NationStates Jolt Archive

I searched for a while to find a good forum on Libertarianism and I couldn't really find one that suited me (except for a weird one on traffic lights). So I made this one.

Libertarianism is a philosophy I have poured much thought into, trying to grapple with its good and bad sides. But I have come to the decision that it disgusts me. As I see it, Libertarianism is just a denial of any sort of community, and flies in the face of reason. Please try and disarm me of this belief.

I searched for a while to find a good forum on Libertarianism and I couldn't really find one that suited me (except for a weird one on traffic lights). So I made this one.

Libertarianism is a philosophy I have poured much thought into, trying to grapple with its good and bad sides. But I have come to the decision that it disgusts me. As I see it, Libertarianism is just a denial of any sort of community, and flies in the face of reason. Please try and disarm me of this belief.



The largest problem with Libertarianism is the Atomistic Conception of Society. That we all are little personal worlds to ourselves. That the actions of one person don't impact another, and that society is irrelevant to the individual. All the class-atrocities and the heartlessness come out of this.

Really, this is the largest problem with Liberalism in general.

Libertarianism is based upon a strong dedication to the principals of freeedom and equality of right. It is based upon the premise that the individual is intellegent and capable of making rational decisions. That the government is best suited for maintaining infrastructure. That your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. It is opposed to violent crime and theft but feels that all social and financial interactions are best left to the individual and kept out of the state's hands.
A Libertarian is essentially what not long ago was called a liberal.

The largest problem with Libertarianism is the Atomistic Conception of Society. That we all are little personal worlds to ourselves. That the actions of one person don't impact another, and that society is irrelevant to the individual. All the class-atrocities and the heartlessness come out of this.

Really, this is the largest problem with Liberalism in general.

So things like generosity and kindness are strictly governmental entities? They don't come from the individual?

You seem like you are leaning towards the big misconception that libertarianism is equal to anarchy.

Libertarians simply oppose govt intervention into rational behavior ...

The largest problem with Libertarianism is the Atomistic Conception of Society. That we all are little personal worlds to ourselves. That the actions of one person don't impact another, and that society is irrelevant to the individual. All the class-atrocities and the heartlessness come out of this.

Really, this is the largest problem with Liberalism in general.

You are mistaken. Libertarians recognize collective effort. They merely maintain that such efforts should be engaged in by consenting parties and not forced by violence or the threat thereof by external groups.

Libertarianism is a philosophy I have poured much thought into, trying to grapple with its good and bad sides. But I have come to the decision that it disgusts me. As I see it, Libertarianism is just a denial of any sort of community, and flies in the face of reason. Please try and disarm me of this belief.

First, you will have to explain why you came to the ideas you have, then maybe they can be addressed.

But before you do that, I see Libertarianism (in my limited acceptance of it) as trust in community. Libertarians believe that a developed society can function perfectly well without government intervention. It is government that I see as an impersonal overseer that does not treat people as people.

Perhaps Liberals were once more Libertarian, but times change, and Liberals had to change their positions to meet the demands of the current period, in which we are all interrelated and interdependent. Government is important now to prevent corporate domination and to protect people in general. I'm supposing that you Libertarians are at least the semi-rational sort that support an army and police force?

As I see it, Libertarianism is just a denial of any sort of community, and flies in the face of reason.
Bah, we're only against government legislated community. It's hard to force people to like each other, except via brainwashing.
I also believe that the whole "sense of community" thing flies into the face of reason. It seems to introduce too much emotion into the equation and basically forces people to feel pity on the "less fortunate."

If you think Libertarianism flies in the face of reason...read some Ayn Rand. :p

Perhaps Liberals were once more Libertarian, but times change, and Liberals had to change their positions to meet the demands of the current period, in which we are all interrelated and interdependent. Government is important now to prevent corporate domination and to protect people in general. I'm supposing that you Libertarians are at least the semi-rational sort that support an army and police force?

Again, libertarians are not anarchists ...... we believe in a limited govt that steadfastly tends to its duties, which do include protecting the individual from infringements upon his rights.

I am not going to talk about ur conspiracy theories of "corporate domination" unless u want tog et into economics

Perhaps Liberals were once more Libertarian, but times change, and Liberals had to change their positions to meet the demands of the current period, in which we are all interrelated and interdependent. Government is important now to prevent corporate domination and to protect people in general. I'm supposing that you Libertarians are at least the semi-rational sort that support an army and police force?

Let's make an exercise in etymology? From Liber meaning free. Freedom is one of the dearest comcepts of Libertarianism. What is called in the modern world liberalism feels that people must be forced or compelled into freedom. An Orwellian oxtmoron. Of course police and a military are needed. The role of government is to protect the citizens.

Governments can be bad when they don't represent the will of the people. But when you live in a democracy, they are only an extension of the people's will, and they are the forum that all people can use to be heard.

As for the importance of community, you are part of one whether you like it or not. What happpens to your neighbor will inevitably affect you. That's why democracy is important, as a forum for the people to decide decisions that affect one another collectively.

Perhaps Liberals were once more Libertarian, but times change, and Liberals had to change their positions to meet the demands of the current period, in which we are all interrelated and interdependent. Government is important now to prevent corporate domination and to protect people in general. I'm supposing that you Libertarians are at least the semi-rational sort that support an army and police force?

At what period in time did we become interrelated and interdependant? I would imagine it predates Libertarianism, Modern Liberalism, or Classical Liberalism.

Yes, force is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of the people, and I think that the government should have a monopoly on violence.

And corporations cannot force people to buy their products, if someone else provides a better product or service, then the customers will take their business elsewhere.

Let's make an exercise in etymology? From Liber meaning free. Freedom is one of the dearest comcepts of Libertarianism. What is called in the modern world liberalism feels that people must be forced or compelled into freedom.

Modern liberalism isn't that so much as it is the belief that freedoms can only come from the government. That without government regulation of freedom, then people will begin losing their freedoms.

