NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do you hate freedom? And how can you justify limiting the rights of others?

Because of YOU! It's ALL YOUR fault!

Why do you hate freedom? And how can you justify limiting the rights of others?

For the same reason there are murderers, rapists, and politicians. ;)

The idea that all men can be infinitely free and yet still form a cohesive society is a flawed one. Ultimately in order to make society work there must be restrictions, most libertarians suggest self-imposed restrictions, however I do not trust the people enough to say that those restrictions would work in the long run. I ultimately believe that if everyone bites the bullet and sacrifices what they do not need then we can build a better future, and that the machine in order to do this will be the body that represents, aids, and directs the people AKA the government. My beliefs are actually totalitarian.

For the same reason there are murderers, rapists, and politicians. ;)

Explain.

The idea that all men can be infinitely free and yet still form a cohesive society is a flawed one. Ultimately in order to make society work there must be restrictions, most libertarians suggest self-imposed restrictions, however I do not trust the people enough to say that those restrictions would work in the long run. I ultimately believe that if everyone bites the bullet and sacrifices what they do not need then we can build a better future, and that the machine in order to do this will be the body that represents, aids, and directs the people AKA the government. My beliefs are actually totalitarian.

And your beliefs are among the most selfish I've ever seen, in the worst way too. You're asking man to give up his only natural right for your own security and what you deem to be good. I'd like to meet you so I could murder you in cold blood, a small sacrifice on your part to help attain my vision.

I think the idea of libertarianism is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't seriously effect each other negatively. The problem is, how much is "seriously"?

Why do you hate freedom? And how can you justify limiting the rights of others?

It's funny how you go about your "inquisiting" in such a reproachful and scrutinizing manner; But I agree and can empathize entirely, it's nauseating to see people who think they can trample over other peoples' rights...
only I can.

But seriously, it's hard to be completely libertarian. Some people know better than others. Some people are meant to be alphas, others, epsilons. Someone needs to control people who are too stupid for their own good (and hence are a danger to themselves, but more importantly, to others). Another problem is often times peoples' freedoms can seem to conflict.

Personally, I am a liberal libertarian... when I feel like it.

'Cause really, what says you have any rights besides some pulp with ink on it?

The idea that all men can be infinitely free and yet still form a cohesive society is a flawed one. Ultimately in order to make society work there must be restrictions, most libertarians suggest self-imposed restrictions, however I do not trust the people enough to say that those restrictions would work in the long run.

Woah cowboy! I think the lad's talking about personal freedoms in the sense of racism, class, and that kind of talk. How could anyone restrict those? If you want to talk laws against public nudity and graffiti, then that's a whole seperate issue.

I think the idea of libertarianism is that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't seriously effect each other negatively. The problem is, how much is "seriously"?

Excellent question. My answer is so long as they do not directly and physically harm someone else.

And your beliefs are among the most selfish I've ever seen, in the worst way too. You're asking man to give up his only natural right for your own security and what you deem to be good. I'd like to meet you so I could murder you in cold blood, a small sacrifice on your part to help attain my vision.
However, he does pretty much illustrate why it we'd be fucked if you remade the world how you want to.

I think the only good solution is to buy an island an make your own "country". I'm currently looking into this, because I too would like to live my life unrestricted.

And your beliefs are among the most selfish I've ever seen, in the worst way too. You're asking man to give up his only natural right for your own security and what you deem to be good. I'd like to meet you so I could murder you in cold blood, a small sacrifice on your part to help attain my vision.

Grow up.

Grow up.

I second this. You probably just lost any credibility to you're arguement right there.

And your beliefs are among the most selfish I've ever seen, in the worst way too. You're asking man to give up his only natural right for your own security and what you deem to be good. I'd like to meet you so I could murder you in cold blood, a small sacrifice on your part to help attain my vision.

that's a bit harsh... What's wrong with limiting the rights of few to create a more cohesive, and progressive society which would benefit all?

Well, to say that you would kill me would undermine your own philosophy and government. After all to enforce your libertarian beliefs upon me would be anti-libertarian and even lean towards totalitarianism. I do admit that my beliefs tend to be extreme but I view your views of freedom as selfish as well. Besides just be glad I am politically apathetic and respect my lawful government enough to realize that I would be worse off for resisting it.

Why do you hate freedom? And how can you justify limiting the rights of others?

I will not grant people the freedom to kill. I will not grant people the freedom to rob. I will not grant people the freedom to rape others. As you can see, there are some freedoms I simply do not support.

There's an old saying: your freedom to swing your fist is outweighed by my freedom to not have to fear getting hit in the face. In this sense, society must manage a balance between personal freedoms and group security. Sometimes governments take it too far, like the Patriot Act in my opinion, but sometimes it's quite necessary. In Great Britain during the Second World War, the government would force people to put down their blinds at night, essentially dictating what people did in their own homes. However, when you consider that the other option was allowing the Germans to be able to find London with ease, I'd say it was a freedom worth restricting. Would you disagree?

Excellent question. My answer is so long as they do not directly and physically harm someone else.

Physically OR mentally. Or how about what the general piece of society wants? I don't want to see your bare butt around my neighbourhood, just as much as I don't want to see you up at 12:00 am talking garbage outside my window.

But seriously, it's hard to be completely libertarian. Some people know better than others. Some people are meant to be alphas, others, epsilons. Someone needs to control people who are too stupid for their own good (and hence are a danger to themselves, but more importantly, to others). Another problem is often times peoples' freedoms can seem to conflict.

'Cause really, what says you have any rights besides some pulp with ink on it?

The problem is the people who are decided to "know better" are often appointed for reasons other than whether or not they do. And worse still is that any man claims the right to know what's better for me than I. And as for what says I have rights, well that would be a firearm. It ain't just for defending health and property.

Woah cowboy! I think the lad's talking about personal freedoms in the sense of racism, class, and that kind of talk. How could anyone restrict those? If you want to talk laws against public nudity and graffiti, then that's a whole seperate issue.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that public nudity is a different issue, but graffiti is the vandelization of another's property. That's claiming your right over another man's hard work and effort. That violates my fundamental law.

And your beliefs are among the most selfish I've ever seen, in the worst way too. You're asking man to give up his only natural right for your own security and what you deem to be good. I'd like to meet you so I could murder you in cold blood, a small sacrifice on your part to help attain my vision.
This is why Libertarianism wouldnt work, there IS such a thing as too much freedom.

Because I despise Labels and avoid labelling myself except in the few unavoidable circumstances where a correct appelation has been given to me by many other people (ie: Absurdist and Technosnob, also INSANE)

Down with the Labeltarians!

I will not grant people the freedom to kill. I will not grant people the freedom to rob. I will not grant people the freedom to rape others. As you can see, there are some freedoms I simply do not support.


Wow, I really am new to this game. You know, I would have thought people to be smarter than that. I guess everything needs to be set out in stone, doesn't it.

Physically OR mentally. Or how about what the general piece of society wants? I don't want to see your bare butt around my neighbourhood, just as much as I don't want to see you up at 12:00 am talking garbage outside my window.

Psychology is bullshit, psychology is bullshit, psychology is bullshit.

This is why Libertarianism wouldnt work, there IS such a thing as too much freedom.

Freedom that restricts is not freedom.

Originally posted by Amerty
Excellent question. My answer is so long as they do not directly and physically harm someone else.

What about generally acting like a *censored*.

And your beliefs are among the most selfish I've ever seen, in the worst way too. You're asking man to give up his only natural right for your own security and what you deem to be good. I'd like to meet you so I could murder you in cold blood, a small sacrifice on your part to help attain my vision.
You favor anarchism, apparently. In which case you should never vote as you don't support the governmental process. Fortunately, that spares the rest of us from ever having to worry about your dystopia.

Freedom that restricts is not freedom.
You object to the universal right to life?

And as for what says I have rights, well that would be a firearm. It ain't just for defending health and property.





You think Libertarians are the only ones who support the 2nd Amendment?


I'm one of the most Liberal people I know, and I wholeheartedly support the right to bear arms, even military-grade ones.

Originally posted by Cruso
Physically OR mentally. Or how about what the general piece of society wants? I don't want to see your bare butt around my neighbourhood, just as much as I don't want to see you up at 12:00 am talking garbage outside my window.

What is the limit to that?

You object to the universal right to life?

If an authentic case is presented as to how it is restricting, then yes.

Well, to say that you would kill me would undermine your own philosophy and government. After all to enforce your libertarian beliefs upon me would be anti-libertarian and even lean towards totalitarianism. .

REALLY?!

It's called making a point. At what's so wrong with your self-centered views.

If an authentic case is presented as to how it is restricting, then yes.
I cant kill my neighbor for keeping me up at night. I cant kill that guy from PETA who yelled at me for not donating to their stupid 'charity. I cant kill the guys from Christian Childrens Fund who make those damn guilt-trip commercials.
You think that anybody should have the right to arbitrarily deny life to anybody they chose?

You think Libertarians are the only ones who support the 2nd Amendment?


I'm one of the most Liberal people I know, and I wholeheartedly support the right to bear arms, even military-grade ones.

I've never implied that, or even thought that.

Ultimately if the freedoms that are described are too broad, people will exercise other freedoms such as the 2nd amendment to eliminate some freedoms by force. Society must agree on the level of freedom permitted. After all, if I am offended by johnny along with my fellows, then I can kill johnny with relative ease due to guns and lead an armed revolt with the guns that are given by my freedom. If I gain enough support I can take over the capital and ban all people who do the things that are offensive about johnny. Libertarianism does not work.

