NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, so its clear that I am a Libertarian, but are you? Could you all be so kind as to tell me what you think of Libertarianism? I know a lot of you Europeans hate it with a passion. If you think its bad, please post specifics. Not just, its evil! or, its insane! I want good reasons. Thankyou

Definition of Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)

I believe that I speak for all Europeans when I say that they dislike libertarianism because they are unwilling to work and rely on the government to support their indolence.

It could be the fact that there are some libertarians with a religious belief in the unregulated free market when it's been shown time and again that there are some times when government is necessary to ensure the market works properly.

Alright, so its clear that I am a Libertarian, but are you? Could you all be so kind as to tell me what you think of Libertarianism? I know a lot of you Europeans hate it with a passion. If you think its bad, please post specifics. Not just, its evil! or, its insane! I want good reasons. Thankyou

It is unrealistic because it assumes that all people are rational agents who consistently see all the options available to them and always choose those which lead to the best outcome.

Any ideology would work with that assumption, provided it was correct. Unfortunately, it is not.

William S. Burrows advised me not to offer sympathy to you and to tell you firmly, "I am not paid to listen to this dribble. You are a terminal fool."

HEY!I'm a Christian Libertarian and I take offense to that remark Aqua!

I'm willing to bet that you're not actually libertarian, but actually just liberal.

Mostly I see them as anti-religions that if they had it their way they would eradicate all religion from the earth. But they are the same that bitch about being persecuted by the religious and cry about civil liberties. See the irony?

I understand the appeal of libertarianism, but wish libertarians would stop running for office. A libertarian in the government in like an atheist in the clergy, it just doesn't work.

William S. Burrows advised me not to offer sympathy to you and to tell you firmly, "I am not paid to listen to this dribble. You are a terminal fool."

I want to know where the quote came from. Now.

Mostly I see them as anti-religions that if they had it their way they would eradicate all religion from the earth. But they are the same that bitch about being persecuted by the religious and cry about civil liberties. See the irony?

Would you happen to be speaking of Libertarian Socialism, or European libertarians? Libertarians in the United States, generally are not anti-religious, and simply believe in seperation of Church and State.

I understand the appeal of libertarianism, but wish libertarians would stop running for office. A libertarian in the government in like an atheist in the clergy, it just doesn't work.
We want to destroy the huge governmnet from within! Nah,not really. We just want to shrink our current government to the size the founding fathers WANTED it to be.

I want to know where the quote came from. Now.


Words of Advice for Young People - pertaining to the mentally ill.

Has there ever been a functioning Libertarian society?

Do you support XYZ?

Do you support TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)?

Do you support WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children)?

Do you support Medicaid?

Do you support Medicare?

Do you support social security?

Do you support public schooling?

If you answered yes to any one of these questions, you are not a libertarian but rather a liberal.

We want to destroy the huge governmnet from within! Nah,not really. We just want to shrink our current government to the size the founding fathers WANTED it to be.

The problem is, the world today isn't the same as the world they lived in; back then, the vast majority of things that exist today were a distant dream, the US only had a little more than 4 million people, and the majority of citizens were semi-self sufficient farmers with a seemingly inexhaustible landscape of natural resources.

Are there some things we should cut back on? Of course. However, we shouldn't seek to return to an imagined utopia that never really existed in the first place. The US at the time of the founding fathers was a lot poorer, weaker, and less developed than it is today and the government was originally based around that fact.

It could be the fact that there are some libertarians with a religious belief in the unregulated free market when it's been shown time and again that there are some times when government is necessary to ensure the market works properly.

When has that ever been proven?

How does the government ensure that the market works properly?

Words of Advice for Young People - pertaining to the mentally ill.

Now I'm going to have to steal that book from a large company. Actually, I'll probably order it from the guy that lives aboves the daycare who runs a second hand book shop.

Seriously guys. Right wing free market fundamentalists who don't care if people smoke pot do not have the monopoly on the word "libertarian." And the Wiki article you posted should be shamed for pretending that it does.

Radical leftists used the word long before Rothbardian types appropriated it, and there are arguably at least as many of us as there are of you.

When has that ever been proven?

Environmental regulation, labor rights, currency and the banking system, the meatpacking industry in the late 19th century, US infrastructure, Standard Oil and US Steel, the vast proliferation of snake oil medicines and false medical advice during the late 19th century...the free market failed every time, and it took the combined efforts of the government and workers to bring about change. That's not to say the free market doesn't work in these fields, just that it doesn't work on its own.

How does the government ensure that the market works properly?

Anti-trust regulation, securities and exchange laws, accounting standards, environmental laws, government inspection and certification industries, to name a few. Without those, companies can do what they want and get away with it, like they have done. Government can correct the information asymmetry that makes abuses possible.

Now I'm going to have to steal that book from a large company. Actually, I'll probably order it from the guy that lives aboves the daycare who runs a second hand book shop.

http://www.jjjwebdevelopment.com/306sites/burroughs/burroughs.shtml

It's also set to music on UMP radio.

The problem is, the world today isn't the same as the world they lived in; back then, the vast majority of things that exist today were a distant dream, the US only had a little more than 4 million people, and the majority of citizens were semi-self sufficient farmers with a seemingly inexhaustible landscape of natural resources.

Are there some things we should cut back on? Of course. However, we shouldn't seek to return to an imagined utopia that never really existed in the first place. The US at the time of the founding fathers was a lot poorer, weaker, and less developed than it is today and the government was originally based around that fact.

It wasn't that much more libertarian, either. They were a stronger political force, in the form of the Jeffersonians, but there were others who wanted a powerful, business helping government. It wasn't either/or.

William S. Burrows advised me not to offer sympathy to you and to tell you firmly, "I am not paid to listen to this dribble. You are a terminal fool."

Sigging that. :D

To the OP:

My view on Libertarianism is that it is a myth. I've been listening to American libertarians (I'm an American, btw) go on and on and on and on (the way they do) about libertarianism most of my life. I have never heard two of them give the same account of what Libertarianism is about. They all start from the same point -- vague stuff about undefined individual rights -- and then they fly off madly in all directions like a bunch of bottle rockets, each redesigning the concept to suit their own desires while vilifying all the other libertarians who say something different. This leaves me with the impression that American Libertarianism is the political equivalent of speculative books about Bigfoot or Atlantis.

The only thing that I personally can see most American libertarians having in common is a vague desire to be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, without having to take their impact on anyone else into account for any reason. Oh, and many of them also seem to expect that other people will pave the highways for them, and do it for free.

I don't generally support Libertarian political candidates because I'm not really interested in supporting other people's self-indulgent pipe-dreams. I have enough self-indulgent pipe-dreams of my own to worry about.

Alright, so its clear that I am a Libertarian, but are you?


a Libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)? No.

a libertarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29)? Yes.


Could you all be so kind as to tell me what you think of Libertarianism?


Libertarians believe that my liberty must be subject to the arbitrary will of those who possess exclusive ownership of scarce economic resources. My life, and thus my liberty, is limited to the extent that I can repurchase my right to each. The goal of any free society should be, however, to eliminate this need for people to repurchase their own liberty. Libertarians are opposed to any such society.

The situation proposed as ideal by Libertarians is, of course, no better than that advocated by Socialists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism), who differ from Libertarians only to the extent that the coercion of exclusive ownership would reside in the state rather than in private individuals. Libertarians deplore individuals making themselves dependent upon the state as Socialists (url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism) would require, but are perfectly happy to demand that individuals make themselves dependent upon private economic strongmen. I see no practical difference between either Libertarianism or Socialism (url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_socialism); in either case my freedom is destroyed.

Thus, I am not a Libertarian exactly because I am a radical individualist and an anti-statist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)

Has there ever been a functioning Libertarian society?
Celtic ireland,Rhode island(before 1648),and some places during the spanish revolution.