Modern liberalism also prescribes to a different definition of freedom, one that is more what libertarians would consider safety, freedom from economic disadvantage, freedom from harming oneself too horribly.

So things like generosity and kindness are strictly governmental entities? They don't come from the individual?

You seem like you are leaning towards the big misconception that libertarianism is equal to anarchy.

Libertarians simply oppose govt intervention into rational behavior ...


No, you misread my post. I don't think libertarians bother with generosity or kindness. At least, none of the one's I've talked to. No, my biggest problem with libertarianism is the idea that the freedom of one individual doesn't impact the freedom of another. Granted, your right to punch your neighbor in the face may not be accepted as a right, but the right to freely dump garbage on your property, the right to conduct your business independently of regulations, these rights and others infringe on other people's rights.

The right to life can only be guaranteed if an individual has enough to eat. And the right to unregulated private property infringes on this, by allowing the business owner to give wages however he sees fit. Workplace injuries are not his problem. Recirculation of workers to lower costs keeps rookies in the business and forces veterans to quit. I can understand that free-trade is supposed to limit prices, but the destruction of your fellow companies by besting them in price combat is a negative strain on the economy. Thus manufacturers often raise their prices in tandem with their competitors (out of agreement) as well as lowering the quality, because it is more profitable to have a person return to your product than to conduct honest free-marketeering.

I don't believe in libertarianism because:
1. It's far too idealistic
2. It shows me a world where fighting and clawing to the top are the only ways to escape crushing poverty.

"Let's make an exercise in etymology? From Liber meaning free. Freedom is one of the dearest comcepts of Libertarianism. What is called in the modern world liberalism feels that people must be forced or compelled into freedom."

I'm a Liberal because I want as much freedom as possible. But I see the role of democracy in providing for the common good when it does not infinge too far into ones personal rights (e.g. protecting us with an army, protecting people from the worst types of poverty).

"Of course police and a military are needed. The role of government is to protect the citizens."

Agreed. But from a purely Libertarian stand point, if I didn't want to pay for an army, should I have to? Should I be forced to?

"Yes, force is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of the people, and I think that the government should have a monopoly on violence."

I don't understand. Sarcasm?

"And corporations cannot force people to buy their products, if someone else provides a better product or service, then the customers will take their business elsewhere."

Not if there are no regulations on monopolies...

Modern liberalism isn't that so much as it is the belief that freedoms can only come from the government. That without government regulation of freedom, then people will begin losing their freedoms.

Modern liberalism also prescribes to a different definition of freedom, one that is more what libertarians would consider safety, freedom from economic disadvantage, freedom from harming oneself too horribly.


Indeed. Well spoken.

"At what period in time did we become interrelated and interdependant?"

There has always been some level of interdependence, but it has become more obvious and pressing with the modern era, when property has been joined border to border, leaving no room for the poor to start a new life. It has become more evident with the creation of weapons that can destroy the world if they are not controlled. We are more interdependent now with a more organized and interdependent economy, one that depends more and more on those of other nations. The modern era is the age of interdependence as no other has been, and as such, a Liberal must realize the need for new strategies to combat assaults on the freedom to live, eat, be happy, and to be free from unnecessary control.

Bah, we're only against government legislated community. It's hard to force people to like each other, except via brainwashing.
I also believe that the whole "sense of community" thing flies into the face of reason. It seems to introduce too much emotion into the equation and basically forces people to feel pity on the "less fortunate."

If you think Libertarianism flies in the face of reason...read some Ayn Rand. :p


I have read Ayn Rand, and I can't find any reason in her writing. You have to look at her history as well. She would have affairs and justify them by calling her affair reasoned, and her husband's complaints illogical. The truth about Rand is that she was a factory-owner's daughter who got pissed off because she lost all her money during the Russian Revolution.


The truth of the matter is, community exists, and libertarianism makes the absurd claim that it in fact does not. Free trade is a completely new concept. Community has been the one defining attribute humans have. Not our intelligence, not our dexterity, our ability to pass information and culture down through generations, and to conduct ourselves in workable, reasonable communities.

Rand makes reasonable points, but her writing as a whole is not reasonable.

I don't understand. Sarcasm?

The government has the obligation to provide physical protection to its citizens from both outside and inside forces. Violence should be monopolized by the government in that know force outside of the government would be able to enforce his/her wishes through violent measures.

You are mistaken. Libertarians recognize collective effort. They merely maintain that such efforts should be engaged in by consenting parties and not forced by violence or the threat thereof by external groups.


Classical liberalism is the only political movement throughout history that places more rights in the hands of individuals than in the hands of groups. And though our history is riddled with idiocy and superstition, a movement that rejects the basic tenent of human existence is nothing that has merit.

The truth of the matter is, community exists, and libertarianism makes the absurd claim that it in fact does not. Free trade is a completely new concept. Community has been the one defining attribute humans have. Not our intelligence, not our dexterity, our ability to pass information and culture down through generations, and to conduct ourselves in workable, reasonable communities.

I disagree with this, as I said before, Libertarians do not believe that the community does not exist, but that it is hindered by government regulation.

Classical liberalism is the only political movement throughout history that places more rights in the hands of individuals than in the hands of groups. And though our history is riddled with idiocy and superstition, a movement that rejects the basic tenent of human existence is nothing that has merit.

And to follow up, it doesn't reject the basic tenet of human existence, it only rejects that the tenets should be enforced. Under a truly free society, there would be nothing stopping communities from freely forming communistic groups that have more resemblance to human nature.

I searched for a while to find a good forum on Libertarianism and I couldn't really find one that suited me (except for a weird one on traffic lights). So I made this one.

Libertarianism is a philosophy I have poured much thought into, trying to grapple with its good and bad sides. But I have come to the decision that it disgusts me. As I see it, Libertarianism is just a denial of any sort of community, and flies in the face of reason. Please try and disarm me of this belief.