And as for what says I have rights, well that would be a firearm. It ain't just for defending health and property.


Dont be silly. A firearm says you have rights? Thats what people like David Koresh, Eric Rudolph, Randy Weaver, and a host of other idiots thought. Try to guess what they all have in common. Ill give you a hint, those that survived no longer believe that firearms guaranteed them any freedoms.

Ultimately if the freedoms that are described are too broad, people will exercise other freedoms such as the 2nd amendment to eliminate some freedoms by force. Society must agree on the level of freedom permitted. After all, if I am offended by johnny along with my fellows, then I can kill johnny with relative ease due to guns and lead an armed revolt with the guns that are given by my freedom. If I gain enough support I can take over the capital and ban all people who do the things that are offensive about johnny. Libertarianism does not work.

There's nothing to stop that from happening right now, really. The idea of a libertarian government is to exist only to insure no one takes power over others.

I cant kill my neighbor for keeping me up at night. I cant kill that guy from PETA who yelled at me for not donating to their stupid 'charity. I cant kill the guys from Christian Childrens Fund who make those damn guilt-trip commercials.
You think that anybody should have the right to arbitrarily deny life to anybody they chose?

OK, we definetely misunderstood each other somewhere along the line. We all have to find the medium for which every person is given equal freedoms, not prohibiting the other more than he/she is prohibiting you. Thus, we learn to live together. Killing someone because they like to knock on people's doors is a greater violation of their freedom than that which violated yours.

Libertarianism is selfish in my own opinion. Why should a bunch of people get freedoms that are restricted for a reason just because they want them for their own happiness. There are reasons that cocaine is illegal, there are reasons that government intervention is used in our economy, there are reasons that we must draft men. I support a few basic freedoms but beyond that it becomes potentially dangerous. I do not however try to recruit others to those views but will try to fight views as dangerous to society and even to freedom as yours.

How are the leaders of this Libertarian government chosen?

OK, we definetely misunderstood each other somewhere along the line. We all have to find the medium for which every person is given equal freedoms, not prohibiting the other more than he/she is prohibiting you. Thus, we learn to live together. Killing someone because they like to knock on people's doors is a greater violation of their freedom than that which violated yours.
Ah. My main issue was with Amerty here threatening to kill somebody because they didnt agree with his beliefs, which we both apparently agree is contrary to the whole point OF his beliefs.

Libertarianism is selfish in my own opinion. Why should a bunch of people get freedoms that are restricted for a reason just because they want them for their own happiness. There are reasons that cocaine is illegal, there are reasons that government intervention is used in our economy, there are reasons that we must draft men. I support a few basic freedoms but beyond that it becomes potentially dangerous. I do not however try to recruit others to those views but will try to fight views as dangerous to society and even to freedom as yours.

What?! Explain to me how cocaine restricts your freedoms. And don't say drafting men... you can fight for your own freedoms, and if no one else wants them, then that's a fair representation to me!

Libertarianism does not really do anything except change the distribution of power in a way that may not be favorable. Ultimately the government is the best way to limit power, it may be repressive from time to time but it most certainly prevents us all from being slaves to microsoft or walmart. I feel that libertarianism is too extreme to be self-sustaining, and when libertarianism falls someone will probably have the bright idea to say the right to breathe is given by the state and learn from libertarianisms failings in that fashion. I may be totalitarian but I am not evil or pro-Stalin/Hitler/Hussein.

How are the leaders of this Libertarian government chosen?
Thats an easy one.
Chimps throw feces at various sized targets, psychologists then determine from the results which candidate was the most disliked, and he is then made President.
Its all very simple.

Ah. My main issue was with Amerty here threatening to kill somebody because they didnt agree with his beliefs, which we both apparently agree is contrary to the whole point OF his beliefs.

I think for the good of the thread, we must ignore any, and all of his posts.

Cocaine restricts my happiness because it is highly addictive and currently under our system is responsible for crime and other such behaviors in the addicts quest for money to pay for the addiction. The freedom to do cocaine ultimately restricts the freedom of the cocaine user and of the society. As well the draft thing is necessary in order to maintain the society, if no one elects to fight than libertarianism is a lost cause and is no use even discussing.

As well the idea that people choose to fight for their country, even in times of great danger is flawed as well. What will happen is that the martyrs will die leaving the cowards to rule or be conquered or be raped and this would end libertarianism. Ultimately society was not designed to protect freedom to be stupid so much as the freedom to live. A libertarian government is unlikely to stand under the pressures of the people to have safety nets and restrictions. Freedom is the stuff of dreams, but security is the stuff of life.

I'd rather have some of my freedoms took away, then my saftey tooken away. If your not safe, you'll worry, and if you worry, you can't enjoy the freedoms you got.

I'd rather have some of my freedoms took away, then my saftey tooken away. If your not safe, you'll worry, and if you worry, you can't enjoy the freedoms you got.

This is wrong on so many levels (especially the grammar) that it sickens me to read it.

I'd rather have some of my freedoms took away, then my saftey tooken away. If your not safe, you'll worry, and if you worry, you can't enjoy the freedoms you got.
That is a very good point. After all, our ancestors probably had to decide the same thing. It is not likely that they wanted to become serfs or anything of that nature, but a secure freedom to live is better than risking everything to get what is not even useful in some instances. After all, most democratic governments give enough freedoms without having to become libertarian.

because other people don't do those things, both liberals and conservatives love freedom, so libertarians aren't the only ones.

Well, the conservatives and democrats are more moderate. My big reason for hating libertarianism is that I am politically opposite to it. However, given the fact I am somewhat moderate/politically apathetic/know that I would be scorned for actively supporting totalitarian beliefs I tend to not care so long as there are no people promoting excessive/dangerous freedoms(which is rare anyway because the U.S. spends so much time debating little things that although I am morally opposed to, I am not that morally opposed that I feel a deep reason to care).

Why do you hate freedom? And how can you justify limiting the rights of others?
Because in real life certain freedoms excercised by some lead to the diminution of the rights of others. This is primarily why economic freedoms require more regulation than personal freedoms. They affect more people.

By the principle of helping the many at the expense of the few, the greater good dictates that removing certain freedoms, as necessary, for the good of society is justified.

Libertarianism can't work. It's a perfect way to create a third-world country.

Cocaine restricts my happiness because it is highly addictive and currently under our system is responsible for crime and other such behaviors in the addicts quest for money to pay for the addiction. The freedom to do cocaine ultimately restricts the freedom of the cocaine user and of the society. As well the draft thing is necessary in order to maintain the society, if no one elects to fight than libertarianism is a lost cause and is no use even discussing.
Actually I favour legalisation of drugs. My primary reason is not based on abstract "rights" that people "naturally" have. It's because I think that the prohibition of drugs is so damaging to society that (currently illegal) drugs would do less damage to society if they were treated like alcohol is now.

Well, I tend to disagree with the drug thing. But I am for banning tobacco and severely limiting alcohol.

I'm not a Libertarian because: I oppose Anarchy!

why shoudl we like liberty. im a miserable bastard. take it all away.

Why do you hate freedom? And how can you justify limiting the rights of others?

What a simplistic mind you have, full of moral indignation, self-contradictory assertions, and arrogant, flawed preconceptions. How narrow your world view must be. I feel sorry for you.

I almost didn't reply, because of your idiotic statement that to defend certain fundamental and essential rights is to "hate freedom", but I'm curious exactly what you're advocating.

Libertarianism is selfish in my own opinion. Why should a bunch of people get freedoms that are restricted for a reason just because they want them for their own happiness. There are reasons that cocaine is illegal, there are reasons that government intervention is used in our economy, there are reasons that we must draft men. I support a few basic freedoms but beyond that it becomes potentially dangerous. I do not however try to recruit others to those views but will try to fight views as dangerous to society and even to freedom as yours.

Cocaine is illegal because in the early 1900's it was seen as contributing to the economic threat presnted by rural southern black workers. It was also seen as a criminal threat based on biased and racist hysterical newspaper reports (essentially "them evil ni****s are all gonna fet hopped up and kill and rape every white person in the south"). These were also the primary reasons behind the criminalization of opiates and cannabis.

Government intervention in the economy serves only the selfish economic purposes of major corporations.

Conscription ("the draft") is ulimately unfair and impossible to administer in a equitable manner under all systems that I am aware of. Furthermore, if a given nation is under immediate threat and unable to meet manpower requirements, I question if it should exist. Finally, conscript forces are not desirable from a military point of view, as they are not as reliable as voluntary forces.

And the nanny state you describe ("you are being protected from being a thinking and acting responisble adult for your own good because if you think for yourself you are dangerous to youreself" - to paraphrase what you've said) is no different from any other totalitarian/socialist state, IMHO.

Because in real life certain freedoms excercised by some lead to the diminution of the rights of others. This is primarily why economic freedoms require more regulation than personal freedoms. They affect more people.

By the principle of helping the many at the expense of the few, the greater good dictates that removing certain freedoms, as necessary, for the good of society is justified.


That's really it. To expand...

When it comes down to it, it becomes the freedom to exploit. The 'Invisible Hand' is bullshit, people will act in thier own interest to the exclusion of others. A government that is elected is more answerable to the people than a corperation and would stand between them to maintain the balance so that as many of the people have the freedom of access as possible.

What is really being argued is that you want the freedom to exploit, which is to essentially give a big freedom to a few at the expense of the most. When you realise that is the trade it doesn't seem as ideal.

I've seen people who simply want to privatise schools and hospitals and other similar things to lower taxes refer to themselves as 'liberterian'. I've also seen people who promote near anarchism do the same.