Do you support XYZ?

Do you support TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)?

Do you support WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children)?

Do you support Medicaid?

Do you support Medicare?

Do you support social security?

Do you support public schooling?

I support none of them. Which means... I'm still a libertarian! Yay!

I understand the appeal of libertarianism, but wish libertarians would stop running for office. A libertarian in the government in like an atheist in the clergy, it just doesn't work.

Libertarians are not anarchists!?

Sigging that. :D



OK but pretend I spelt William S. Burroughs correctly and said 'drivel' instead of 'dribble'.

Libertarians are not anarchists!?

Of course not. Sorry, that was a bad analogy. Maybe a better one would be "a deist in the clergy?" I don't know.
The point I was trying to make was that people who tend to advocate small government and actually get elected have to deal with a large government. Because one person cannot completely change the society, the libertarian politician, more often than not, just makes government less efficient, but not noticeably smaller.

We want to destroy the huge governmnet from within! Nah,not really. We just want to shrink our current government to the size the founding fathers WANTED it to be.

Really? And that would be what, exactly? Are you some sort of Medium who can speak for the dead? Can you tell me what my dead grandma says to me?

And I really dislike this whole "original intent" crap. Times change. New needs arise. If we were to go by original intent, slavery would still be allowed, and black people would count as 3/5's of a person in terms of voting. Original intent is pure tripe, in the end.

Celtic ireland,Rhode island(before 1648),and some places during the spanish revolution.

That conflicts with my history education. It is possible I am wrong. Can you expand, please?

No, I don't agree in Libertarianism. In Social Psychology, which I am studying right now, there exists a concept called a social trap. A social trap is when two people, each working for their own self interest, mutually exclude each other from benefits. A link here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap

Society doesn't always work out for the better when all of society works in the name of their own self interest. Government regulation for things like environmental protect, which society would otherwise be incapable of dealing with, is necessary.

I believe that I speak for all Europeans when I say that they dislike libertarianism because they are unwilling to work and rely on the government to support their indolence.
That is probably one of the most ridiculously broad and inaccurate statements I've ever read.

Have a medal for that.

I understand the appeal of libertarianism, but wish libertarians would stop running for office. A libertarian in the government in like an atheist in the clergy, it just doesn't work.

Ah, but Libertarians are not actually opposed to government. They are only opposed to non-Libertarian government.

So, a Libertarian in goverment would be more like a Puritan becoming the next Pope.

some places during the spanish revolution.

I hate to break it to you, but these places in Spain during the Spanish Revolution (I assume you mean Catalonia, Andalusia and Aragon?) were anarcho-syndicalist, which is a form of libertarianism, but not the type of libertarian you're advocating.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a radical anti-state, anti-authoritarian socialist philosophy built around worker's self management and radical federalism.

Because one person cannot completely change the society
Pardon? I belive one person can change society. Think of Abraham Lincoln, Juilus Caesar(pardon me if I spelled that wrong), Napoleon Bonaparte, and Josef Stalin(although he DIDN'Tchange his society for the better!) just to name a few.

Environmental regulation, labor rights, currency and the banking system, the meatpacking industry in the late 19th century, US infrastructure, Standard Oil and US Steel, the vast proliferation of snake oil medicines and false medical advice during the late 19th century...the free market failed every time, and it took the combined efforts of the government and workers to bring about change. That's not to say the free market doesn't work in these fields, just that it doesn't work on its own.

Anti-trust regulation, securities and exchange laws, accounting standards, environmental laws, government inspection and certification industries, to name a few. Without those, companies can do what they want and get away with it, like they have done. Government can correct the information asymmetry that makes abuses possible.

Nope.

Ah, but Libertarians are not actually opposed to government. They are only opposed to non-Libertarian government.

So, a Libertarian in goverment would be more like a Puritian becoming the next Pope.

Ahh, I'm a failure when it comes to rhetoric devices. Just pretend I said yours, and not the other two.

Ah, but Libertarians are not actually opposed to government. They are only opposed to non-Libertarian government.

So, a Libertarian in goverment would be more like a Puritian becoming the next Pope.

Actually there are many libertarians devoutly opposed to political means for libertarian ends.

Actually there are many libertarians devoutly opposed to political means for libertarian ends.

He's using capital Ls for a reason, Vittos. Capital L "Libertarian" solely denotes the members and ideology of the Libertarian Party USA, while lower case l "libertarian" is a much broader term.

Pardon? I belive one person can change society. Think of Abraham Lincoln, Juilus Caesar(pardon me if I spelled that wrong), Napoleon Bonaparte, and Josef Stalin(although he DIDN'Tchange his society for the better!) just to name a few.
Caesar didn't actually change society. He was killed because people thought he was going to change society.

My favorite form of Conservative Libertarian politics:

AuH2O

Really? And that would be what, exactly? Are you some sort of Medium who can speak for the dead? Can you tell me what my dead grandma says to me?
No i'm not a medium. I'm just somone with an ounce of sense,able to read, and I have acess to a copy of the constitution online.

Pardon? I belive one person can change society. Think of Abraham Lincoln, Juilus Caesar(pardon me if I spelled that wrong), Napoleon Bonaparte, and Josef Stalin(although he DIDN'Tchange his society for the better!) just to name a few.

None of them did it alone, though. They all stood on the shoulders of others, without whom they would have been respectively a poor Illinois farmer, a nondescript playboy Patrician, a Corsican nobody and a Georgian criminal.

AuH2O
What is THAT supposed to mean? Gold hydrogen and oxygen?

OK but pretend I spelt William S. Burroughs correctly and said 'drivel' instead of 'dribble'.
OK, I'll fix it. ssh. ;)

Actually there are many libertarians devoutly opposed to political means for libertarian ends.

I had assumed from the context of the discussion that we were not talking about them.

And, to the extent that they are happy to remain silent by not participating in the channels civil society provides in order to resolve political issues (do not make the mistake of confusing "politics" with "the state/government"), they are irrelevant anyway. The "silent majority" may as well not exist.


He's using capital Ls for a reason, Vittos. Capital L "Libertarian" solely denotes the members and ideology of the Libertarian Party USA, while lower case l "libertarian" is a much broader term.


Yes, but I do seem to recall running into general supporters of the "Libertarian" Party USA who nonetheless could not be bothered to actually engage in political participation themselves. Proponents of a different kind of free loading, apparently.

He's using capital Ls for a reason, Vittos. Capital L "Libertarian" solely denotes the members and ideology of the Libertarian Party USA, while lower case l "libertarian" is a much broader term.

Ahhh, my bad.

EDIT: But why bring them up?

None of them did it alone, though. They all stood on the shoulders of others, without whom they would have been respectively a poor Illinois farmer, a nondescript playboy Patrician, a Corsican nobody and a Georgian criminal.

And the Libertarian Politicion would be standing on the shoulders of those who elected him. One victory leads to 2. 2 victorys leads to 4. So the process goes on.

What is THAT supposed to mean? Gold hydrogen and oxygen?

Goldwater.

Goldwater.

You get the cookie for Barry Goldwater. He was the man.

I understand the appeal of libertarianism, but wish libertarians would stop running for office. A libertarian in the government in like an atheist in the clergy, it just doesn't work.

Libertarians are not anarchists!?

Essentially coming at it from the other end of the spectrum, as far as I understand it. A libertarian believes in everything being privately owned, whilst an Anarchist believes in nothing being privately owned.

Libertarians are not anarchists!?

This libertarian is *nods*

Ahhh, my bad.

EDIT: But why bring them up?

Because when the thread topic speaks of "Libertarianism," it means essentially the "Libertarianism" of the "Libertarian" Party USA.

And the Libertarian Politicion would be standing on the shoulders of those who elected him. One victory leads to 2. 2 victorys leads to 4. So the process goes on.