Just be independent. Libertarians DO have an extreme wing in which they are close to anarchist and prefer the situation to be as it was during the Articles of Confederation which was basicly a mess.

All you need to do is be independent, learn much of original intent of the founders, be anti-government in a suspicious way to protect you from having your civil liberties infringed by government, but not in a "removal of all forms of government" way.

Most of all learn more about how a Republic is supposed to work and learn how OUR republic was designed to work. You'll realize you don't need ANY ****ing political party. You'll only vote for those in which the canidates are more closely aligned with good ideology.

*snip*
So, are you suggesting that we should force ourselves to be communal?
Where does "community" end and "I" begin? Personally, I only want to take part in some "community" if I want to.

I disagree with this, as I said before, Libertarians do not believe that the community does not exist, but that it is hindered by government regulation.



And to follow up, it doesn't reject the basic tenet of human existence, it only rejects that the tenets should be enforced. Under a truly free society, there would be nothing stopping communities from freely forming communistic groups that have more resemblance to human nature.


When more rights are given to the individual than to the angry mob, I get extremely worried. But seriously, collective rights are infringed upon by individual rights. The right to be represented by your labour union for instance. All an employer has to do is hire strike-breakers and the collective power of the group is devastated by the misrepresented power of the individual. Classical liberalism was Bourgeoisie from the beginning. It was never a worker-supported movement. All libertarianism can do (from what I can see) is create suspicious neighbors and those few elite who were ambitious/rich enough to make it utterly dominate society.

Though I must admit, the freedom to do whatever I like with my own body is the one thing Libertarians get right. Personal rights should always be fully guaranteed. But when my rights involve ignoring another person's rights, that is where Libertarianism tears itself apart at the seams.

I searched for a while to find a good forum on Libertarianism and I couldn't really find one that suited me (except for a weird one on traffic lights). So I made this one.

Libertarianism is a philosophy I have poured much thought into, trying to grapple with its good and bad sides. But I have come to the decision that it disgusts me. As I see it, Libertarianism is just a denial of any sort of community, and flies in the face of reason. Please try and disarm me of this belief.

My concept of libertarianism is: Basically, we have the right to do as we please so long as it doesn't harm or impose apon another. This does NOT remove community: if we want to include other people in 'our little worlds' it is up to us. That is one of the principals of libertarianism: we can choose such things. If I want to start or live in a commune itself, all the better to me. Or if I want to sit and whistle in the dark, it is my right to do so. Or if I simply want to help out my neighbors or friends and be kind, or maybe be religious, or perhaps be aethiest, or even be gay and get married, so be it, I have harmed none (in fact in many cases helped others). And if I want to dump crud on your lawn to get rid of it, or kick your pets, or poison you, I have by those actions forfeighted the right to live as I want (thusly I can be imposed apon by the government and arrested) by not giving you the right to live unharmed by me. My version of libertarianism is based on trust and kindness, and of course compromise and acceptance (because it's nearly impossible that one's existence could be perfectly benign to everyone). And would probably fall out if attempted to be applied on a large scale. But I prefer to live by it anyway. Because I love to help out, but like my space, and would prefer that, for example, other religions don't try to impose their ways apon me, ect.

So, are you suggesting that we should force ourselves to be communal?
Where does "community" end and "I" begin? Personally, I only want to take part in some "community" if I want to.


The "I" stops right where your body starts and another's begins. But the impacts of one will always impact another if we involve ourselves with other people. If you wanted to be a hermit, than so be it, but after that, you are a member of the community and the range of your personal freedom should only extend to what you do with yourself and what you do with your personal property. Private property infringes on the rights of others, especially when it is not regulated. When you hire someone to work for you, your property rights infringe on their rights to conduct the rest of their day. In order to make money, your rights take their right to choose how they want to work away. They could choose to leave, but while they work for you, every decision you make is a decision they don't. This is why I reject Libertarianism. Because even though coersion is a reality in any system, in Libertarianism, because it seeks to abandon coersion (mainly of the Bourgeoisie) it makes the coersion so much worse. Without a policy, without worker's standards, without a labor union, the rights of the Property owner infringe on the rights of the worker more and more and more.

Now, I'm a communist, so if this seems increasingly classist, I apologize. But this is still where Libertarianism fails. That whoever extends their rights onto another is the benefitor, that there are no protections to the subjectee.

Modern liberalism isn't that so much as it is the belief that freedoms can only come from the government. That without government regulation of freedom, then people will begin losing their freedoms.

Modern liberalism also prescribes to a different definition of freedom, one that is more what libertarians would consider safety, freedom from economic disadvantage, freedom from harming oneself too horribly.

How is this a freedomwhen it is enforced by violence or the threat therof?

My concept of libertarianism is: Basically, we have the right to do as we please so long as it doesn't harm or impose apon another. This does NOT remove community: if we want to include other people in 'our little worlds' it is up to us. That is one of the principals of libertarianism: we can choose such things. If I want to start or live in a commune itself, all the better to me. Or if I want to sit and whistle in the dark, it is my right to do so. Or if I simply want to help out my neighbors or friends and be kind, or maybe be religious, or perhaps be aethiest, or even be gay and get married, so be it, I have harmed none (in fact in many cases helped others). And if I want to dump crud on your lawn to get rid of it, or kick your pets, or poison you, I have by those actions forfeighted the right to live as I want (thusly I can be imposed apon by the government and arrested) by not giving you the right to live unharmed by me. My version of libertarianism is based on trust and kindness, and of course compromise and acceptance (because it's nearly impossible that one's existence could be perfectly benign to everyone). And would probably fall out if attempted to be applied on a large scale. But I prefer to live by it anyway. Because I love to help out, but like my space, and would prefer that, for example, other religions don't try to impose their ways apon me, ect.