It's just too bad we're too different to make it work. Or maybe we just have to little respect for eachother.

In any case, I'm not a supporter of libertarianism. I'm not even a supporter of anarchy. Unless I get to have a say in what people take part in the society. If I do, then I'll take anarchy over anything else any day of the week.

Pathetic but true. Because my conduct can largely be ingnored in a big, lawfull democracy. It can't easily be ignored in a small anarchist society. The only way to avoid serious problems is to form a society made up of likeminded individuals. People who all feel they have an obligation to make the shit work, no matter how much they piss eachother off.

Anarchism on a large scale can't work at all. If USA was anarchistic, if would change to a christian theocracy right now, if the people on NS is anything to judge by. The other reason it can work is it's too complex. Either it would become a representative democracy, or people would starve to death because they spend 24/7 getting involved in the decision making. And that's assuming they wouldn't immediately decent into civil war.

The idea that all men can be infinitely free and yet still form a cohesive society is a flawed one. Ultimately in order to make society work there must be restrictions, most libertarians suggest self-imposed restrictions, however I do not trust the people enough to say that those restrictions would work in the long run. I ultimately believe that if everyone bites the bullet and sacrifices what they do not need then we can build a better future, and that the machine in order to do this will be the body that represents, aids, and directs the people AKA the government. My beliefs are actually totalitarian.

That's why we're Liberatarian and not Anarchists. We recognize that people can't entirely be left up to their own devices, but at the same time there's no moral grounds for preventing anything other than undue application of force (The only due application being against people who break that covenant.). Unlike Thomas Hobbes, I believe Mankind does need a system of control, but certainly not a Leviathan. Moreover, it is my belief that even if it were to damage society and the world, it would remain the moral course of action, because what is right is more important than what is good for the species. Not to mention that working for the good of the species destroys the species.

As examples; I absolutely detest alcohol and drugs, and I think people who indulge are pretty low. I would never, though, proscribe any of them, I'm for the legalization of all substances to over-17s, not because it is good for society (I freely admit it would largely not be), certainly not because I like it or would gain, but because it is right; the individual comes far, far, far before society ever has, ever will, and can ever hope to. Thus; Libertarian.

Why I'm not a libertarian.

1 I beleive that a quality education for every citizen is not only a right, but a necessity in a democratic society. What good is voting if you can't comprehend the issues? Also education makes the most of the population's talents. Why should the nation lose a potentialy brilliant chemist just because he was born too poor to go to school?

2 I beleive that unregulated capitalism produces unsafe working conditions, which undermine the rights of workers.

3 I beleive that unregulated capitalism produces high levels of pollution, which infringes on everyone's right not to be poisoned.

4 I beleive that unregulated capitalism, especially in conjunction with a lack of public education, would drive wages down and force many people into poverty.

5 I beleive that government actually does a better job of looking after those who can't work than private charity. Economy of scale and all that.

Why I am a libertarian:

1) I believe that most corruption and unfair monopolies created within buisness are a direct result of government intervention.

2) I believe that government should be held to the same standards as the individual because they are what it is responsible to.

3) The individual is of the greatest importance. By defering freedoms granted to the individual to the government, we destroy the fabric of human life.

4) In many cases of those who posess extreme wealth, they would contribute large ammounts to charity if income tax was elliminated. This would see to it that the poor are taken care of. If not, then government is only masking the odious nature of humans anyway and we should be damned for what we really are.

5) Power corrupts. Governments are motivated by the desire for power and control. I would rather forego certain "rights" such as an education than sacrifice my free will to a governmental authority.

1 I beleive that a quality education for every citizen is not only a right, but a necessity in a democratic society. What good is voting if you can't comprehend the issues? Also education makes the most of the population's talents. Why should the nation lose a potentialy brilliant chemist just because he was born too poor to go to school?

You assume that education would be lacking in a Libertarian society, when in fact most of the world that isn't the British working class knows very well how important and useful education is.

2 I beleive that unregulated capitalism produces unsafe working conditions, which undermine the rights of workers.

Absolutely not. As soon as anything like that happens, it can easily be termed coercion/application of force and taken to court.

3 I beleive that unregulated capitalism produces high levels of pollution, which infringes on everyone's right not to be poisoned.

Again, this is a popular myth about Libertarianism. In fact, it would be classed as an attack on individuals to pollute, and therefore very easy to take action against. Far easier than it is today.

4 I beleive that unregulated capitalism, especially in conjunction with a lack of public education, would drive wages down and force many people into poverty.

Yes, it probably would drive wages down in some areas, because an unregulated market would mean people were paid accurately for the job they did. And if, for example, a job was paying less than it should, people would leave it or at least, it would stop more people entering into it.

5 I beleive that government actually does a better job of looking after those who can't work than private charity. Economy of scale and all that.

You're pretty darned optimistic is all I have to say about that.

3) The individual is of the greatest importance. By defering freedoms granted to the individual to the government, we destroy the fabric of human life.

See what s/he said? Fundamental truth of existence.

Why I'm not a libertarian.
5 I beleive that government actually does a better job of looking after those who can't work than private charity. Economy of scale and all that.

Have you ever met anyone who works for the goverment? 4 words are all I have, thumbs up their asses.

You assume that education would be lacking in a Libertarian society

You've got to be kidding me! You would allow for all children to decide whether or not they wanted to go to school? That's absurd, why don't we allow them to make their own punishments to! Raise themselves!

Yes, it probably would drive wages down in some areas, because an unregulated market would mean people were paid accurately for the job they did. And if, for example, a job was paying less than it should, people would leave it or at least, it would stop more people entering into it.


Exactly. This is how the free market works when left alone- it regulates itself. Anyone who would oppose allowing the free market to adjust itself needs to read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. It explains how the free market functions and has never been sucessfully disproven.

Exactly. This is how the free market works when left alone- it regulates itself. Anyone who would oppose allowing the free market to adjust itself needs to read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. It explains how the free market functions and has never been sucessfully disproven.

Please, do I have to point out examples of the free market failing to live up to your claims? (check my sig for one example)

In a libertarian society there would be no public schools. Private schools cost money, so some students might not be able to afford an education.

In the 19th and early 20th century we had a pretty libertarian approach to industry. It gave us child labor under unsafe conditions, pollution, and no unions. Only when industry was reigned in by government and unions became strong did working conditions and pay improve.

Don't think government does a better job with charity? Look at Bush's faith based programs. They can deny assistance to people who don't want to join bible studies and prayer meetings. Government doesn't discriminate that way.

You've got to be kidding me! You would allow for all children to decide whether or not they wanted to go to school? That's absurd, why don't we allow them to make their own punishments to! Raise themselves!

Wow, you've managed to miss the point pretty damn spectacularily. I'd come up with a witty comparison, but I think 'You've missed the point more than Cruso talking about Libertarian education' is the new comparison.


In a libertarian society there would be no public schools. Private schools cost money, so some students might not be able to afford an education.

Wrong. Most branches of Libertarianism suggest that schools be privately funded, not solely through parents but also scholarships, corporations (Oh, boy, here we go :rolleyes: ), charities, etc. etc.

In the 19th and early 20th century we had a pretty libertarian approach to industry. It gave us child labor under unsafe conditions, pollution, and no unions. Only when industry was reigned in by government and unions became strong did working conditions and pay improve.

It wasn't implemented with a Libertarian ideal, it just happened to be done without due governmental intervention. Besides which, now that we have this ethos it's not easily going to go back.

Don't think government does a better job with charity? Look at Bush's faith based programs. They can deny assistance to people who don't want to join bible studies and prayer meetings. Government doesn't discriminate that way.

I don't know about them, but, do the faith-based charities help people? If so, then there's no complaint. Put up with a few hours of something you dislike to get your help. I don't like religion much, but it is actually pretty helpful when it comes to motivating people. And if the programs aren't working, that's nothing to do with requirements like that, it's because something is rotten at the heart of the charity itself.

Also a Libertarian government would actively encourage charity, with things like a per-dollar tax credit for private charity contributions. Quite plainly such a strong governmental advocation of charity would help, and the encouragement of church, community, and family over the government would ensure those people who must rely on outside help to bridge an unlucky gap can do so, without humiliation, and with motivation to find a new job quickly.

Well, in theory libertarianism would be an excellent idea. However, education would be partially ignored, it is a good that would be underproduced despite its good effects. It is unlikely that charity would match government contributions towards necessities as well, corporations would only support education to the extent that they see it as useful. This would lead to the smartest kids being very educated and ruling the world(not exactly a bad thing) but as well the average student would be left behind and only given an amount of education needed to do menial tasks. This would ultimately result in classism as the naturally powerful will oppress the naturally weak. Besides cultural values are not easily maintained without a government that supports them. The reason we have those standards for industry is because the government supports them, without government influence these values would erode until there is the rich oppressing the poor(a form of totalitarianism if I have ever seen one). Ultimately libertarianism fails because it can not provide the security that is necessary for freedom.

3) The individual is of the greatest importance. By defering freedoms granted to the individual to the government, we destroy the fabric of human life.

I disagree, THAT'S why I'm not a libertarian

I doubt that any "ism" would work.

which is why, I beleive to have a functioning society, You ahve to combine a bunch of isms, taking what's appropriate and makin' it do what it do.

A nation that runs purely on the ideas of capitalism/liberalism/conservatism/libertarianism/marxism/socialism (any ONE of the above) is bound to crumble.

I think, clint eastwood said a little while back "extremeism is so easy - you go far enugh around to the right, you meet the same idiots coming around from the left" or something to that effect.