You never did respond to my post about the Spanish Revolution.

...an Anarchist believes in nothing being privately owned.

Only if we ignore all those anarchists who believe nothing of the sort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_Anarchism

And, to the extent that they are happy to remain silent by not participating in the channels civil society provides in order to resolve political issues (do not make the mistake of confusing "politics" with "the state/government"), they are irrelevant anyway. The "silent majority" may as well not exist.

They can engage in social change in other meaningful ways that do not undermine their own position:

http://agorism.info/docs/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf

or for brevity:

http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/350

Only if we ignore all those anarchists who believe nothing of the sort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_Anarchism
True, but then it is one of those things which covers a ridiculous amount of the political spectrum. One can go from the Anarchist-Capitalist to the Anarchist-Communist.

Sorry for making such a sweeping statement.

You never did respond to my post about the Spanish Revolution
Sorry got caught up in the conversation. Here's a few links. btw I was NOT talking about all of Spain, nor how it works today but rather a number of communities that worked as a Libertarian society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

They can engage in social change in other meaningful ways that do not undermine their own position:

http://agorism.info/docs/NewLibertarianManifesto.pdf

or for brevity:

http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/350

Absolutely.

But if one ignores a critical front for too long, the enemy has time and opportunity to fortify, and the inevitable will only become far more difficult and costly than it might otherwise need to be.

Sorry got caught up in the conversation. Here's a few links. btw I was NOT talking about all of Spain, nor how it works today but rather a number of communities that worked as a Libertarian society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

I know very well what happened in Spain during 1936. This is what I posted:

I hate to break it to you, but these places in Spain during the Spanish Revolution (I assume you mean Catalonia, Andalusia and Aragon?) were anarcho-syndicalist, which is a form of libertarianism, but not the type of libertarian you're advocating.

Anarcho-syndicalism is a radical anti-state, anti-authoritarian socialist philosophy built around worker's self management and radical federalism.

For the record, I am an anarcho-syndicalist. I was merely pointing out the fact that though there was a libertarian revolution in Spain, it's most likely a different kind of libertarian than yours.

I know very well what happened in Spain during 1936. This is what I posted:



For the record, I am an anarcho-syndicalist. I was merely pointing out the fact that though there was a libertarian revolution in Spain, it's most likely a different kind of libertarian than yours.
Hmmm... I was under the impression it was a fascistic revolution, against the left-wing government, or some such.

For the record, I am an anarcho-syndicalist. I was merely pointing out the fact that though there was a libertarian revolution in Spain, it's most likely a different kind of libertarian than yours.
Point taken.

Hmmm... I was under the impression it was a fascistic revolution, against the left-wing government, or some such.

The Spanish Revolution was the anarchist CNT's response to Franco's attempted coup against the left aligned Republican government. Unfortunately, the revolution is often either misconstrued in history books as being a fascist uprising (we can prolly thank the Stalinists who came to dominate the Republican government) or forgotten all together.

Absolutely.

But if one ignores a critical front for too long, the enemy has time and opportunity to fortify, and the inevitable will only become far more difficult and costly than it might otherwise need to be.

The agorist does not believe the political front is critical. The idea and practicality of the will win the people over.

The movement needs no political expression, it only undermines the movement, as political success presents a picture of an accommodating government.

The agorist does not believe the political front is critical. The idea and practicality of the will win the people over.

The movement needs no political expression, it only undermines the movement, as political success presents a picture of an accommodating government.

Further more, politics isn't limited to the Ivory Tower of parliament. Mass action in the streets can wield more political power far more righteously than any state institution can.

The Spanish Revolution was the anarchist CNT's response to Franco's attempted coup against the left aligned Republican government. Unfortunately, the revolution is often either misconstrued in history books as being a fascist uprising (we can prolly thank the Stalinists who came to dominate the Republican government) or forgotten all together.
Ah, fair enough. I know I was lacking in some basic facts about the whole thing. It is one thing I feel I need to read up on, although I definately am not an anarchist. I do consider myself to be a Socialist.

I believe that I speak for all Europeans when I say that they dislike libertarianism because they are unwilling to work and rely on the government to support their indolence.

So, anyone that doesn't agree with you completely is lazy or a socialist...

By the way, where in the darkest depths of Hell was your libertarianism when you called several times for the government to outlaw dissent?

Ah, fair enough. I know I was lacking in some basic facts about the whole thing. It is one thing I feel I need to read up on, although I definately am not an anarchist. I do consider myself to be a Socialist.

I'd recommend Murray Bookchin's book (lol) The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years for a good account on the growth of Spanish anarchism and the anarchist revolution in Spain.

Alternatively, you could check out Noam Chomsky's essay "Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship", since it gives a brief description of the Spanish revolution. It's definitely going to be easier to find then Bookchin's tome.

In any case, it would be helpful to understand anarcho-syndicalism before you read up on the Spanish Revolution. Wikipedia's articles on anarchism are good enough to do it sufficient justice. You can always follow external links if you want to read more.

Thanks a lot. I shall do that tomorrow.

Alright, so its clear that I am a Libertarian, but are you? Could you all be so kind as to tell me what you think of Libertarianism? I know a lot of you Europeans hate it with a passion. If you think its bad, please post specifics. Not just, its evil! or, its insane! I want good reasons. Thankyou

Definition of Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)

Libertarianism makes complete sense to me. I am certainly one of you fellas.

It could be the fact that there are some libertarians with a religious belief in the unregulated free market when it's been shown time and again that there are some times when government is necessary to ensure the market works properly.

You act like they want to abolish minimum wage; they don't. They want less regulation, but still have some.

It could be the fact that there are some libertarians with a religious belief in the unregulated free market when it's been shown time and again that there are some times when government is necessary to ensure the market works properly.

/thread

I believe that I speak for all Europeans when I say that they dislike libertarianism because they are unwilling to work and rely on the government to support their indolence.

What the *%^ are you talking about? Libertarians are completely anti-welfare.

Do you support XYZ?

Do you support TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)?

Do you support WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children)?

Do you support Medicaid?

Do you support Medicare?

Do you support social security?

Do you support public schooling?

If you answered yes to any one of these questions, you are not a libertarian but rather a liberal.

A liberal that is for less gun control? For less political correctness?

What is THAT supposed to mean? Gold hydrogen and oxygen?

Goldwater.

No, they want no regulation and no interference in the market by the state, unless of course that interference comes in the form of police protection of their property against striking workers...

That is exaggerated stereotyping.

So is this:

Liberals want people for go to jail for hurting a criminal in self-defense. They also want you to pay a fine every time you say "God".

You act like they want to abolish minimum wage; they don't. They want less regulation, but still have some.

No, they want no regulation and no interference in the market by the state, unless of course that interference comes in the form of police protection of their property against striking workers...

That is exaggerated stereotyping.

So is this:

Liberals want people for go to jail for hurting a criminal in self-defense. They also want you to pay a fine every time you say "God".

Straight from the LPUSA's platform:

We believe that each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. Therefore we oppose all intervention by government into the area of economics. The only proper role of existing governments in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.
Efforts to forcibly redistribute wealth or forcibly manage trade are intolerable. Government manipulation of the economy creates an entrenched privileged class -- those with access to tax money -- and an exploited class -- those who are net taxpayers.
We believe that all individuals have the right to dispose of the fruits of their labor as they see fit and that government has no right to take such wealth. We oppose government-enforced charity such as welfare programs and subsidies, but we heartily applaud those individuals and private charitable organizations that help the needy and contribute to a wide array of worthwhile causes through voluntary activities.

Anyone who has studied history closely knows that "protection of property rights" is a euphemism for protecting the private oligarchy of an opulent property owning minority from expropriation by the impoverished, oppressed masses.

Go read Zinn's People's History of the United States and then decide if that's really what you want.