Not bad, not a bad notion at all. Libertarianisms best beliefs are in the social sphere. It's when you get to economics that it starts getting ugly.

There are plenty of forums on "Libertarianism".

My suggestion, however, is not to frequent any of them, because they are irrelevant in really spreading the message and spirit of libertarian ideas. Coming from a Hardcore Libertarian, the academic discussion of Libertarian philosophy should be compounded and discarded as readily as possible, because it distracts from the basic premise of why Libertarians are trying their hand in politics and not just in academics:

Government should reflect libertarian priorities instead of authoritarian priorities.

That's all there is to being a libertarian. When we overcomplicate that and create litmus tests with "isms", we discourage people who should be libertarians from ever realizing that they really are naturally at home in a libertarian circle.

Libertarianism is a compass, but it's not the map.

How is this a freedomwhen it is enforced by violence or the threat therof?


Government is, by definition, the legitimate (or illegitimate in some countries) monopoly of violence in a given territory. Police officers, while they may be here to help, are really extending violence on the people who seek to use violence for their own uses. Government cannot be miniscule, it is an impossibility. Government needs to be larger in order to function.

There are plenty of forums on "Libertarianism".

My suggestion, however, is not to frequent any of them, because they are irrelevant in really spreading the message and spirit of libertarian ideas. Coming from a Hardcore Libertarian, the academic discussion of Libertarian philosophy should be compounded and discarded as readily as possible, because it distracts from the basic premise of why Libertarians are trying their hand in politics and not just in academics:

Government should reflect libertarian priorities instead of authoritarian priorities.

That's all there is to being a libertarian. When we overcomplicate that and create litmus tests with "isms", we discourage people who should be libertarians from ever realizing that they really are naturally at home in a libertarian circle.

Libertarianism is a compass, but it's not the map.



I'm a communist so I have my own view of things. I can't say that I don't want the inevitable nonexistence of government, but my notion of that extends to community rights instead of individual rights. Granted, individual rights would need to exist, and personal rights are always open to the individual.

Personally, I think the best definition of libertarianism is:

You have the right to do whatever you want provided that you don't infringe on my rights.

This has a couple interesting side effects. The most notable one is that morality isn't legislated. It is left to the individual and society in general to work it out for themselves rather than be preached at by the people allowed to have guns (see force below).

To put this in recent context, all the uproar over same sex marriage would simply not happen in a libertarian government. Adults could do whatever they consent to. Could gays and lesbians marry? Sure. Could religious christians get upset and yell at them? Absolutely. Could each side try to persuade the other to change their ways? You betcha. Could the government use its ability to lock the minority opinion holders in jail? No Why? Because the marriage of two gay men does not effect the rights of anyone else.

It may upset some people, and the price of living in a society in which you can do what you like is that others can do what they like regardless of how you feel about it.


One of the appeals of so-called 3rd parties (libertarians, greens, etc) is that they tend to be based on a philosophy and have a cogent approach to government based on that philosophy. This is contrasted with our two biggies, the repubs (once based on abolition) and the dems (once based on libertarian-like principles) which have become so bloated that they just have a collection of issues developed over the years.

In libertarianism this results in a minimalist approach to government. As someone mentioned government should have a monopoly on force. This includes internal police powers as well as national defense and taxation. Some other common functions of a minimalist government include maintaining the judicial system, maintaining the infrastructure, and other basic duties which you might think the government should do based on the constitution.

So what does all this mean?

I can do anything I want with my own property. I can pile trash (if no health risk is created) on it like someone mentioned in an example. Of course, my neighbor can take countermeasures, whether adversarial or cooperative, to persuade me to do otherwise.

Additionally it supports a much more laissez-faire business climate than currently exists, as a corporation (legal person) can do whatever it likes so long as the rights of others are not harmed. This would outlaw criminal behavior (mainly theft and negligence) and harmful pollution (harms the right to life). However this would allow just about anything else. Would contracts be struck that were disadvantageous to the consumer? Probably. Free market pressures would minimize this in the long run, but in the short run it is expected that a cognizant adult can decide what is best for him or her.

This has already gone too long. So to sum up: libertarianism is the political philosophy of personal responsibility.

Classical liberalism is the only political movement throughout history that places more rights in the hands of individuals than in the hands of groups. And though our history is riddled with idiocy and superstition, a movement that rejects the basic tenent of human existence is nothing that has merit.

Well first of all you are wrong. Lenninism, Maoism, Fascism, Socialism, and Feudalism place the most rights into a small select group of individuals. Wether it be an aristorcacy or politburo. Classical Liberalism like Libertarianism places the most rights upon all individuals in the society. Second of all why did you quote me? My statement made no reference to that phenomena. Third and finally what basic tenant are you refering to?

There are plenty of forums on "Libertarianism".

My suggestion, however, is not to frequent any of them, because they are irrelevant in really spreading the message and spirit of libertarian ideas. Coming from a Hardcore Libertarian, the academic discussion of Libertarian philosophy should be compounded and discarded as readily as possible, because it distracts from the basic premise of why Libertarians are trying their hand in politics and not just in academics:

Government should reflect libertarian priorities instead of authoritarian priorities.

That's all there is to being a libertarian. When we overcomplicate that and create litmus tests with "isms", we discourage people who should be libertarians from ever realizing that they really are naturally at home in a libertarian circle.

Libertarianism is a compass, but it's not the map.


Are you suggesting that people should not try to understand what "libertarian priorities" are, but simply adopt them? Quaint metaphors do not explain what ideals or concepts you encourage us to expect from our government. It seems that your argument is:

Don't worry about what it means, just agree with it.

Academic discussion is intended to define concepts, and it is necessary before adopting any set of standards or priorities.

Government is, by definition, the legitimate (or illegitimate in some countries) monopoly of violence in a given territory. Police officers, while they may be here to help, are really extending violence on the people who seek to use violence for their own uses. Government cannot be miniscule, it is an impossibility. Government needs to be larger in order to function.