Personally, I tend to like with a good bit of a libertarian bent, but at the same time, my head sint so far up my rear end as to know that it, by itself would not work. And we have no proof to say that it WOULD work, either. the proof to the contrary? Lasseiz faire. (sp?)

Someone said libertarian ism is selfish.
And, truthbetold, It is. I don't neccesarily view this as a bad thing.

Well, the government was designed to protect the people from harm. It actually does a pretty good job of it(it still does make errors but every human institution does as well). If the majority of americans agreed with libertarian ideals then they would be a major party, but most americans do not agree(this is a democracy and the libertarians are a relatively known party). We have learned that capitalism must be monitored because of the industrial revolution and because of our experience with monopolies. The government is a very good institution.

THe government IS a good and neccesary intitution, however, There needs to be a means to keep a government in check. The current US system of checks and balances is failing miserably right now.

in order for an ism to work, everyone has to beleive in it.
However, we all know that not everyone thinks the same way, so we can't have that.

Marric']I disagree, THAT'S why I'm not a libertarian

Kindly leave our species.

This would lead to the smartest kids being very educated and ruling the world(not exactly a bad thing) but as well the average student would be left behind and only given an amount of education needed to do menial tasks.

That isn't a completely unreasonable assumption to make. I have two responses;

Surely it is at least better if the brilliant are powerful rather than the high-born?

What would prevent the average from simply purchasing educational products in their free time? Heck, what's to stop them from going to Wikipedia?

Well, most isms require a perfect world in order to work. If people were angels then we would have no need of government(I do not remember the exact quote or who said it).

We have a libertarian-like party in Quebec, it's named ADQ (Action Démocratique du Québec). They want to shrink the government, privatize infrastructures, revoke environment-protection regulations, and so on.

Problem is, they're a bunch of talentless amateurs.
At the beginning of each electoral campaign, their popularity soars to 15%, sometimes even 20%.
Then, they start talking and their plane goes down in flames.
They end up with 5% of the votes, and 2-3 deputees.

That's actually pretty amusing.

I beleive that at its core (as with any ism worth it's name) has alrge number of good, but impractical ideas. In the US, the libertarian party, while sticking to it's guns well enugh, arent particularly good at being politicians.
It's fairly well known, that most americans are agasint repealing bans on drugs that are currently illegal, So it wouldnt make too much sense to me, to go around hawking the fact that the drug war is a complete waste of time, money, and lives.

Psychology is bullshit, psychology is bullshit, psychology is bullshit.

How old are you? Seriously, you are one of the most immature people I have ever known, and possibly the most uninformed.

You think psychology is bullshit? Give me 3 days, I'll make you into a raving loon. I can make you believe you are a duck, if I had ample time. I have a feeling you are some pre-pubecent pimply-faced scrub who likes to talk big without out actually knowing one damn thing about what you are talking about.

Psychology is an extremely well respected field of study, one which I'm sure you haven't spent five minutes studying. Your ignorance is apparent.

That isn't a completely unreasonable assumption to make. I have two responses;

Surely it is at least better if the brilliant are powerful rather than the high-born?

What would prevent the average from simply purchasing educational products in their free time? Heck, what's to stop them from going to Wikipedia?

Well the brilliant are not necessarily wise or good. Stalin was known for his excellent memory and through his acuity he gained power. He also killed millions. Besides, education is something that has to be produced by people. It is a good that would be underproduced(due to positive externallities) because of the free-market system. After all in order to value education a person must usually be educated and because they will suffer the underproduction they will never learn to value it. As well, if we revert to laissez faire then there is no guarantee that menial workers will get access to the internet.

The idea that all men can be infinitely free and yet still form a cohesive society is a flawed one. Ultimately in order to make society work there must be restrictions, most libertarians suggest self-imposed restrictions, however I do not trust the people enough to say that those restrictions would work in the long run.

I am a libertarian and I do not advocate self-imposed restrictions - I advocate the state imposing mandatory measures against fraud, theft and damage to person and property. I don't assume people will be altruistic or peaceful of their own accord, I assume that once those 4 basics have been outlawed, people can no longer harm other people legitimately under the law.

How old are you? Seriously, you are one of the most immature people I have ever known, and possibly the most uninformed.

You think psychology is bullshit? Give me 3 days, I'll make you into a raving loon. I can make you believe you are a duck, if I had ample time. I have a feeling you are some pre-pubecent pimply-faced scrub who likes to talk big without out actually knowing one damn thing about what you are talking about.

Psychology is an extremely well respected field of study, one which I'm sure you haven't spent five minutes studying. Your ignorance is apparent.
I wanna be a Lemming. Can you do that?

... Or maybe a Zebra. I just saw Zebraman and I bet it's pretty cool to be able to fly. And maybe I'd finally figure out why women always say shit about stripes making them fat.

Yea. Make me a flying, fat, female Zebra please. Thanks in advance!

I wanna be a Lemming. Can you do that?

... Or maybe a Zebra. I just saw Zebraman and I bet it's pretty cool to be able to fly. And maybe I'd finally figure out why women always say shit about stripes making them fat.

Yea. Make me a flying, fat, female Zebra please. Thanks in advance!

I can't make you into that, but I can make you believe you are a flying, fat, female Zebra. Small difference. But what is reality except a state of mind? To you, you will be a flying fat female Zebra, and that will be your reality. It'd take a few months, but I'm sure I could do it. Ah, the funness of psychology.

I am a libertarian and I do not advocate self-imposed restrictions - I advocate the state imposing mandatory measures against fraud, theft and damage to person and property. I don't assume people will be altruistic or peaceful of their own accord, I assume that once those 4 basics have been outlawed, people can no longer harm other people legitimately under the law.

Well, that may be true but there also has to be support for education, defense, law and order, roads and public transportation, as well as methods to prevent monopolies, as well as the means to prevent crime from happening(it works in medicine as well as government but it does cost some freedom). Ultimately in order to create a society that works well, the libertarian ideals must be tempered with rationality and require about as much government as all the other parties indicate is reasonable.

If this psychology discussion gets any more pretentious, i'm going to call people pretentious and stick my tongue out at them. Yeah, that's right. I'm threatening to husrt your pride and there is nothing you can do about it.

Unless you're joking of course.

Either way, i'm getting a good laugh, laughing at/with you.
And I like to do that.

Beleiving that setting people free and assuming they are going to "play nice' is a bit naieve. I'm inclined to agree more with dogburt's statement.

Well, to a certain degree freedom is necessary, but I am reminded of a quote that says that man is not free and that he never was or will be,(I do not remember the exact quote) but ultimately libertarianism has problems due to the free-rider problem(people who do not pay for certain services will still find ways to use them or benefit from their positive effects), the important role that the government plays in the economy(very few people today believe in pure laissez faire and most economics text books teach that government intervention is necessary or at least that is what I learned in my economics class), people are stupid or selfish(if there is a way to do something more efficiently, people will jump on it despite the cost to others, after all, enron was in the private sector) and finally most people do not want libertarianism(we love our security and safety nets, perhaps even more than the freedoms we must sacrifice to get them)

Why do you hate freedom? And how can you justify limiting the rights of others?

Easy. Libertarianism is the result of extreme naïveté. To be truly libertarian means that you assume people have the ability to be responsible and act intelligently on their own, and for most of the world's population, that's just not true. People act stupid all the time, and would abuse their priveleges far too much if given a third of the freedoms libertarians generally press for. For instance, recreational drugs. I assume, as a libertarian, you are in favor - if I am wrong, then you are probably not the libertarian you try to be. The problem is, people do stupid things with recreational drugs, and it can become a danger to many.

Take this scenario involving pot, for instance.

A guy's driving down the street at about 41 miles an hour or so, in a 35, sober. Kid jumps out in front of him thirty feet up the way. There's a damn good chance he'll be able to dodge that kid.

Same scenario, only the guy is completely baked, and his reflexes are about a tenth of what they should be. He's going 32 miles an hour, instead, because he's high and worried. So instead the kid's 45 feet up when he gets to him. He should be able to dodge the kid, no problem - right? Probably not. Even though he's going slower and the kids further up, he reacts a lot slower and runs the little shit over. Now you've got a dead kid on your hands, all because you wanted to get high with your pals - such a necessary freedom. Even if just one more kid dies every year than would have due to weed being legal in this artificial neighborhood of mine, is it really worth a few people getting their fix legally?

Maybe the blazed fellow could have stopped in time, or missed the kid. Pot's not that bad - hell, alcohol's worse. But what about other drugs that have a greater negative influence on one's abilities? Like crystal meth, or smack, or angel dust?

The naïve libertarian would simply say, "Who would be stupid enough to drive under the influence of something like that?" Or maybe they'd say the kid's life was worth a petty, stupid freedom. The more moderate libertarian might say, "Fine, illegalize driving under the influence of such things." To the former, as if that's unlikely. As if people wouldn't (or don't already, to a lesser extent) do that. To the latter, look at how well that works with alcohol. "High driving" - and the accidents it would entail - would become just as common as drunk driving - and the accidents it already entails - if other drugs were legalized, and to not realize this is showing your ignorance.

My point in all this is that there are far too many reasons not to be a libertarian on many of the issues that they are libertarian on, as many of the freedoms sought are dangerous and unnecessary.

And your beliefs are among the most selfish I've ever seen, in the worst way too. You're asking man to give up his only natural right for your own security and what you deem to be good. I'd like to meet you so I could murder you in cold blood, a small sacrifice on your part to help attain my vision.
Aren't you being what you hate by denying others the right to an opinion?