*snip

I'm guessing that "no interference" part was a faux pas. If they really mean that, I will leave the party. But as for welfare: yeah, we really don't need it.

Anyone who has studied history closely knows that "protection of property rights" is a euphemism for protecting the private oligarchy of an opulent property owning minority from expropriation by the impoverished, oppressed masses.

The history of property protection has no bearing on the meaning of property protection in libertarian philosophy.

There have been times where I have really wished I was a Libertarian, but I can never bring myself to accept it because I am too compassionate for the vulnerable people in society who need big government to protect and help them. I also can't reconcile gun-freedoms with any sort of normative world view.

Libertarianism is a sick, sad, evil joke. The only thing worse is objectivism. Libertarianism would ruin the world and lead to an enormous rich-poor gap.

The history of property protection has no bearing on the meaning of property protection in libertarian philosophy.

I don't think we'd see anything better from the US government or the states if they were run by the Libertarian Party USA. The "protection of property rights" could very easily construed to deny unions the right to strike. And in any case, it will be very likely that under their regime, most employees would be required to give up the right to unionize in their employment contracts.

I know a lot of you Europeans hate it with a passion.

For some reason, Americans often see the government as some sort of enemy, of which people should be constantly wary, lest it enslave them. In this context, it is understandable that libertarianism is somewhat popular over there.

Around here, we don't usually see things that way. The government is a tool for people to improve the country as a society and as a physical entity, and to help people get along better. Of course, it doesn't always work the way most people want, but shit happens, and in the end, a government tends to do a lot more good than bad. In this sense, to minimize the government would be to minimize civilization.


I personally don't like libertarianism any more than that either. One of the big problems with these utopian-sounding idealistic movements is that they don't really change anything for the average people. Regardless of whether the society is socialist, libertarian, centrist or whatever, most people will spend most of their lives working hard for low wages. This will never change. Also, some sort of elite group will always be in charge. It might be a government, or it might be a bunch of corporations. It might even be gangs of raiders on motorcycles. I'd rather have the government, because that will at least theoretically have to consider my best interests when making decisions.

Sure, corporations would care less about what we do on our free time, so individual freedoms would probably be somewhat increased, but honestly, I'm not so eager to have total freedom at all costs anyway. I'm more concerned about the loss of the protection that the government is supposed to provide in many forms. After all, corporations are not even supposed to care about anything besides increasing their profits. I don't support socialism or communism in any way, but if you let people do what they want, they will inevitably end up hurting each other, if they have something to gain from it.

Another thing is the ideology's opposition to providing free services, such as education, health care, and unemployment benefits. Surely they may cost a bit to the taxpayers, but in return, they help to make the economy stronger in the long run. Educated people will be better at their jobs, if you give education to people with talent instead of people with money. Healthy people work better, and if you don't force an unemployed person to become a homeless beggar, he has a realistic chance of finding work in the future. Needless to say, I oppose anything that opposes the welfare state.

I, myself, am mostly a centrist.

The agorist does not believe the political front is critical. The idea and practicality of the will win the people over.


Wake me when someone other than a couple of guys on an internet forum know what an "agorist" is. Or what a mutualist is. Or what a left libertarian is. Or what an individualist anarchist is. Or what an anarcho-communist is. Or what anything to the left of Ronald Reagan is.

Sure, efforts outside of the political process are important. But so long as one's interaction with society is from the distant "Ivory Tower" that is too good to get its hands dirty (:p @ Trotskylvania (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13200470&postcount=66)), all one is going to get is "agorist who?"

One wants to fundamentally change the political organization of society, while simultaneously considering the political front as uncritical. No wonder no one has ever heard of you.

Libertarianism, or 'business suit anarchism' as clear thinking people know it, is working wonders throughout Africa.

Alright, so its clear that I am a Libertarian, but are you?

No.

Could you all be so kind as to tell me what you think of Libertarianism?

For the most part, it is thoroughly bankrupt oversimplified nonsense designed to appeal to people through trite slogans and doctrines.

If you think its bad, please post specifics.

I'll give you two examples of what I'm talking about: phrases like "small government" and "maximum social and economic freedom."

Libertarians like talking about "small government", but all of them but the anarcho-capitalists think the government should still do certain things: the usual, protecting us from physical force, but also protecting our property rights. That is to say, for libertarians "small government" involves setting and enforcing the fundamental principles of the economy in a way that is highly artificial and would never arise otherwise. If every economic action occurs in this context, how can the government be meaningfully said to be "out of our lives"? It is in our lives every time we make a transaction: it sets the rules.

The only real difference is that the government is consistent--not rationally or ethically consistent, not "consistent" in a sense we can respect, but mindlessly consistent, enforcing and applying the same rules without taking any other considerations into account. (In terms of raw numbers, it will, of course, be "smaller"--but only because government intervention is masked by the fact that most of it protects private wealth.)

The problem with libertarian slogans regarding freedom also pertains to the difficulty of property, though I think this one goes deeper. For the libertarian, freedom is basically non-coercion, and "coercion" involves depriving another person of life, liberty, or property. To start, this concept of "coercion" is, well, interesting--it would have us declare that the person forcibly removed from an apartment she rents is not being coerced, while a person who happens to trespass on the territory of a large landowner is being coercive.

Furthermore, since this sort of "coercion" is the only kind that matters, other kinds of power--by extension other kinds of unfreedom--are neglected. If my workers are dependent on my factory for their livelihood, I have power over them, but libertarianism doesn't see this kind of "power" as problematic... rather, as a condition of freedom, it asserts that I should have the absolute right to wield it as I see fit. But what of their freedom? They have, the libertarians claim, formal equality--if they owned a factory, they would be able to exercise absolute power, too. But this means nothing to them substantively; it doesn't somehow make them freer in the context of the workplace, where, instead, they are under the jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.

Now, maybe some libertarians would want to contest the first premise--that the economic dependence necessary for true economic power will not evolve in any competitive market system. This may be true, but it does not save the doctrine. The claim required to justify that argument is an empirical claim with two elements: that a free market system will actually be competitive (and in all, or at least almost all, economic areas), and that this competition will always (or almost always) be enough to eliminate the risk of economic power. Perhaps the empirical claim actually holds up, but it is by no means obvious that it does, and libertarians generally use freedom as a concept independent of its empirical consequences... for them empirical data is necessary to show that freedom works, not to show that their free-market policies actually constitute "freedom" in any substantive sense.

It may also be argued that while libertarian doctrine is not obviously freedom-promoting on the economic side of things, it is so on the social side of things. This might be (generally) true, but I would say it is only true incidentally--even ignoring the issue of property rights, libertarian notions of freedom are still riddled with problems. And, it should not be forgotten, the "social"/"economic" distinction has its own incoherences. For instance, gay rights is generally viewed as "socially liberal", and as something libertarians would tend to support (despite Ron Paul), but the two major federal pieces of legislation the gay rights movement has lately sought to pass are the hate crimes bill and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, both of which libertarians tend to oppose, the latter one on grounds of economic freedom.

The only reason Europeans hate libertarianism is because they hate America and they wrongly believe that America is a capitalist country.

Well, actually the working class in Europe is sick and tired of the European left, so much so that so-called "far right" parties that are against the European left's beloved European Union are frequently getting alot of votes. Libertarianism would be a much more effective political force in Europe is the general population there knew what it is.

In America, it is on the rise due to Dr. Ron Paul, the Congressman and presidential candidate. They will almost certainly hate him with a passion should he win and pull America out of the UN and throw that awful organization out of the United States. They will also hate him because he will show that it is Capitalism, not their beloved Socialism, which advocates peace, freedom, and prosperity.

In the long run, if the Europeans continue to spread their propaganda of "overpopulation" and "global warming," their continent will be overrun by Muslims, which will be exactly what the European left deserves.