If government monopolizesviolence to what purpose? To minimize or maximise the ammount of dammage dealt out? Libertarians beleive that the only reason to use force is in self defense wether by the government or an individual. The government that initiates force as an imposition against peaceful citizens is the tyrant's government.

I think thirty years of Libertarian Party (not to say this is the only body of the libertarian movement) history have proven that academic discussion is fine for those who are interested, but that body of interest will never exceed .5% of the national population and it will not elect much more than a Soil and Water Commissioner who slips by on a write-in.

For hardcores, fine, go ahead and discuss, but all that does is distract you from getting out there and talking to real people who don't know and don't care who Murray Rothbard is. I'm more of the opinion that it's necessary to lead by example instead of sitting around and giving more merit to the argument that Ls are simply idealistic complainers without a priority or a plan.

Socialists earned their way over the last century in America. They embedded themselves in the two parties and they created little pieces of their philosophy here and there. They instituted income tax, and with that money they fought more war, wrought more poverty and devastation and then introduced wealth redistribution to "fix" the problems they created.

Now, people say one would be dramatic to call anyone in U.S. government other than Bernie Sanders a Socialist. And yet, even Karl Marx knew one of the first steps to Communism was a progressive income tax that could level the free distribution of wealth until everyone was equally economically oppressed.

Similar steps are necessary for libertarians, and it starts with talking about ourselves and our ideas like a non-cyborg...or at least a non-academic.

Personally, I despise most self proclaimed libertairans mainly because there is a certain degree of arrogance present. They say, "well, we're neither liberal nor conservative," and then they go on to attack both sides while claiming they're so great being libertarian and all. Libertarianism is a good thing, but the arrogance has got to go.

Well first of all you are wrong. Lenninism, Maoism, Fascism, Socialism, and Feudalism place the most rights into a small select group of individuals. Wether it be an aristorcacy or politburo. Classical Liberalism like Libertarianism places the most rights upon all individuals in the society. Second of all why did you quote me? My statement made no reference to that phenomena. Third and finally what basic tenant are you refering to?


You were talking about community, and how community exists in a libertarian government.

Your problems with other forms of government are well founded, Classical liberalism does have definite advantages in that there is at least a notion of equality. But conservatism has it's own advantages, and in another thread, I talk about how communism embodies the best aspects of both, with equal treatment as well as a respect for community. Look up threads regarding communism, my old poster was Stop Banning Me Mods. It used to be in my signature, but naturally it wouldn't be anymore.

The largest advantages that people have had in becoming the most technological and dominant species are three: Community (being the most important) Dexterity (being second most) and Communication (least, but technically it ties into Community and is a part of it's strength). We have the greatest sense of community, the best dexterity, and the most advanced means of communication of any other species, and as such, all of human society and innovation jump from these attributes.

While I am an individualist myself, I think government should seek to propogate those attributes which have taken humans where they have already.

No, you misread my post. I don't think libertarians bother with generosity or kindness. At least, none of the one's I've talked to. No, my biggest problem with libertarianism is the idea that the freedom of one individual doesn't impact the freedom of another. Granted, your right to punch your neighbor in the face may not be accepted as a right, but the right to freely dump garbage on your property, the right to conduct your business independently of regulations, these rights and others infringe on other people's rights.

But those aren't 'rights' granted by Libertarianism. If someone dumps garbage on your land, you can take them to court for polluting your land, making use of your land without your permission, and similar laws. The right to conduct business independantly of regulations is quite alright if you believe 90% of the said regulations are at least flawed and at most immoral.

The right to life can only be guaranteed if an individual has enough to eat. And the right to unregulated private property infringes on this, by allowing the business owner to give wages however he sees fit. Workplace injuries are not his problem. Recirculation of workers to lower costs keeps rookies in the business and forces veterans to quit. I can understand that free-trade is supposed to limit prices, but the destruction of your fellow companies by besting them in price combat is a negative strain on the economy. Thus manufacturers often raise their prices in tandem with their competitors (out of agreement) as well as lowering the quality, because it is more profitable to have a person return to your product than to conduct honest free-marketeering.

Yes, in the short term it is likely that there would be mistreatment of workers. I won't go into wages (Suffice it to say they regulate themselves.), but after not too long (And you would easily be able to take an employer to task for making you work in unsafe conditions.) most would realize that healthy, happy, well-treated workers are ten times better than the alternatives. It's common sense, and really it would only take one or two large employers to implement such a system before it became common practise.

I don't believe in libertarianism because:
1. It's far too idealistic
2. It shows me a world where fighting and clawing to the top are the only ways to escape crushing poverty.

1) All models are idealistic. I simply happen to side with one which puts the individuals business in the individual's hands.
2) Yeah, that's pretty much the only way it works anyway.

I have read Ayn Rand, and I can't find any reason in her writing. You have to look at her history as well. She would have affairs and justify them by calling her affair reasoned, and her husband's complaints illogical. The truth about Rand is that she was a factory-owner's daughter who got pissed off because she lost all her money during the Russian Revolution.
Or perhaps she merely experienced both sides of an issue (communism and capatilism) and realized which side offered the greatest capacity for human growth. I will admit though, her obssession with affairs is somewhat . . . odd.

The truth of the matter is, community exists, and libertarianism makes the absurd claim that it in fact does not. Free trade is a completely new concept. Community has been the one defining attribute humans have. Not our intelligence, not our dexterity, our ability to pass information and culture down through generations, and to conduct ourselves in workable, reasonable communities.
Oh really? Then what about wolf packs? Bee hives? Dolphins?
In fact, what about all other communal species which lack opposable thumbs, human intellect, and the ability to pass on culture?
Or perhaps I missed the news report where ants (which have us beat on numbers and sense of community) developed the atomic bomb? I suppose it ran side by side with the report about wolves developing X-ray machines.
Actually, it is the instinct towards the individual that have allowed humanity to thrive and spread. Monkeys have intellegence and opposable thumbs; ants have more numbers; wolves are more efficient in weaponless hunting and combat; Fish/Sea mammals have more territory; etc, etc.
What sets humanity apart is its respect for individual rights and inherent ambitions toward the future.