Well, most isms require a perfect world in order to work. If people were angels then we would have no need of government(I do not remember the exact quote or who said it).
James Madison.

Psychology is bullshit, psychology is bullshit, psychology is bullshit.

Don't tell me you're a scientologist? o.O

Don't tell me you're a scientologist? o.O
He's a scientologist?

Oh my God everyone! Tom Cruise is on the forums right now! Amerty!(A.k.a. Tom Cruise) Why do you believe in scientology? Its only believed by whackjobs and morons.......oh. That answers my question.

Originally Posted by Amerty
Psychology is bullshit, psychology is bullshit, psychology is bullshit.

WTF OMG --

Amerty is TOM CRUISE






Isn't life grand?

...

I'm not going to attack drugs and methods that make people feel better about themselves and more able, I only went off the deep end because for the most party, psychology is bullshit. Lawl. You can't say this or that mentally harms someone because it's impossible to really test it. Like sexual relations with children. Now if you rape them, well obviously that's going to mess with them, but if they're not being forced into it and they enjoy it, there's nothing special about sex that's going to psychological damage them more than playing with barbie dolls. But we say it does, and have said it does, and so all the evidence that it does is tainted because we tell children that it's wrong and so they think it is and think they've been hurt by it. This is just one example of what I mean. God I do love a good tangent.

Aren't you being what you hate by denying others the right to an opinion?

HOW HARD IT IS TO RECOGNIZE BLATANT SARCASM? Honestly. This is pathetic that people took the last sentence seriously.

WTF OMG --

Amerty is TOM CRUISE






Isn't life grand?
Yep. It's great to have some former Hollywood heartthrob now pointless freak-a-do visit these forums, lol.

Considering how many people were confused by that comment, it was not blatant sarcasm, it may have been sarcasm but it was far from blatant. As well the idea of sex with children is DISGUSTING. It is a sign of a damaged mind to even consider sex with children and few decent people would agree that it does no damage to the child, after all exposure to perversion at a young age is damage to that child's well being. Psychology is not BS, some of its beliefs are, but a good amount of it is logical and a useful tool to describe human nature. Personally I can not see how such freedom would not be damaging to a human beings nature, after all sex being extended to children would most certainly damage normal developement. I hope that the comment about child sexuality was a joke because if not then you are a very sick man.

Considering how many people were confused by that comment, it was not blatant sarcasm, it may have been sarcasm but it was far from blatant. As well the idea of sex with children is DISGUSTING. It is a sign of a damaged mind to even consider sex with children and few decent people would agree that it does no damage to the child, after all exposure to perversion at a young age is damage to that child's well being. Psychology is not BS, some of its beliefs are, but a good amount of it is logical and a useful tool to describe human nature. Personally I can not see how such freedom would not be damaging to a human beings nature, after all sex being extended to children would most certainly damage normal developement. I hope that the comment about child sexuality was a joke because if not then you are a very sick man.

No it was pretty blatant sarcasm. You're all just not firing on all four of your cylinders. And I like how you just rant about sex being damaging to a child but there's no clear cut evidence out there to support your claim.

Why do you hate freedom? And how can you justify limiting the rights of others?

Corporations need to be controlled. Enough said.

Related question/topic:

Do you think a Libertarian government would work better in a small country/republic, or in a large country with a lot of regional variations?

Corporations need to be controlled. Enough said.

Uh... No, that's not enough said. They need to be controlled only in the manner everyone else is controlled, free to do whatever except for trampling another's freedoms.

Related question/topic:

Do you think a Libertarian government would work better in a small country/republic, or in a large country with a lot of regional variations?

I think all governments should be the same but operate independently and very regional.

free to do whatever except for trampling another's freedoms.
That's not an answer, that's another question (without a question mark though)!!!

That's not an answer, that's another question (without a question mark though)!!!

Tramping another's freedoms means only to prevent them from doing something or harming them and what they've earned.

No it was pretty blatant sarcasm. You're all just not firing on all four of your cylinders. And I like how you just rant about sex being damaging to a child but there's no clear cut evidence out there to support your claim.

Look it was not that blatant so stop being an arrogant jerk. You have been misunderstood by numerous people and to claim that you are better than they are is rather insulting. As well, no one has done any testing to prove that sex harms children because to participate would be immoral. Morality is what keeps a society strong and even america has virtues that are accepted by most, to have sex with that child would distort moral and psychological growth due to the fact that sex is mind altering in some ways due to the feelings involved. Now I am actually curious if you are trying to cause problems or if you do want a libertarian society that allows you to have sex with 6 year-olds.

Look it was not that blatant so stop being an arrogant jerk. You have been misunderstood by numerous people and to claim that you are better than they are is rather insulting. As well, no one has done any testing to prove that sex harms children because to participate would be immoral. Morality is what keeps a society strong and even america has virtues that are accepted by most, to have sex with that child would distort moral and psychological growth due to the fact that sex is mind altering in some ways due to the feelings involved. Now I am actually curious if you are trying to cause problems or if you do want a libertarian society that allows you to have sex with 6 year-olds.

No, it was pretty God damn blatant. Honest to God, it was. I showed it to a panel of sixteen sarcasm masters and their heads exploded. Also I'm more full of myself than anyone you'll ever meet. And morality is nothing more than personal choice, something you have no right to enforce on others. You say it'd be "immoral" to prove that fucking children harms them psycholigcally, but if so then what are you basing your claims of "immorality" on? Obviously not facts. And I'm sure there have been studies done on the "victims" of molestation, but the problem is of course they're going to feel victimized if you keep telling them they have been. If they enjoyed it, you're the one harming them by telling them it was wrong.

It wasn't implemented with a Libertarian ideal, it just happened to be done without due governmental intervention. Besides which, now that we have this ethos it's not easily going to go back.

You put much faith in the generosity of employers. It's obvious enough that if they were allowed, most corporations would slash down to China-level slave wages.

You put much faith in the generosity of employers. It's obvious enough that if they were allowed, most corporations would slash down to China-level slave wages.

And it's obvious we'd have much more entrepeneurs. The job market would become as competitive as the goods and services one is. People of value will be paid for their value. Those that are capable and unable to find what they consider suitable employment would work for themselves.

No, it was pretty God damn blatant. Honest to God, it was. I showed it to a panel of sixteen sarcasm masters and their heads exploded. Also I'm more full of myself than anyone you'll ever meet. And morality is nothing more than personal choice, something you have no right to enforce on others. You say it'd be "immoral" to prove that fucking children harms them psycholigcally, but if so then what are you basing your claims of "immorality" on? Obviously not facts. And I'm sure there have been studies done on the "victims" of molestation, but the problem is of course they're going to feel victimized if you keep telling them they have been. If they enjoyed it, you're the one harming them by telling them it was wrong.
Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong... Is this guy, well, defending child molestation?

Stupid Libertarian propaganda... good for nothing giving children guns to protect themselves demcracy hating crack smoking chicken eating mofo's. For the libertarians who think abortion is right you denying thats chids RIGHT to live your taking its freedom! VOTE DEMOCRAT! UPHOLD TRUE DEMOCRACY!

No, it was pretty God damn blatant. Honest to God, it was. I showed it to a panel of sixteen sarcasm masters and their heads exploded. Also I'm more full of myself than anyone you'll ever meet. And morality is nothing more than personal choice, something you have no right to enforce on others. You say it'd be "immoral" to prove that fucking children harms them psycholigcally, but if so then what are you basing your claims of "immorality" on? Obviously not facts. And I'm sure there have been studies done on the "victims" of molestation, but the problem is of course they're going to feel victimized if you keep telling them they have been. If they enjoyed it, you're the one harming them by telling them it was wrong.

No it wasn't, if it was then someone other than yourself would have pointed out that it was sarcasm, however, most saw it as the words of a psychotic extremist or someone who is full of crap. As well, society has deemed it wrong, if you disagree leave and go live in a cave, you do not have to be a part of society and no one who wants your idea of freedom should be a part of any good society. I do not know where you got those beliefs from but they are a danger to society if they are ever acted upon and if you do want to be free, please leave other people out of your "freedom" by living in a cave.

I've gotten what I wanted from this thread. Good day everyone.

Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong... Is this guy, well, defending child molestation?

Yes he is. It is scary. Why can't the scientologists allow psychiatry? Why not allow Amerty to take his brain medicine? He is scaring me, I hope that I do not live near him. After all libertarians are not pro-molestation, or at least they do not have it as part of their platform.

Oh and one last addendum, I'm not defending sexual relations with a non-consenting child. That's rape, and it imposes on the child's freedom.

I've gotten what I wanted from this thread. Good day everyone.

Does it seem like he was just jerking our chains? He confuses me deeply, and scares me on some level.

Wait, you're against abortion, but you support a party that is pro-choice?
May I ask why?

There are many issues that each party entails. You don't have to change sides just because you don't agree with one or a couple odd issues. I loathe the religious right 90% of the time, and am an agnostic, but I also prefer the Republican party at the moment. There are many factors that play into who you side with.

Oh and one less addendum, I'm not defending sexual relations with a non-consenting child. That's rape, and it imposes on the child's freedom.

Under any sane system, children have no freedom. Where were you raised to think that a child is old or responsible enough to have their own freedom. No parent would approve of a system that allows children to experiment with drugs without the permission of a guardian, as well it is hard to show consent when dealing with a child, after all they can be persuaded that they were not victimized and many rape victims do feel guilty as if they deserve the crime. Amerty, please grow up and realize that society is not meant to provide freedom of that extreme nature.