The Socialists merely advocate long-debunked ideas. In the battlefield of ideas, the libertarians are the unchallenged victors and have soundly defeated all varieties of socialism. Property rights are the very basis of a society and eliminating them leads to chaos (which is why the environment is so polluted in leftist countries such as the Soviet Union and why the commies had to receive massive amounts of foreign aid from the US government to keep their population from dying of starvation, which the leftists in power in America stupidly provided to them).

There we go with the hate America argument. It's always been made of fail.

And for the record, the European working class is tired of psuedo-leftists who roll over and play fetch for private oligarchs of multinational corporations. That's why the radical left Der Linke in Germany more than doubled the number of seats it held in parliament, and why the Social Democrats in Sweden lost seats to the left radicals.

If you honestly think that any politician anywhere in the world believes in restricting corporate power and promoting worker self-management (the definition of socialism), than you are a fool. Most of them can't even be bothered to defend the poor and downtrodden's right to bread, let alone anything radical.

Our ideas have never been debunked, and your ideas have far from triumphed.

Alright, so its clear that I am a Libertarian, but are you? Could you all be so kind as to tell me what you think of Libertarianism? I know a lot of you Europeans hate it with a passion. If you think its bad, please post specifics. Not just, its evil! or, its insane! I want good reasons. Thankyou

Definition of Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)

Here's one thing I was going to point out but forgot to mention: I am as far left and anarchist as they come on this board, but I would never declare my anarchist ideology "the light of the world".

Here's one thing I was going to point out but forgot to mention: I am as far left and anarchist as they come on this board, but I would never declare my anarchist ideology "the light of the world".
Yeah, but that has different reasons. ;)

Libertarianism in super-simple, pre-philosophy terms is "live and let live". In so far it is a good way of going about life. Whether it is always 100% practical is unfortunately an open question at this point, getting from here to there is going to take another 100 or more years. And at that point we'd probably have reached a stage of economic development where it will start to look pretty foolish to talk about "I never had a chance" anyways.

Yeah, but that has different reasons. ;)

Libertarianism in super-simple, pre-philosophy terms is "live and let live". In so far it is a good way of going about life. Whether it is always 100% practical is unfortunately an open question at this point, getting from here to there is going to take another 100 or more years. And at that point we'd probably have reached a stage of economic development where it will start to look pretty foolish to talk about "I never had a chance" anyways.

Hey, what are you implying?

Libertarianism in super-simple, pre-philosophy terms is "live and let live".

Is "pre-philosophy" meaningfully distinct from "pre-thought"?

Hey, what are you implying?
Nothing that I would have the nerve to back up right now. :p

Is "pre-philosophy" meaningfully distinct from "pre-thought"?
Not really.

A Freudian slip, perhaps? I suppose we'll find out eventually.

I have yet to meet any Libertarian who cared about anyone but themselves nor what consequences their actions or desires might have for others.

Well, I've met many who claim otherwise; but none who, by their words, have been able to convince me of their sincerity.

Well, I've met many who claim otherwise; but none who, by their words, have been able to convince me of their sincerity.
I think that particular problem is yours, not "ours". I live with my family, friends, co-workers and fellow students. If they ask for my help, I generally try to do what I can. And though I can't prove anything at this point, once I've done well enough for myself, I'll go all philanthropic on Africa's ass.

But then, I don't have to convince you of anything. And even if I really couldn't care less if the rest of the world died, it would be up to you to justify hurting me, not the other way around.

Isn't anarchy just a more extreme version of libertarianism? libertarianism wants limited government because they think that everyone is capable of being fair with one another without being regulated (much). Anarchy is based around a more extreme view that everyone can treat each other well without being regulated at all. Both, I think, have a naiive view of human nature. People ARE capable of being good, productive members of society without being pushed, but some people just suck. A con man loves a libertarian or anarchist government.

Not really.

A Freudian slip, perhaps? I suppose we'll find out eventually.

I didn't mean that to sound as harsh as it did.

My question wasn't so much rhetorical as it was curious. I don't think it's possible to draw that kind of distinction, but a lot of people talk like that, about meanings and "clear" and "obvious" understandings of things before philosophy muddles them.

I think that particular problem is yours, not "ours". I live with my family, friends, co-workers and fellow students. If they ask for my help, I generally try to do what I can. And though I can't prove anything at this point, once I've done well enough for myself, I'll go all philanthropic on Africa's ass.

But then, I don't have to convince you of anything. And even if I really couldn't care less if the rest of the world died, it would be up to you to justify hurting me, not the other way around.

I have no wish to hurt you. I do care about the world around me. But then, I'm not a Libertarian.

I believe that I speak for all Europeans when I say that they dislike libertarianism because they are unwilling to work and rely on the government to support their indolence.

I'm European and I'm libertarian, but wtf was that^^ !!?

I believe that I speak for all Europeans when I say that they dislike libertarianism because they are unwilling to work and rely on the government to support their indolence.

I believe I speak for all USians when I say that I like libertarianism because I want to live in a shack in the wilderness whittling parcel-bombs out of wood and squirrels.

so much so that so-called "far right" parties that are against the European left's beloved European Union are frequently getting alot of votes.

The left does not like the European Union. Neither, might I add, do any of the nationalist right parties (which is a bit of a "duh" answer, since they're nationalist). Why does the left not like the EU?

Because they have the idea that the EU seeks to undermine their socialist values and ideals.

So that leaves center-left, center, center-right and regular right parties liking the EU.

Libertarianism in super-simple, pre-philosophy terms is "live and let live". In so far it is a good way of going about life. Whether it is always 100% practical is unfortunately an open question at this point, getting from here to there is going to take another 100 or more years. And at that point we'd probably have reached a stage of economic development where it will start to look pretty foolish to talk about "I never had a chance" anyways.

Seems like Libertarianism is falling into the Communism trap.

"Great idea in theory! Not so much in practice..."

collective suicide is an intersting deffinition of light.

there is nothing wrong with this world that does NOT begin with aggressiveness, prejudice, trying to make everything have to begin and end with little green pieces of paper, and demonizing everything that refuses to.

=^^=
.../\...

For some reason, Americans often see the government as some sort of enemy, of which people should be constantly wary, lest it enslave them. In this context, it is understandable that libertarianism is somewhat popular over there.
Also, looks like a hint that democracy isn't working very well in the US.

Around here, we don't usually see things that way. The government is a tool for people to improve the country as a society and as a physical entity, and to help people get along better. Of course, it doesn't always work the way most people want, but shit happens, and in the end, a government tends to do a lot more good than bad. In this sense, to minimize the government would be to minimize civilization.
This is called being European.

I, myself, am mostly a centrist.
Betcha you'll be labelled as "Eurocommie!" quite soon by someone across the pond, fella.

For some reason, Americans often see the government as some sort of enemy, of which people should be constantly wary, lest it enslave them. In this context, it is understandable that libertarianism is somewhat popular over there.

Around here, we don't usually see things that way. Which is ironic, given the sheer number of governments you've overthrown throughout the years.

Which is ironic, given the sheer number of governments you've overthrown throughout the years.

Of course we've had to get rid of a few outdated types of governments to get to where we are now, because democracy isn't some default system that societies automatically adopt when they start organizing at the end of their barbaric nomad period. People in power never like to give away that power without a fight, hence the need for revolutions.

But yes, ironic or not, it makes the Americans' attitude seem even stranger. Hey, maybe that explains it. Maybe Americans are suspicious of their government, because they've never had worse, and therefore don't know how good they have things now. I'm not saying that the American government is actually "good", just that it isn't malevolent.

Betcha you'll be labelled as "Eurocommie!" quite soon by someone across the pond, fella.

Yeah, and I'm surprised that it's taking this long. I was expecting that to happen within half an hour.