It shows me a world where fighting and clawing to the top are the only ways to escape crushing poverty.
That is exactly the idea I liked. The fact that libertarianism forces people to keep fighting onward to remain alive. The world would be a better place if people were forced out of there lethargy.

That is exactly the idea I liked. The fact that libertarianism forces people to keep fighting onward to remain alive. The world would be a better place if people were forced out of there lethargy.

Your concept of lethargy is a bit offensive. It suggests that those who make it possible for capitalist ownership to gain their power are lazy becuse they do not seek that same power for themselves. Not everyone can be at the to pof the capitalist food chain. This cuts directly to the concept of community being essential. The current system, especially if left unfettered by libertarian decree, does not allow for every person to make an equally fine life for themself. This is an impairment to the personal freedom that you claim to seek and reveals the oxymoron that is the libertarian economic stance. When the fighting and clawing happens, and you aren't at the top, will you still support these ideals?

I found this a few days ago. It's the World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html)
Try to read about how the quiz was developed and what the map means because otherwise you may want to dismiss it as simplistic.
It's accurate for me.

I consider myself a liberal libertarian, and I manage to consistently annoy both groups, so I doubt I'm the best person to define either. To me, the core concept of both is freedom. In the case of libertarianism, freedom from society, in the case of liberalism, freedom from natural pressures. Both are about individual rights, civil liberties, and self determination. The primary difference is in the way that these concepts are approached. Liberalism to me is the idea that people are inherently unequal, and that the role of society and government is to lift up the downtrodden, protect them from each other and their environement, and thereby give them the freedom to pursue the courses they see fit. Libertariansim (to me) is the idea that freedom, in particular freedom of action and decision, is the single most important human right, and that government exists to protect and ensure individual freedom, and individual rights. I consider pure libertariansim to be inherently flawed, in that it neglects the power of groups to sway government, and to wield power in a manner far beyond the ability of individuals to resist. Liberalism is similarly flawed, because in protecting people from the dangers that their environment, and society, impose, it removes the opportunity for individual risk taking, and destroys individual power and freedom of action.
In combining them, and attempting to surmount these flaws, I have, as I previously said, aggravated Libertarians I know, because I give their economic opinions effectively no credit whatsoever. I feel that corporations need to be thoroughly regulated, and cannot be trusted, and that a free market is inherently inaccessible to the individual. Somone earlier in the thread commented that corporations can't force people to buy their products, but that is neither entirely accurate nor the whole of the problem. Because money, advertising and getting a message out is the core element of campaigning in a large deomcratic society, corporations, which tend to have more resources than an individual, are able to wield a disproportionate amount of influence on the process. Also, because a corporation is difficult to punish in appropriate manners, such as imprisonment, and execution, but is capable of taking actions that are at least as destructive as those an individual might take, corporations must be much more closely watched, and controlled, to protect individuals from them. There is a way to reconcile this opinion somewhat with more general Libertarianism, but it is less than complete. A corporation is not alive, and as such has no inherent rights, ergo limits placed on it are not limitations on personal freedom.
The remainder of my attitude is much more libertarian than liberal, for example, I believe that smoking should be allowed in all privately owned property, and outdoors, I believe that little, if any social aid should go to those who are able to work, but unwilling to do so. I believe that the government should never limit behaviour except when people are unavoidably victimized. Sexual behaviour, drug use, unhealthy lifestyles, are all the choice of the individual. Forcing people to behave in a safe, healthy, moral manner is something I consider an unjustifiable governmental intrusion. I oppose gun control in all forms, because weapons, deadly force, represent the last resort of the population defending itself from tyranny. If the government has all the guns, you're never really safe, because the government can always turn on you, and no amount of citizens oversight can stop the people with the guns from shooting you if they decide to.
My most attacked stance, however, relates to the war on terror. I am against it. I believe that when the government seeks to prevent terroism, by gathering intelligence on citizens and foreign nationals, by monitoring seditious groups, we are subjecting ourselves to tyranny, however light. I believe that no amount of government scrutiny will stop the sufficiently determined terrorist, and that in trying, and in changing our way of life, we give the terrorists more power, and more influence over our society, than we otherwise would. I believe that terrorists should be punished as criminals, with jury trials, open investigations, in short, the same treatment that might be given to a serial killer, or a leader of a gang war. My attitude towards the choice between freedoms and protections has been stated with astonishing clarity by Benjamin Franklin and as I have neither the skill nor the need to add anything to it, I will let his words stand for themselves. "They who can give up a little essential liberty in exchange for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."
Libertarianism requires an emotional commitment to the ideal of freedom, and no logic can provide that. While I doubt that anything said in this thread will sway anyone here one way or the other, I would consider it a great outcome if a few people examined their beliefs, and compared them to their actions, and to the actions of the groups to whom they consider themselves allied. If people don't know what they believe, how can they be expected to act on those beliefs?

Your concept of lethargy is a bit offensive. It suggests that those who make it possible for capitalist ownership to gain their power are lazy becuse they do not seek that same power for themselves. Not everyone can be at the to pof the capitalist food chain. This cuts directly to the concept of community being essential. The current system, especially if left unfettered by libertarian decree, does not allow for every person to make an equally fine life for themself. This is an impairment to the personal freedom that you claim to seek and reveals the oxymoron that is the libertarian economic stance. When the fighting and clawing happens, and you aren't at the top, will you still support these ideals?
Your concept of entitlement is a bit offensive. Seriously, aside from masturbatory feel-goodism, why would everyone deserve "an equally fine life"?
Also, I'd really like to know (sans the pseudointellectual posturing)...
Without an authoritarian presence there to hold a gun to their heads, how can you ensure that everyone will get up out of bed in the morning to participate in this utopian fantasy?
Why wouldn't they just lie there, knowing that everything will be taken care of?
And once they realize that they're most certainly guaranteed their equally fine life, who the hell will go back to their shitty job?