Does it seem like he was just jerking our chains? He confuses me deeply, and scares me on some level.

"Know thy enemy."

I was getting to know you guys. You specifically.

"Know thy enemy."

I was getting to know you guys. You specifically.

Are you actually as extreme as you claim? I mean society was designed for security reasons and man can be free if he decides to give up the security offered by society and live on his own. But, yes I am an opponent of libertarianism and feel safer in a more moderate government.

There are many issues that each party entails. You don't have to change sides just because you don't agree with one or a couple odd issues. I loathe the religious right 90% of the time, and am an agnostic, but I also prefer the Republican party at the moment. There are many factors that play into who you side with.
Yeah, I realized that my question was stupid a bit after I posted it. Now I feel like a real dolt...

If you give total freedom to kids, you're forced to judge them (legally) like adults.
That would be a terrible problem, since they're not morally mature (they haven't developed a moral understanding, the logic of action-consequences, or a good sense of judgement yet).
Just delegate parts of a child's liberties to his parents. These liberties will be given to him by the end of his childhood, one at a time (alcohol, vote, consensual sex, driving, ...)

Are you actually as extreme as you claim? I mean society was designed for security reasons and man can be free if he decides to give up the security offered by society and live on his own. But, yes I am an opponent of libertarianism and feel safer in a more moderate government.

Yes I am as extreme as I claim. You are my enemy for opposing my freedom. It's not as simple as withdrawing from society. Your society claims the right to my life and well being for actions that are perfectly alright.

My society can not keep you from moving out to the middle of nowhere and living your life as some form of hunter/gatherer under your own rules. My society lacks the power to do so. As well, Amerty the fact that you believe as you do makes you my enemy, our government was meant to protect us from all threats. I will not stand by as someone seeks to tear down my society just in order to eliminate all law and order for selfish and self-destructive freedoms.

Yeah, I realized that my ion was stupid a bit after I posted it. Now I feel like a real dolt...

Haha, no problem.

Easy. Libertarianism is the result of extreme naïveté. To be truly libertarian means that you assume people have the ability to be responsible and act intelligently on their own, and for most of the world's population, that's just not true. People act stupid all the time, and would abuse their priveleges far too much if given a third of the freedoms libertarians generally press for. For instance, recreational drugs. I assume, as a libertarian, you are in favor - if I am wrong, then you are probably not the libertarian you try to be. The problem is, people do stupid things with recreational drugs, and it can become a danger to many.

My God, if one more person equates Libertarianism with Anarchy... it will be Anarchy.

The naïve libertarian would simply say, "Who would be stupid enough to drive under the influence of something like that?" Or maybe they'd say the kid's life was worth a petty, stupid freedom. The more moderate libertarian might say, "Fine, illegalize driving under the influence of such things." To the former, as if that's unlikely. As if people wouldn't (or don't already, to a lesser extent) do that. To the latter, look at how well that works with alcohol. "High driving" - and the accidents it would entail - would become just as common as drunk driving - and the accidents it already entails - if other drugs were legalized, and to not realize this is showing your ignorance.

Here's the thing, though. I don't know about anywhere else, but in the UK the law, as far as I can ascertain, considers DUI to be less of a crime than killing someone accidentally whilst sober.

So what I advocate is a system whereby crimes commited under the influence of drugs or alcohols etc. carries a penalty several times higher than those commited whilst sober. But despite all the terrible things it has brought about (And I mean for me, personally.), I would never advocate the prohibition of alcohol. I'm not as important as the ideal of freedom and personal choice. And that's the only instance where I will put something before an individual.

My God, if one more person equates Libertarianism with Anarchy... it will be Anarchy.



Here's the thing, though. I don't know about anywhere else, but in the UK the law, as far as I can ascertain, considers DUI to be less of a crime than killing someone accidentally whilst sober.

So what I advocate is a system whereby crimes commited under the influence of drugs or alcohols etc. carries a penalty several times higher than those commited whilst sober. But despite all the terrible things it has brought about (And I mean for me, personally.), I would never advocate the prohibition of alcohol. I'm not as important as the ideal of freedom and personal choice. And that's the only instance where I will put something before an individual.

Honestly, what I advocate is a massive compromise. Legalize all drug use on private property where the owner okays it. If any mind-altering substances (including alcohol) are caught being used while operating potentially lethal equipment - like a car - on illegitimate property, permanently revoke all relevant licenses. If someone dies as a result, charge the stupid fuck with first degree murder and kill his ass back.

My God, if one more person equates Libertarianism with Anarchy... it will be Anarchy.


Well, Amerty the founder of the thread, believes in anarchy to a certain extent, given the fact that he promotes child molestation(a position that few to no sane libertarians believe). Or at least I have never heard of that issue in their platform and it would be something that would draw attention. Even the libertarians know something about the limits of freedom. I disagree with the libertarians but they are better than the anarchists.

Society exists so that each human can specialize and be more productive for the group, and have some free time for the individual. This allows us to work less, while being more efficient, help each other, and develop more in-depth knowledge of everything that's useful for our survival.

Individualists/survivalists don't need society... but then, their life is highly ineffective, they're constantly in danger and they won't make any intellectual progress because they don't have time (they're struggling). Let's say you're a survivalist potato grower, and someday your whole production goes moldy. You die. You can't rely on your neighbor, the tomato grower. And since you have to produce every single object you need, it means you'll work like crazy all your life.

Neither the search for happiness, nor the search for intellectual/spiritual understanding of the universe, is possible for a man living outside society.

The idea that all men can be infinitely free and yet still form a cohesive society is a flawed one. Ultimately in order to make society work there must be restrictions, most libertarians suggest self-imposed restrictions, however I do not trust the people enough to say that those restrictions would work in the long run. I ultimately believe that if everyone bites the bullet and sacrifices what they do not need then we can build a better future, and that the machine in order to do this will be the body that represents, aids, and directs the people AKA the government. My beliefs are actually totalitarian.

A governmental regime is made up of people. So it's hypocritical to suppose to not trust people; yet place creedence in people possessing "Governmental Power"; and as such, Totalitarianism is no more reliable than anarchism; at least by the "base" concept you rely on.

Because of the human nature (competition, search for comfort/power), any state of anarchy won't last very long. Soon enough, leaders will emerge. That'll most certainly lead to a small-scale authorian government type.


Then you'll have to climb the Roman Society ladder:
- Tribes with chiefs
- Mini-states with kings / tyrants
- City-states with a council
- Republic
.......
leading to either Empire or Democracy

Well, the base concept that you are reading is somewhat skewed. I support many laws that are enforced, I also trust people to do alright at their jobs because they are being told what to do and face punishment for not doing their job correctly. Ultimately, I distrust larger numbers in charge more than smaller numbers of people who have power based on merit. But, ultimately there is a reason that I do not go around supporting totalitarianism. I know that it is flawed in many ways but it is the view that I am closest to.

Honestly, what I advocate is a massive compromise. Legalize all drug use on private property where the owner okays it. If any mind-altering substances (including alcohol) are caught being used while operating potentially lethal equipment - like a car - on illegitimate property, permanently revoke all relevant licenses. If someone dies as a result, charge the stupid fuck with first degree murder.

... damn. That makes sense. Yeah, I like that a LOT now that I think about it; let people do as they please on private property, and charge 'em if they use it elsewhere. Glad we talked =D

Society exists so that each human can specialize and be more productive for the group, and have some free time for the individual. This allows us to work less, while being more efficient, help each other, and develop more in-depth knowledge of everything that's useful for our survival.

Individualists/survivalists don't need society... but then, their life is highly ineffective, they're constantly in danger and they won't make any intellectual progress because they don't have time (they're struggling). Let's say you're a survivalist potato grower, and someday your whole production goes moldy. You die. You can't rely on your neighbor, the tomato grower. And since you have to produce every single object you need, it means you'll work like crazy all your life.

Neither the search for happiness, nor the search for intellectual/spiritual understanding of the universe, is possible for a man living outside society.

Again, a misconception. Thatcher said 'There's no such thing as society'. Blatantly, the presence of more than a dozen people in the same street is society, but I don't believe that was the point she was making. I believe she was saying that society has nothing to do with the government, or any other official body. Society works because people realize it's better for them to work together. Libertarianism in no way wants to harm society, in fact much of the justification for abolishing governmental welfare relies on the belief in community, family, and church.

Honestly, what I advocate is a massive compromise. Legalize all drug use on private property where the owner okays it.

That's the funniest thing I've heard in ages.

Again, a misconception. Thatcher said 'There's no such thing as society'. Blatantly, the presence of more than a dozen people in the same street is society, but I don't believe that was the point she was making. I believe she was saying that society has nothing to do with the government, or any other official body. Society works because people realize it's better for them to work together. Libertarianism in no way wants to harm society, in fact much of the justification for abolishing governmental welfare relies on the belief in community, family, and church.

Well then, ultimately we have the problem of people either rejecting that society and not doing the right thing. Or we simply have replaced the government with an outside government. After all, the things that make up society do limit our freedom as well. I tend to be a totalitarian because I want man and the state to be one big, happy family. Now of course if you piss off your big brother he will correct your error, but hey that often exists in real families(though real families can not use the same levels of punishment).

Ok. I think Amerty should be classified as an Anarchist, not a Libertarian.

Libertarians usually have controls on things like child sex, murdering people (which by the way is trampling on more of their liberties, than the freedom to kill), etc. Even Minarchists would be against child molestation I'm pretty sure. Apparently, Amerty didn't want even policemen or an army so he is in fact an Anarchist.