Yeah, and I'm surprised that it's taking this long. I was expecting that to happen within half an hour.

Eurocommie! This is to boost your confidence ;) Nothing else

No, beer, is the light of the world.

Eurocommie! This is to boost your confidence ;) Nothing else

Ahh, there it is. I can stop holding my breath now. Thanks. :)

Of course we've had to get rid of a few outdated types of governments to get to where we are now, because democracy isn't some default system that societies automatically adopt when they start organizing at the end of their barbaric nomad period. People in power never like to give away that power without a fight, hence the need for revolutions.Indeed. Unfortunately, I bet there will need to be a fight when we eliminate outdated representative democracy in favor of direct democracy.

Indeed. Unfortunately, I bet there will need to be a fight when we eliminate outdated representative democracy in favor of direct democracy.

Power to the People, brother!

*starts revolution*

Alright, so its clear that I am a Libertarian, but are you? Could you all be so kind as to tell me what you think of Libertarianism? I know a lot of you Europeans hate it with a passion. If you think its bad, please post specifics. Not just, its evil! or, its insane! I want good reasons. Thankyou

Definition of Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)

Good reasons for Europeans not liking Libertarianism? Three words: National Health Service.

Good reasons for Europeans not liking Libertarianism? Three words: National Health Service.
QFT, but don't forget that Thatcher/Blair/Brown style Libertarianism has royally f**ked the NHS over in recent years, with Cameron looking likely to continue the trend. There may not be much left of it by the time we get a government that's anything other than economically conservative.

QFT, but don't forget that Thatcher/Blair/Brown style Libertarianism has royally f**ked the NHS over in recent years, with Cameron looking likely to continue the trend. There may not be much left of it by the time we get a government that's anything other than economically conservative.

Indeed. PFI has screwed over most of the countries infrastructure, and in years to come Libertarians will pretend it was the state's fault for being too involved.

Indeed. PFI has screwed over most of the countries infrastructure, and in years to come Libertarians will pretend it was the state's fault for being too involved.
Well, the state did privatise it.:p

Of course we've had to get rid of a few outdated types of governments to get to where we are now, because democracy isn't some default system that societies automatically adopt when they start organizing at the end of their barbaric nomad period. People in power never like to give away that power without a fight, hence the need for revolutions.

But yes, ironic or not, it makes the Americans' attitude seem even stranger. Hey, maybe that explains it. Maybe Americans are suspicious of their government, because they've never had worse, and therefore don't know how good they have things now. I'm not saying that the American government is actually "good", just that it isn't malevolent.

You're European? *grumbles something about false advertising...*

Indeed. Unfortunately, I bet there will need to be a fight when we eliminate outdated representative democracy in favor of direct democracy.

Assuming Switzerland to be an example of direct democracy in action, I'd rather avoid it.

I'm more in favor of a representative system that is less winner-takes-all like it is here in the US.

My form of libertarianism is the light of the world not any of yours.

Because my beliefs are perfect.

Well, the state did privatise it.:p

Zing! :D

Alright, so its clear that I am a Libertarian, but are you? Could you all be so kind as to tell me what you think of Libertarianism? I know a lot of you Europeans hate it with a passion. If you think its bad, please post specifics. Not just, its evil! or, its insane! I want good reasons. Thankyou

Definition of Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism)

The problem is that there are many people who say they are libertarians that also agree with conscription for example. Too many people think they are libertarians when in fact they are ignorant of the philosophy...in fact usually ignorant of most political philosophies.

Not too happy about your perception of europeans...look at Jefferson...you know...the MAN.

He counted amongst his friends many French and British political theorists...so I am not sure why you make such a vociferous attack.

Libertarians, in my experience, tend to fall into one of two categories: those who are ridiculously optimistic about mankind, and those who simply haven't thought through the practical consequences of their own ideology. I honestly don't see how Libertarianism can function when you factor in the "human element". As has been demonstrated by others already, people aren't simply going to refrain from harming one another out of a sense of commitment to ideology. Remove the police, the government and socio-economic / environmental regulations, and the consequences are predictable enough.

Why do you think social regulations were first introduced in the UK in the 19th century, for example, at a time when the government was waxing lyrical about the wonders of a free market? Despite their enthusiasm, they realised the actual consequences of unrestricted capitalism. The first Factory Act of 1802 was extremely timid: it sought only to make it illegal to employ children for more than 12 hours a day (some were being employed for up to 17 hours a day). The Act was ignored by many employers, because the government, in its naivety, thought the law would be respected without actually needing to be enforced by inspectors and by the police. The "free market", in the sense that Libertarians would love to impose upon us, failed the test of reality as soon as it was begun.

That aside, I find the ethical implications of Libertarianism abhorrent. The whole "my right to hang on to every cent of my money to buy a bigger, more polluting car is more important than your right not to die of a curable disease" sort of puts me off.

Libertarianism is both absurdly simplistic and naive (and thus impossible to implement in the real, complex world) and ethically disgusting.

The problem is that there are many people who say they are libertarians that also agree with conscription for example. Too many people think they are libertarians when in fact they are ignorant of the philosophy...in fact usually ignorant of most political philosophies.

Not too happy about your perception of europeans...look at Jefferson...you know...the MAN.

He counted amongst his friends many French and British political theorists...so I am not sure why you make such a vociferous attack.

Yeah I know what you mean about "Libertarians." Its like Democrats who are anti-abortion or republicans who are for gay marrage. Sometimes its hard to pin people into just one political party.

The truth is that Europeans are humans just like the rest of the people on this earth and making assumptions based on Nationailty is never really fair or totally accurate, but I enjoy stereotypes and petty name-calling.

Yeah I know what you mean about "Libertarians." Its like Democrats who are anti-abortion or republicans who are for gay marrage. Sometimes its hard to pin people into just one political party.

The truth is that Europeans are humans just like the rest of the people on this earth and making assumptions based on Nationailty is never really fair or totally accurate, but I enjoy stereotypes and petty name-calling.

HOOORAH! ;)

I believe I speak for all USians when I say that I like libertarianism because I want to live in a shack in the wilderness whittling parcel-bombs out of wood and squirrels.

You win the thread.

Libertarians, in my experience, tend to fall into one of two categories: those who are ridiculously optimistic about mankind, and those who simply haven't thought through the practical consequences of their own ideology. I honestly don't see how Libertarianism can function when you factor in the "human element". As has been demonstrated by others already, people aren't simply going to refrain from harming one another out of a sense of commitment to ideology. Remove the police, the government and socio-economic / environmental regulations, and the consequences are predictable enough.

Why do you think social regulations were first introduced in the UK in the 19th century, for example, at a time when the government was waxing lyrical about the wonders of a free market? Despite their enthusiasm, they realised the actual consequences of unrestricted capitalism. The first Factory Act of 1802 was extremely timid: it sought only to make it illegal to employ children for more than 12 hours a day (some were being employed for up to 17 hours a day). The Act was ignored by many employers, because the government, in its naivety, thought the law would be respected without actually needing to be enforced by inspectors and by the police. The "free market", in the sense that Libertarians would love to impose upon us, failed the test of reality as soon as it was begun.

That aside, I find the ethical implications of Libertarianism abhorrent. The whole "my right to hang on to every cent of my money to buy a bigger, more polluting car is more important than your right not to die of a curable disease" sort of puts me off.

Libertarianism is both absurdly simplistic and naive (and thus impossible to implement in the real, complex world) and ethically disgusting.

I'm probably not a true libertarian because I believe in anti-monopoly laws and certain laws that put safety and well-being before economy/freedom like child work laws or seat belt laws. I do however believe that the less taxes, laws and social programs that we can do without, the better we are.

According to your definition of libertarians, I fall into the group that puts too much faith in humans. I believe in trusting your neighbor before trusting your government. If I didn't believe humans, in general, were capable of being free and responsible on ther own, I would be a communist I guess.