I'm purposely restraining from using the usual linguistic acrobatics we all usually engage in here because I'd like one (just one) socialist or communist to explain to me how this would work. It's such a painfully simple question.

I've never gotten an adequate response.

Perhaps Liberals were once more Libertarian, but times change, and Liberals had to change their positions to meet the demands of the current period, in which we are all interrelated and interdependent. Government is important now to prevent corporate domination and to protect people in general. I'm supposing that you Libertarians are at least the semi-rational sort that support an army and police force?

Liberals did not adapt. The moniker was hijacked by the American Socialist Party early in 20th century:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
- Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential Candidate and co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

So those in America who call themselves liberals today, are actually following a socialist agenda. Now, they may not know that's what's going on....

I'll support an army, yes, but not a police force, now that the SCOTUS has determined that police don't have to protect people.

Governments can be bad when they don't represent the will of the people. But when you live in a democracy, they are only an extension of the people's will, and they are the forum that all people can use to be heard.


Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where the rights of 49% are overridden.

I like to think of Libertarianism as right-wing; we're like Republicans, but we value personal freedoms (the right to put what you want in your body, like drugs, for example). Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation of what a Libertarian is, then again, it's also confusing because Libertarians don't agree 100% on everything.

There have been some good points on all sides, but the Libertarians really haven't not convinced me that they're not mostly hypocrites, denying the existence of community in some instances and not others. I don't think any Libertarian would deny the need for an army to protect our national interests and defend our borders. But an army is the product of taxpayer money. In some instances, aren't there those who oppose military force of any kind? Aren't there some who would like to keep they're money and not waste it on an army that they don't believe will ever be needed to defend them from any attack? Granted, anyone who thinks this way would be foolish, we need an army (though possibly a less expensive one) to defend our borders from terrorist attacks, etc. But should these people be forced by the government to pay for this army? From a purely Libertarian stand point, wouldn't these people's basic property rights be being denied?

In the case of the army, we need it to protect our nation, OUR BIG COMMUNITY from being attacked. I think most everyone agrees, and because we live in a democracy that feels like this, we support a military. But if the majority of our community also recognizes the need to defend our citizens from the worst kinds of poverty, can't we also require that people pay some of their income to stop this? I mean, if the majority of the population supports help for the poor, can't they use the people's forum, the government, to work towards this goal? It is the same as an army, correct? The majority wants to protect against a danger facing a portion of society, so they work to stop it. I know Libertarians oppose economic aid and welfare, but why? Isn't defending another person's freedom from starvation equal in importance to defending someone's freedom from criminals (police) and from foreign armies?

There have been some good points on all sides, but the Libertarians really haven't not convinced me that they're not mostly hypocrites, denying the existence of community in some instances and not others. I don't think any Libertarian would deny the need for an army to protect our national interests and defend our borders. But an army is the product of taxpayer money. In some instances, aren't there those who oppose military force of any kind? Aren't there some who would like to keep they're money and not waste it on an army that they don't believe will ever be needed to defend them from any attack? Granted, anyone who thinks this way would be foolish, we need an army (though possibly a less expensive one) to defend our borders from terrorist attacks, etc. But should these people be forced by the government to pay for this army? From a purely Libertarian stand point, wouldn't these people's basic property rights be being denied?

In the case of the army, we need it to protect our nation, OUR BIG COMMUNITY from being attacked. I think most everyone agrees, and because we live in a democracy that feels like this, we support a military. But if the majority of our community also recognizes the need to defend our citizens from the worst kinds of poverty, can't we also require that people pay some of their income to stop this? I mean, if the majority of the population supports help for the poor, can't they use the people's forum, the government, to work towards this goal? It is the same as an army, correct? The majority wants to protect against a danger facing a portion of society, so they work to stop it. I know Libertarians oppose economic aid and welfare, but why? Isn't defending another person's freedom from starvation equal in importance to defending someone's freedom from criminals (police) and from foreign armies?
Obviously, you're hearing anarchy when people are saying libertarianism.
You hear zero, when people are simply saying less. Enormous difference.

Go argue at an anarchist's thread. At least you won't screw up the symantics!

We're throwing pearls to pigs, people. :p

I know Libertarians aren't anarchists, but aren't you opposed to social welfare programs, like national healthcare, etc?

I know Libertarians aren't anarchists, but aren't you opposed to social welfare programs, like national healthcare, etc?
Mostly, yes I am. But it's quite simple: concerning HealthCare... I have no fucking insurance! As a small business owner, I can't afford it right now (and I'm only 28). Still, nobody can turn me down at the hospital. I'll just get a bill that I'll have to pay off a little at a time each month. If I don't, it will affect my credit rating.

What the hell makes this so bad? Also, if I'm fucked out of money for the month, I'd have to go through charity to make the rent. Since I'm a white male without children, the government doesn't deem me worthy of any help whatsoever.
I get absolutely nothing out of social programs, regardless of my economic position! Sad, but true.

And so, no. I don't wish for the government to take my money to give it to people whom they deem worthy of that money. It's bullshit, plain and simple.

Also, why don't you answer my question on the previous page???

There have been some good points on all sides, but the Libertarians really haven't not convinced me that they're not mostly hypocrites, denying the existence of community in some instances and not others.


I never denied the existence of society. Basically, you choose to try to work with your neighbors for your own common good, or you don't--and don't reap any of the potential rewards or common goals. The difference is that there is always the choice (and consequences of either choice).