(though real families can not use the same levels of punishment).

Sure they can! Ever heard of Attila the Hun ;)

I'm not a "liberatarian" since I don't believe it is freedom.

My labor would still be exploited under such as system, everyone would still be suffering from the spectacle of Alienation, and we would still be force-fed the commodity culture shat.
Libertarianism has it half right about the state; but lacks the insight what Marx acheived about what property relations causes: alienation and estranged labor.

Anarcho-Communist here.


Note that the word "Libertarian" meant anarchist orginally, and I mean real anarchism, order without hierarchy; not even a economic hierarchy.


And please, this "human nature" crap; I have not seen a single peice of reliable edivence for it, so stop useing it; anarchism worked in the Spanish Revolution and the Paris Commune.

Parthini']Sure they can! Ever heard of Attila the Hun ;)

Ok, but he was the government of his people(well he was the ruler). But anyway, Amerty was not a libertarian, he was too extreme from most points of view, he was even too extreme for the anarchists according to [NS]Parthini. Ultimately society can only exist if there are rules governing a person's freedoms. There are these rules in every society, I am sure that even anarchists have some rules that exist(whether spoken or not) that allows them to tolerate each other. The only thing is that I feel that the government should be the one in charge of these rules because it is the society that supercedes all other societies within its boundaries.

I'm not a "liberatarian" since I don't believe it is freedom.

My labor would still be exploited under such as system, everyone would still be suffering from the spectacle of Alienation, and we would still be force-fed the commodity culture shat.
Libertarianism has it half right about the state; but lacks the insight what Marx acheived about what property relations causes: alienation and estranged labor.

Anarcho-Communist here.


Note that the word "Libertarian" meant anarchist orginally, and I mean real anarchism, order without hierarchy; not even a economic hierarchy.


And please, this "human nature" crap; I have not seen a single peice of reliable edivence for it, so stop useing it; anarchism worked in the Spanish Revolution and the Paris Commune.


I have a question. Anarchists allow most freedoms but do they act upon those freedoms? I mean they most certainly have a few rules(they are communists after all) but how far do those rules extend?

Again, a misconception. Thatcher said 'There's no such thing as society'. Blatantly, the presence of more than a dozen people in the same street is society, but I don't believe that was the point she was making. I believe she was saying that society has nothing to do with the government, or any other official body.
Have you seen the word "government" in my explanation of "society"?
I was explaining that society is the separation of work so that humans can benefit from each other and be more happy/safe.

I don't think that anarchy or extreme libertarianism correspond to that definition.

Society and the government in some ways are the same. The government is a powerful society and one that I think should become the most important and all inclusive. I mean I pay my taxes, well they are paid for me I suppose, shouldn't I be considered a member of this group working to improve our lives. I really think that people should trust the government and that the differences between government and the rest of society should be limited. In america there is the common belief that the government is this austere and imposing outside force out to ruin our lives.

Well then, ultimately we have the problem of people either rejecting that society and not doing the right thing. Or we simply have replaced the government with an outside government. After all, the things that make up society do limit our freedom as well. I tend to be a totalitarian because I want man and the state to be one big, happy family. Now of course if you piss off your big brother he will correct your error, but hey that often exists in real families(though real families can not use the same levels of punishment).

As 1984, Brave New World, and We can all show, forms of totalitarianism are the lose. And in the real world, it was the West which won, not the Reds. Why? The motivation for personal gain and accomplishment is timeless and inaliable. The glory of the State is lucky to last more than a couple of generations, at least without some sort of Big Brother-esque modifications of thought and speech, which lead to zero progress, zero culture, zero art, yadda yadda yadda (Not to mention such systems inevitably would defeat themselves after awhile.).

Society and the government in some ways are the same. The government is a powerful society and one that I think should become the most important and all inclusive. I mean I pay my taxes, well they are paid for me I suppose, shouldn't I be considered a member of this group working to improve our lives. I really think that people should trust the government and that the differences between government and the rest of society should be limited. In america there is the common belief that the government is this austere and imposing outside force out to ruin our lives.

El Oh El. Government as a concept can never be trusted implicitly and completely, even if you'll put your life into the hands of a selected administration or monarch or whatever.

As it is, I don't believe any western governments are out to mess people's shit up, but I do believe they're often misguided, they infringe on rights and matters they have no business in, and they overstep their bounds very greatly.


Have you seen the word "government" in my explanation of "society"?
I was explaining that society is the separation of work so that humans can benefit from each other and be more happy/safe.

I don't think that anarchy or extreme libertarianism correspond to that definition.

And I don't think that society correspond to that definition, either. It is a potential outcome of a society, nothing more.

Why do you hate freedom? And how can you justify limiting the rights of others?

Unless there's a government defending people's freedoms, something else will take them away. Libertarians act like a government is the only thing in the world that is capable of limiting individual liberty, which is simply idiotic. Corporations, churches and other kinds of civilian organizations limit people's freedom every day, the only hope for true personal freedom is a democratically elected government that keeps potentially autocratic forces in check.

Well, one thing is that totalitarianism fails because of incompetant leaders more than anything. Also, the government has to be taken with a grain of salt but can not be disobeyed without proof of true injustice. Really society has some control over everything, I just would like to centralize it and put the control it wields towards goals that will benefit everyone.

Because both Liberals and Conservatives have controlled our government for too long and have fucked it up seriously. Being liberal sends us into anarchy. Being conservative sends us into dictatorship. Hence why the representitive governments are full of assholes.

Why do you hate freedom? And how can you justify limiting the rights of others?
how can you support freedom in such a manner? free people don't support the country. why do you support the hampering of potential of the people by allowing the rights of the people that do nothing to promote the whole?

i suppose the real questions are;
Why do you hate unity? And how can you justify limiting the progress of the entirety of people?

'Cause really, what says you have any rights besides some pulp with ink on it?

Um... God does!

Why I'm not a libertarian.

1 I beleive that a quality education for every citizen is not only a right, but a necessity in a democratic society. What good is voting if you can't comprehend the issues? Also education makes the most of the population's talents. Why should the nation lose a potentialy brilliant chemist just because he was born too poor to go to school?

I believe that a quality education is a necessity in a democratic society, not a right. I agree that voting is a bad idea if you can't comprehend the issue. I often vote, but cast a blank ballot, because I DO understand the issue.

2 I beleive that unregulated capitalism produces unsafe working conditions, which undermine the rights of workers.

Unregulated capitalism DOES produce unsafe working conditions. But you have the right not to associate with the employer, perveyor of services and goods that HAS the unsafe working conditions. It's called a boycott.


3 I beleive that unregulated capitalism produces high levels of pollution, which infringes on everyone's right not to be poisoned.

In a Libertarian society, if your were downwind of a nuclear powerplant that was leaking radiation and damaging YOUR property (ie your body, your livestock, your property value), you'd have a redress of grievances through the courts. You can't do that now due to the DOE and the NRA (Nuclear Regulatory Agency)


4 I beleive that unregulated capitalism, especially in conjunction with a lack of public education, would drive wages down and force many people into poverty.

You are historically wrong in this department. America was an economic powerhouse in the 1800's when capitalism was largely unregulated and compulsory public education did not exist. In the money of the 1800's there are many more poor people today (debtors).

5 I beleive that government actually does a better job of looking after those who can't work than private charity. Economy of scale and all that.

I don't think so, since the government only returns a miniscule percent of theived income (taxes, coerced out of the hands of the frightened) as compared to private charities.

The idea that all men can be infinitely free and yet still form a cohesive society is a flawed one.
And this shows you don't understand libertarianism. It does not assume unlimited freedom.

I have a question. Anarchists allow most freedoms but do they act upon those freedoms? I mean they most certainly have a few rules(they are communists after all) but how far do those rules extend?


Anarchists are not communists. An Anarchist would have an extremely unregulated economy, while a Communist would have an extremely regulated econnomy. Although, both the Anarchist and the Communist want their respective levels of regulation to ensure each persons freedom.

Well, Amerty the founder of the thread, believes in anarchy to a certain extent, given the fact that he promotes child molestation(a position that few to no sane libertarians believe). Or at least I have never heard of that issue in their platform and it would be something that would draw attention. Even the libertarians know something about the limits of freedom. I disagree with the libertarians but they are better than the anarchists.


Parthini']Ok. I think Amerty should be classified as an Anarchist, not a Libertarian.

Libertarians usually have controls on things like child sex, murdering people (which by the way is trampling on more of their liberties, than the freedom to kill), etc. Even Minarchists would be against child molestation I'm pretty sure. Apparently, Amerty didn't want even policemen or an army so he is in fact an Anarchist.

Actually, as I've posted on here before, the US Libertarian Party platform pretty clear advocates the elimination of laws against sex with children and child pornography. (As well as laws against child labor, discrimination, pollution and elimination of standardized money, all over-seas troops, all national parks and monuments, .....)

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#freeresp

the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation

the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material

We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media, including, but not limited to, laws concerning:

a) Obscenity, including "pornography", as we hold this to be an abridgment of liberty of expression despite claims that it instigates rape or assault, or demeans and slanders women;

I just don't like librarians to be honest

Well, I was responding to an anarcho-communist or something like that, I just did not say it. As well infinitely free is a bit of an expression, I simply claim that some freedom comes at too great of a cost to society. As well the libertarian party does not advocate sex with children, it advocates consenting sex between any adults.(The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.) Society needs regulations because the idea that people can always take care of themselves leads to problems.