Has there ever been a functioning Libertarian society?

Define Libertarianism, since the word has become a bit ambiguous as of late. To me there has never been a true pure market economy ever, full stop, functioning or not. But clearly better functioning economies lean more towards libertarianism then socialism.

I'm probably not a true libertarian because I believe in anti-monopoly laws and certain laws that put safety and well-being before economy/freedom like child work laws or seat belt laws.

That makes you a reasonable person with a fair grasp of reality. Rather than a simplistic ideologue, as some Libertarians in NSG are.


I do however believe that the less taxes, laws and social programs that we can do without, the better we are.


Well, on those issues we will have to differ.


According to your definition of libertarians, I fall into the group that puts too much faith in humans. I believe in trusting your neighbor before trusting your government.

Hmm. In some instances you probably can. But in my experience of your average Joe, chances are high your government is a lot more intelligent, educated and aware of what's going on than your neighbour. Entrusting power to every random idiot with few limitations is not something I'd be happy about.


If I didn't believe humans, in general, were capable of being free and responsible on their own, I would be a communist I guess.

You'd be in favour of authoritarian socialism. A communist society would, by definition, be Stateless - rather like a Libertarian society, but founded on the assumption that people are fundamentally altruistic and have a strong sense of community and society. In essence, communism is a stateless society of communes (well, individuals with a strong communal emphasis); Libertarianism is a stateless society of individuals.

Why do you think social regulations were first introduced in the UK in the 19th century, for example, at a time when the government was waxing lyrical about the wonders of a free market? Despite their enthusiasm, they realised the actual consequences of unrestricted capitalism. The first Factory Act of 1802 was extremely timid: it sought only to make it illegal to employ children for more than 12 hours a day (some were being employed for up to 17 hours a day). The Act was ignored by many employers, because the government, in its naivety, thought the law would be respected without actually needing to be enforced by inspectors and by the police. The "free market", in the sense that Libertarians would love to impose upon us, failed the test of reality as soon as it was begun.


I'm not a pure laissez faire capitalist by any means, but I don't really view child abuse/labour laws as an economic matter, and more a social matter. If a company is doing something illegal (abusing children), then it should be punished. Libertarians do not think that companies should be allowed to break social laws in order to achieve goals. Strawman.


That aside, I find the ethical implications of Libertarianism abhorrent. The whole "my right to hang on to every cent of my money to buy a bigger, more polluting car is more important than your right not to die of a curable disease" sort of puts me off.


What the hell are you on about? Most libertarians would not place any importance on one right above another, rights are nothing more then a subjective concept. Economics is inherently utilitarian, you can't get away from that. You seem to be under the impression that libertarians want people to suffer, because their solutions do not involve instant subsidies and payments to the less fortunate. They, like most other types of economists (though other types are becoming scarce), want to reduce suffering and improve the economy also, they just think that their way is much more efficient, and things like removing crap like protectionism and ensuring that nothing or as little as possible reduces the motivation for business to succeed, is a means to achieve this end. Another strawman.


Libertarianism is both absurdly simplistic and naive (and thus impossible to implement in the real, complex world) and ethically disgusting.

What the hell? You seem to be parroting the average argument against communism (impart from the ethics crap) and using it against libertarianism. A large number of economists agree that libertarian principles are much better for the economy for various practical reasons (even mathematical reasons), it's hardly naive.

Libertarianism is a stateless society of individuals.

Most libertarians today do not believe in complete destruction of the state. Also, I'm under the impression that you think all libertarians are objectivists, this is not the case.

Seems like Libertarianism is falling into the Communism trap.

"Great idea in theory! Not so much in practice..."
Depends on the extent, I think. Try and implement it all right now, and you probably will get people starving, which in turn leads to violence. A system based on personal responsibility needs personally responsible people, and I for one am not one to advocate a revolution that sacrifices those who aren't (plus, I don't think its feasible). I'd much prefer a gradual weaning, so progress towards lower tax rate, more and more "social" programs being linked to individual contributions rather than general tax funding, more and more public policy being designed around the market mechanism.

I'm to your anarcho-capitalist what your social democrat is to your communist. :p

I believe that I speak for all Europeans when I say that they dislike libertarianism because they are unwilling to work and rely on the government to support their indolence.Maybe you don't know this, but a government can only deal out support that the working society pays as taxes. The Europeans are in fact working much harder and more efficient to afford all the welfare that their states provide.

Maybe you don't know this, but a government can only deal out support that the working society pays as taxes. The Europeans are in fact working much harder and more efficient to afford all the welfare that their states provide.

Uh, they work less in Europe so the government confiscates a much higher percentage of taxes. It has nothing to do with efficiency, and everything to do with the masses allowing their wages and earnings to be stolen.

What the hell are you on about? [...] Another strawman.

Tell that to FreedomAndGlory, Neu Leonstein and a few others here. I was merely quoting them.

I'm very glad you disagree with them.

It does seem you "Libertarians" have a profound disagreement on what Libertarianism means...

Uh, they work less in Europe so the government confiscates a much higher percentage of taxes. It has nothing to do with efficiency, and everything to do with the masses allowing their wages and earnings to be stolen.

I was going to reply, but why bother? You're so blinded by your silly, extremist, ethnocentric ideology that there's really no point.

I have yet to meet any Libertarian who cared about anyone but themselves nor what consequences their actions or desires might have for others.

Liar.

I don't think we'd see anything better from the US government or the states if they were run by the Libertarian Party USA. The "protection of property rights" could very easily construed to deny unions the right to strike. And in any case, it will be very likely that under their regime, most employees would be required to give up the right to unionize in their employment contracts.

How do you figure?

How do you figure?

Unless the LPUSA stays one hundred percent true to their ideology, than they will be corrupted just like any other parliamentary party. It happened to the Social Democrats in Europe despite their pretensions to revolutionary socialism, and it will likely be no different with the laissez faire Libertarians.

In any case, if the state is reduced to solely protecting the regime of property rights, than there goes unemployment insurance, workmans comp etc. These are the major factors that help overcome the insecurity inherent to wage labor that inhibits a level playing field in bargaining with the management.

With the current state of US unions, they will be likely be slowly forced to extinction lest they get their act together very quickly.

Wake me when someone other than a couple of guys on an internet forum know what an "agorist" is. Or what a mutualist is. Or what a left libertarian is. Or what an individualist anarchist is. Or what an anarcho-communist is. Or what anything to the left of Ronald Reagan is.

Sure, efforts outside of the political process are important. But so long as one's interaction with society is from the distant "Ivory Tower" that is too good to get its hands dirty (:p @ Trotskylvania (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13200470&postcount=66)), all one is going to get is "agorist who?"

One wants to fundamentally change the political organization of society, while simultaneously considering the political front as uncritical. No wonder no one has ever heard of you.

Agorists do not need to spread ideology to succeed, the practicality of the counter-economic movement will succeed in time.

Tell that to FreedomAndGlory, Neu Leonstein and a few others here. I was merely quoting them.

I'm very glad you disagree with them.

It does seem you "Libertarians" have a profound disagreement on what Libertarianism means...

I'm fairly certain FreedomAndGlory is a troll, so that rules him out. I don't remember Neu literally saying that the right to have a nice car is more important then the right to not die of curable diseases (if such a right even exists), but remember there are different sorts of libertarians, just like how there are different types of communists. I tend not to follow this objectivist stuff, I agree with what Neu says about what we should do with the economy, but probably for slightly different reasons sometimes. Nevertheless, I heavily doubt that neu wants people to not be able to access cures for diseases, he just probably thinks that the state does not need to provide the cures since private companies will do it better. (I happen to support a national health care system, but only because i'm too much of a pussy to try full privatised health).