I don't think any Libertarian would deny the need for an army to protect our national interests and defend our borders. But an army is the product of taxpayer money. In some instances, aren't there those who oppose military force of any kind? Aren't there some who would like to keep they're money and not waste it on an army that they don't believe will ever be needed to defend them from any attack? Granted, anyone who thinks this way would be foolish, we need an army (though possibly a less expensive one) to defend our borders from terrorist attacks, etc. But should these people be forced by the government to pay for this army? From a purely Libertarian stand point, wouldn't these people's basic property rights be being denied?


You're assuming that it would need to be paid by citizen taxpayer dollars. Tariffs and other methods that take the money from transactions overseas can either help or completely foot the cost of a defensive military.


In the case of the army, we need it to protect our nation, OUR BIG COMMUNITY from being attacked. I think most everyone agrees, and because we live in a democracy that feels like this, we support a military.


Two of the very few actual purposes for the government--spelled out in the US Constitution--the right to defend ourselves, and the basic governmental duty of having a military to defend the country.


But if the majority of our community also recognizes the need to defend our citizens from the worst kinds of poverty, can't we also require that people pay some of their income to stop this?


No--purely because there is no right to not be impoverished. You have the right to pursue happiness--you are never guaranteed it. Every human has the potential to get out of poverty--it's their choices that dictate whether or not they do.


I mean, if the majority of the population supports help for the poor, can't they use the people's forum, the government, to work towards this goal?


Once again, no--at least not until they change the constitution. That's the whole point of limiting government--because eventually, regardless of the noble intent of the goal, there will eventually be corruption if those supporting that goal are not also funding it. It's too easy to spend other people's money.

It is the same as an army, correct? The majority wants to protect against a danger facing a portion of society, so they work to stop it.


Nope, it's different--one's in the Constitution, the other isn't--for a reason: I'm not responsible for others.


I know Libertarians oppose economic aid and welfare, but why? Isn't defending another person's freedom from starvation equal in importance to defending someone's freedom from criminals (police) and from foreign armies?

There is no freedom from personal responsibility--IE: the ability to care for oneself. If you want to do whatever you want to/with your body, you also have to be the ONLY one supporting that body. This is where the slope comes in--if I have to pay for what goes on with your body (feeding, clothing, sheltering), I also have a SAY in what is done with that body. I own part of it. I can tell you what you can and cannot do with it. And that's the part that is anathema to Libertarians. I own my body--I can do with it what I will. No one else owns it, no one else subsidizes it, no one else has a say in what happens to it. Therefore, you can't give money to support it, unless it's charity, given willingly, with no strings attached. Government taking taxpayer money and doing that, without everyone's consent is stealing and supporting that stealing with force.

Your concept of entitlement is a bit offensive. Seriously, aside from masturbatory feel-goodism, why would everyone deserve "an equally fine life"?
Also, I'd really like to know (sans the pseudointellectual posturing)...
Without an authoritarian presence there to hold a gun to their heads, how can you ensure that everyone will get up out of bed in the morning to participate in this utopian fantasy?
Why wouldn't they just lie there, knowing that everything will be taken care of?
And once they realize that they're most certainly guaranteed their equally fine life, who the hell will go back to their shitty job?

I'm purposely restraining from using the usual linguistic acrobatics we all usually engage in here because I'd like one (just one) socialist or communist to explain to me how this would work. It's such a painfully simple question.

I've never gotten an adequate response.

There isn't an adequate response. Communism is built on the idea that people will help each other because they like each other. Socialism at least recognizes the fallacy therein.

I never denied the existence of society. Basically, you choose to try to work with your neighbors for your own common good, or you don't--and don't reap any of the potential rewards or common goals. The difference is that there is always the choice (and consequences of either choice).
Yes, the problem I see with communism (or at least socialism) is that it is coercive, thus detrimental to free will

When more rights are given to the individual than to the angry mob, I get extremely worried. But seriously, collective rights are infringed upon by individual rights. The right to be represented by your labour union for instance. All an employer has to do is hire strike-breakers and the collective power of the group is devastated by the misrepresented power of the individual. Classical liberalism was Bourgeoisie from the beginning. It was never a worker-supported movement. All libertarianism can do (from what I can see) is create suspicious neighbors and those few elite who were ambitious/rich enough to make it utterly dominate society.

Though I must admit, the freedom to do whatever I like with my own body is the one thing Libertarians get right. Personal rights should always be fully guaranteed. But when my rights involve ignoring another person's rights, that is where Libertarianism tears itself apart at the seams.

The way I look at it is this, the collective rights equal the sum of the individual rights of all concerned. The union should be a collection of workers who are acting freely within their rights to create a very large collective force. And no one who is consistent in their liberalism would deny the worker's right to unionize or strike, none would deny the employers right to layoff workers who strike, and foremost none would allow the use of strike breakers like the Ludlow massacre.

I do not support any measures that would restrict people from combining their rights into a collective force, as with my current theme, people will assemble and work as a collective without government interference.

How is this a freedomwhen it is enforced by violence or the threat therof?

Those ideas are not consistent with my ideas of freedom either. However, you cannot really argue about government enforced freedom when there is a system that allows you a change the government policy and the policies are applied universally.

From a purely Libertarian stand point, wouldn't these people's basic property rights be being denied?

I would say not, as the government is in charge of guaranteeing those property rights, and the taxes that we pay for military are the payment for the guaranteeing of property rights. Now when the military is used for wars that are not that necessary for the defending of our rights, then that might be a legitimate beef. However, paying for the military in general is a necessity.

I know Libertarians oppose economic aid and welfare, but why? Isn't defending another person's freedom from starvation equal in importance to defending someone's freedom from criminals (police) and from foreign armies?

No, the army is a government service that is utilized by all members of society equally. However, economic aid and welfare in most cases is not, as it is utilized unevenly by the members of society. I cannot support a government that usurps one person's property rights in order to give priveleges to another member of society.