Well, I was responding to an anarcho-communist or something like that, I just did not say it. As well infinitely free is a bit of an expression, I simply claim that some freedom comes at too great of a cost to society. As well the libertarian party does not advocate sex with children, it advocates consenting sex between any adults.(The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity.) Society needs regulations because the idea that people can always take care of themselves leads to problems.

Pray tell where it says in Libertarian Platform that its lifting of the laws on sex and pornography do not extend to children. Or where it says that sex or pornography is limited to adults. Its lifting of labor laws applies to children.

Wow, now that I have read the Libertarian Statement of Principles, they sound even crazier. After all the war on drugs is needed because some drugs are dangerous(like cocaine is highly addictive), the draft is needed because if there is a war, we need to get people to defend their nation(if you live here you should have to defend our nation from threats), mental health problems must be treated or the people must be under heavy societal restrictions(crazy people can be dangerous), the right to dissent is a dangerous right that could lead to rebellion(there have to be limits to free speach), the government hides some information because it is sensitive(if everyone knew everything then we would have a disadvantage because secret agents could be killed and everyone would know about our plans), I also tend to doubt the government causing problems within the economy and rather fixing them, education is a public good because it benefits us all to have it and would probably be underproduced without the government, all in all I think the libertarians are crazy.

Ok, but he was the government of his people(well he was the ruler). But anyway, Amerty was not a libertarian, he was too extreme from most points of view, he was even too extreme for the anarchists according to [NS]Parthini.
1. Amerty is actually a pretty good fit for the US Libertarian Party. He's really not much more extreme than them, if he is at all.
2. How the hell can one be too extreme to be an anarchist?
I have a question. Anarchists allow most freedoms but do they act upon those freedoms? I mean they most certainly have a few rules(they are communists after all) but how far do those rules extend?
1. Of course they don't. Just because you want people to be able to do something doesn't mean you yourself want to do it. For instance, I want people to have the freedom to have children, even though it is impossible for me to do so.
2. If Amerty was anything like an anarchist, he would be what is commonly called an 'anarcho-capitalist'. If you've listened to him, he is not communist at all.
Amerty, to me, sounds more like an extreme minarchist, who only wants the government for dealing justice, and wants the free market to handle all else.
Anarchists are not communists. An Anarchist would have an extremely unregulated economy, while a Communist would have an extremely regulated econnomy. Although, both the Anarchist and the Communist want their respective levels of regulation to ensure each persons freedom.
Actually, you'd be surprised to find that many people who label themselves 'anarchists' are far-left. The reason for this is often because they believe that 'anarchy' does not just mean 'no government', it also means 'no hierarchy' and 'no authority'. People tend to debate back-and-forth a lot over what 'anarchy' truly means, and who is or is not an anarchist.

Well, if the libertarian party is that extreme it is undoubtedly a threat to our nation's wellbeing. What made Amerty too extreme was his desire for consensual sex with children(the libertarians only said something about consensual sex for adults). The whole communist thing was in response to an anarchist who was an anarcho-communist not in response to Amerty.

And it's obvious we'd have much more entrepeneurs. The job market would become as competitive as the goods and services one is. People of value will be paid for their value. Those that are capable and unable to find what they consider suitable employment would work for themselves.
People of value would be paid what's convenient for the employer. And because all emplyers would be in a race to the bottom, they wouldn't pay for value.

There would be fewer entrepeneurs because most markets would be consumed by corporate monopolies.

Pray tell where it says in Libertarian Platform that its lifting of the laws on sex and pornography do not extend to children. Or where it says that sex or pornography is limited to adults. Its lifting of labor laws applies to children.

The libertarian platform only says that sexual freedom is for consenting adults underneathe the principle for sexual freedom. I actually put that principle in a parentheses in the post that you responded to. The only sexual freedom it actually states is for adults. If it does truly say sexual freedom for children then these are sick people because to condone such for people that are too underdeveloped(mentally) to decide for themselves is wrong under most peoples ideas of morallity.

The libertarian platform only says that sexual freedom is for consenting adults underneathe the principle for sexual freedom. I actually put that principle in a parentheses in the post that you responded to. The only sexual freedom it actually states is for adults. If it does truly say sexual freedom for children then these are sick people because to condone such for people that are too underdeveloped(mentally) to decide for themselves is wrong under most peoples ideas of morallity.

You found that language under a different point than the one that would eliminate all laws regarding sex. Nonetheless, I had missed that before.

What about child pornography? It seem pretty clear they would allow it.

People of value would be paid what's convenient for the employer. And because all emplyers would be in a race to the bottom, they wouldn't pay for value.

There would be fewer entrepeneurs because most markets would be consumed by corporate monopolies.

Yeah the problems with the capitalist system were revealed in the industrial revolution. When the government started to step in was when things became better for those living in that time. The fact was that the workers were being underpaid and this was proven by Robert Owen, who formed a community where the conditions were much better than the average and still had prosperity.

It seems to me extreme Libertarians grossly underestimate how much they rely on others. this quote from Jimmy Carter comes very close to describing what I see as the proper role of government:

Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. People have the right to expect that these wants will be provided for by this wisdom.

Well, ultimately society has to contain rules in order to maintain order and keep people happy. Unbridled capitalism has failed us in the past but bridled today it does well, heck the japanese government actively interferes in business(moreso than the u.s.) and their economy has a higher GDP per capita than ours does. I do not know about the libertarian view on child pornography but just that the libertarians never explicitly said that children are allowed to have sex but did say that adults were to have sexual freedom. Ultimately I doubt that libertarianism would work because I have never heard of a libertarian society but have seen that most other ideologies that require more order do work coherently.

wow, just reading all these posts, I was just surprised as to how no one seems to actually understands libertarianism and yet still feel free to criticize it.

It seems to me extreme Libertarians grossly underestimate how much they rely on others. this quote from Jimmy Carter comes very close to describing what I see as the proper role of government:

Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. People have the right to expect that these wants will be provided for by this wisdom.

"The government big enough to provide you with everything you need is also big enough to take everything away."

"The Government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end, and no responsibility at the other." -Ronald Reagan (since you seem to like presidents from the 80s)

People of value would be paid what's convenient for the employer. And because all emplyers would be in a race to the bottom, they wouldn't pay for value.

There would be fewer entrepeneurs because most markets would be consumed by corporate monopolies.

Uh oh, someone doesnt understand free market economics (*points at swimmingpool*).

Actually, labor is a commodity for an employer just like the materials they need to make their product. And just like the market dictates what those materials are worth to the employer, so the same goes for labor. The employer can't pay any less to his workers then what their labor is worth, simply because he won't have any workers if he does so. They will go to a company that actually pays proper wages.

Also, without going into too much, in the sense that a monoply would be a company with sustained control over a market, there is actually no such thing as natural monopoly. The only true monoplies you see today are a result of govt franchising.

I know enough to know that I oppose the libertarian party. I do not really care about politics enough to be republican or democrat but I am definitely anti-libertarian. I do not fear the government as much as I fear the people. I am not going to say that people should be virtual slaves but I do not think that many freedoms are absolutely necessary such as the freedom to do whatever drug you like or the freedom to screw children. I think that laws and order are designed for the benefit of us all.

Uh oh, someone doesnt understand free market economics (*points at swimmingpool*).

Actually, labor is a commodity for an employer just like the materials they need to make their product. And just like the market dictates what those materials are worth to the employer, so the same goes for labor. The employer can't pay any less to his workers then what their labor is worth, simply because he won't have any workers if he does so. They will go to a company that actually pays proper wages.

Also, without going into too much, in the sense that a monoply would be a company with sustained control over a market, there is actually no such thing as natural monopoly. The only true monoplies you see today are a result of govt franchising.

Uh, oh, someone doesn't understand economic or history.

Your statements about labor are empirically untrue. And have many theoretical fallacies. Hungry people have less bargaining power. :rolleyes:

Your first statement about monopolies makes no sense. Your second, to the extent it is true, is because we have anti-trust laws. :headbang:

Free market economics has historically had problems if it is not regulated. As well government involvement in corporate affairs has actually helped economies in the past, Japan has an economy that is more involved with its corporations than our government and their GDP per capita is much higher than ours. Ultimately I do not see how the government creates monopolies and oligopolies when it is trying to limit their power, after all there are many instances of monopolies and oligopolies forming and I do not see how the government could have created them all.

Well a big problem is that no one is free in todays capitalist society because eatch individual is dependend on many other individual for there survival and well being and that would change with liberatilism. Because people would need money to survive and to get that money by working making them dependant on the companies. Also there would be dependent on other companies that there money they gained was enough to buy food shelter and other stuff. And if you want to abolish public school the children would dependent on that there parents earned enough money and also on companies giving education on a price that the parents could afford.

But I'm not saying that libertanism could even work even if I would prefer and belive more in Anarchism. Because I'm a true humanist that belive that mankind strife for good and that a alturistic society. The problem is that couldn't work in todays egoistic capitilistic world, but that is just a social construct that we over a very long time change to something better. My idea to archieve it is through democratic socialism/socialdemocracy that gives more freedom to people under capitalism and eventually will put a end to capitalism. But this under a long and democratic process there you don't know that society that will be created in the end.

Yeah, the big problem with libertarianism is the fact that we are all interdependent. I think that we are ultimately more interdependent than we believe that we are, after all someone else's suffering hurts their ability to contribute to society which hurts everyone within that society which makes everyone overall less happy. I also tend to disagree with the idea that freedom makes people happy, I think that a certain degree of uniformity of idea/ideal would make the world a better place because then we would not squabble and be able to pursue the same goal with some ease. I ultimately see the state as the unifier of human intent.