe not libertarianism across all spectrum's of the world, but I do know those I've met and discussed in America, we do.

 

What makes you think I am not calm? Does my mood affect the veracity of my arguments, or is this just another deflection?

Help me, what, understand how the system works? I understand very well how it works. I reject it and I do not consent to it. Now, explain why the system is legitimate.

Oh, there it is. "I don't agree with your views, therefore your views cannot be mature like mine." Your intellectual dishonesty is pathetic. You came here asking what are the views of libertarians, and you really didn't want to know or even engage in the conversation. You want to instruct people about your views. Even worse, your views have little or no substance to them that one can't get from the average demagogic politician.

What, exactly, makes you think that your stance is compelling?

What makes your opinion of how people spend their times and lives more valid than those who actually do what they want to do? Again, what makes your way of spending your life trying to tell others how awful their views are more compelling?

You never had the intention of being civil.

 

Exactly right. The OP started a thread asking about libertarianism but acquiring understanding wasn't his goal at all. He simply wanted to try and belittle people with whom he disagrees. He doesn't have any idea why he disagrees, but he's certain that he does. He cannot even articulate his own political philosophy, if you can even call it that, beyond 'because that's the law'. Anything can be excused with that line of thinking, indeed, throughout history that has been the justification used for all sorts of terrible and heinous acts.

 

Here's a question for you. People in the 18th and 19th century spent their entire lives attempting to abolish slavery. Some of them went so far as to violate the Fugitive Slave Act, among other laws, in order to help escaped slaves find freedom or some measure of it elsewhere. Now, according to you, the abolitionists were not only wasting their lives (many of them were several generations from seeing an end to slavery) and those who violated the laws were criminals. You can't deny that your arguments would have fully supported slavery, and fully supported the punishment of those who didn't see and treat some human beings as chattel property.

 

So, if I follow you correctly, are you stating that monty would've actually been apart of 'Whigs' in trying to ratify the 'Corwin Amendment' instead of the 'Emancipation Proclamation'?

 

Mmm...no. He would have told the people of the south that they should just get over whatever it was they needed to get over and trust their leaders to do the right thing because, after all, they are the leaders and they wouldn't be the leaders if they weren't going to do the right thing. Anything else would require too much effort to sustain, I suspect.

 

Ah, sorry, I was merely making a joke and wasn't necessarily implying that's directly what you were saying. I should've made it a bit more clearer than I was.

However, the Corwin Amendment would've been the same thing, in premise. Merely that the Federal government has no say and no authorization to interfere between the state's. Thus, if the state's voted to keep slavery around, the Federal government realistically had no say in the matter. So, in theory, if the states agreed that slavery was 'constitutional', he would've went along with it because the leaders of the state agreed it was the right thing to do.

 

I am NOT a Libertarian for various reasons but I have a great deal of sympathy for Libertarian views. I want to look at certain points.

1) Nomenclature: Words mean what people use them to mean. If I say "girl" I mean a female child. Whereas "Girl" In medieval times meant any young person and In Anglo Saxon times it meant 'Man' (Caerl). Similarly 'Libertarian" may have meant something in 19th century France that it doesn;t mean in 21st century UK and USA. When we talk of Libertarian now it is appropriate to use the common modern Ango saxon world definition which refers to the Minarchist/Anarcho-Capitalist position.

2) One very great issue I have is over planning. I travel much in the 3rd world where anyone who has land can just build on it and the cities are repulsive, no parks, terrible traffic jams, overflowing sewers etc . The Libertarian theory that 'the market will provide a solution' doesn't work' . Cities NEED planning and close regulation.

3) Possibly most imnportantly is that unless all land was redistributed equally to everyone it makes no sense to defend the property rights of those who have wealth when they are based ultimately on a social contract.