Agorists do not need to spread ideology to succeed, the practicality of the counter-economic movement will succeed in time.

The questions are "how long?" and "will the movement reach critical mass so as to maintain self-sufficiency?"

Unless the LPUSA stays one hundred percent true to their ideology, than they will be corrupted just like any other parliamentary party. It happened to the Social Democrats in Europe despite their pretensions to revolutionary socialism, and it will likely be no different with the laissez faire Libertarians.

This is an important point.

Naturally enough, those aspects of libertarianism most preferred by the rich and powerful will gain prominence over the others.

Unless the LPUSA stays one hundred percent true to their ideology, than they will be corrupted just like any other parliamentary party. It happened to the Social Democrats in Europe despite their pretensions to revolutionary socialism, and it will likely be no different with the laissez faire Libertarians.

In any case, if the state is reduced to solely protecting the regime of property rights, than there goes unemployment insurance, workmans comp etc. These are the major factors that help overcome the insecurity inherent to wage labor that inhibits a level playing field in bargaining with the management.

With the current state of US unions, they will be likely be slowly forced to extinction lest they get their act together very quickly.

Modern US unions owe their position to their allegiance with the state and big business and the inevitable corruption of government officials is only a positive point for the libertarian position.

The questions are "how long?" and "will the movement reach critical mass so as to maintain self-sufficiency?"

And the answers are "I don't know" and "eventually, I hope".

As long as private industry continues to produce market opening and information spreading technologies at faster rates, and government continues to show its incredible ineptitude, I cannot doubt it is approaching.

This is an important point.

Naturally enough, those aspects of libertarianism most preferred by the rich and powerful will gain prominence over the others.

All the more reason to support the non-aggressive entrepreneurial revolution of the agorist.

Libertarian? I guess you could call me a libertarian, of course. Nonetheless... since most libertarians do not have the same beliefs, broad generalizations mean almost as much as commie-bashing. These 'Libertarians' you refer to, I believe, take the title of Libertarian as nothing more than something to get attention with. (And if its a politician, its already corrupted. Hell, politics. No politician is true to his/her party affiliation.) We also seem to have a large amount of confusion as to the actual economic policy and social policies of libertarians. Thus, I emphasize this:

Libertarians are not Anarchists

Anarchists are any people, left or right, who want to abolish government completely. Libertarians are any people, left or right, who want to minimize government to the least possible.

Economic Libertarians are not all complete and utter Laissez-Faire Capitalists. In fact, for a proper free market, the government has to protect it. This means anti-trust laws. Otherwise, businesses have to obey all the same laws an individual must. You cannot destroy the environment- that belongs to whoever owns that land, which extends to the air above and ground below. If you destroy the atmosphere or ecosystem, you are screwing up the property of another person, and are committing a crime. However, government intervention into the economy itself is in violation of the free market. Subsidies, grants... these all violate the free market, since the government cannot participate.

Social Libertarians do not want to abolish the government. Certain institutions, such as the Police, Fire Department, Post Office, and similar institutions do not function well privatized, or at least privatized for profit. The role of government is to protect your rights, from outside interference and internal dispute. This involves the military and justice departments. Standard weights and measures, laws, and such cannot be done without to have a functioning government. However, welfare is not justified in a libertarian outlook. You have a right to life, liberty, and the ability to own property, but you do not have a right to have money, or have a certain level of living. The government cannot justify forcibly taking money from someone (and coat it all you want, taxes are not voluntary, and so are forced. Taxes are, however, necessary.) to better others. Charity and private welfare organizations are the only justified method. 'Stealing from the rich to give to the poor' doesn't change the fact that it is, socialized theft.

You have a right to life, liberty, and the ability to own property, but you do not have a right to have money, or have a certain level of living. The government cannot justify forcibly taking money from someone (and coat it all you want, taxes are not voluntary, and so are forced. Taxes are, however, necessary.) to better others. Charity and private welfare organizations are the only justified method. 'Stealing from the rich to give to the poor' doesn't change the fact that it is, socialized theft.

If you are starving and on the verge of death because of a lack of welfare (charity and private organisations would in no way be able to replace welfare), then couldn't you say that someone right to life is being impacted upon?

If you are starving and on the verge of death because of a lack of welfare (charity and private organisations would in no way be able to replace welfare), then couldn't you say that someone right to life is being impacted upon?

You see, by many libertarian's forumulations, you do not have the right to life, liberty or property, you are free from acts that would directly harm your life, liberty and property.

It's an important distinction. You have the right to not be murdered, but if you are starving in the streets, no one is compelled by their standards to give you bread.

If you are starving and on the verge of death because of a lack of welfare
People can, have, and will survive without money or society, with or without training. Using society requires that you contribute to society, and providing for yourself is not exclusive to society, merely easier.

charity and private organisations would in no way be able to replace welfare
They would in every way replace welfare. They function exactly the same way as welfare does, simply without coercive collection of the means. Before I elaborate, however, I would like to see the argument as to why they would not. See, a corporation could be far more expansive if it simply stole to expand itself, but as this is prevented by the very laws that protect both individuals and the free market itself, this does not happen. However noble a cause is, the ends never justify the means.

couldn't you say that someone right to life is being impacted upon?
No. Someone is not actively trying to starve you, no? Through negligence, has any party been directly responsible for your lack of money to buy food? NO. To put it bluntly, you are not capable of functioning in society, so you cannot use society to provide for you. You must find other means to feed yourself or become functional in society.

Come back to reality Laterale

The only reason why welfare exists in the first place is because the state wanted to placate the working class, which was being driven to revolutionary action precisely because charity was never enough.

So, unless you like revolutionary socialism, you like the welfare state. :p

Come back to reality Laterale

The only reason why welfare exists in the first place is because the state wanted to placate the working class, which was being driven to revolutionary action precisely because charity was never enough.

So, unless you like revolutionary socialism, you like the welfare state. :p
Aah, Joseph Chamberlain in a nutshell.

Come back to reality Laterale
I promised I wouldn't say it... but I will.
What reality?

The only reason why welfare exists in the first place is because the state wanted to placate the working class, which was being driven to revolutionary action precisely because charity was never enough.
That neither justifies it nor accurately depicts it. Welfare is not given to the generic working class but only to those who cannot measure up to an arbitrary standard of living, who apply for it. Forgive me, but when was this near revolutionary action?

So, unless you like revolutionary socialism, you like the welfare state.
Thats remarkable absolute. Explain.

Come back to reality Laterale

The only reason why welfare exists in the first place is because the state wanted to placate the working class, which was being driven to revolutionary action precisely because charity was never enough.

So, unless you like revolutionary socialism, you like the welfare state. :p

Therefore if I argue to remove welfare for a while, and then switch with the collapse of society and help bring in anarcho-communism...

I have a plan. *buys hat*

That neither justifies it nor accurately depicts it. Welfare is not given to the generic working class but only to those who cannot measure up to an arbitrary standard of living, who apply for it. Forgive me, but when was this near revolutionary action?

The welfare state in its entirety (unemployment insurance, subsidized services, TANF, health and safety regulations etc.) are what matters, not just TANF (commonly referred to as welfare). Several times during the early 20th century, socialism was on the brink of becoming a major force in American politics. In 1912, Eugene Debs earned 6 percent of the popular vote, running in an election where everyone tried to portray themselves as progressive.

FDR's New Deal co-opted most of Norman Thomas' Socialist Party platform. Had he not run, there would have likely been a revolution.

Thats remarkable absolute. Explain.

The welfare state is the only force that keeps conditions sufficiently satisfactory in this country to not leave the door open for revolutionary action.

Has there ever been a functioning Libertarian society?

No, and here is why. Libertarianism is a Utopian concept. It all looks great on paper and in theory, but it relies on a strong sense of personal responsibility not found in human society. Not that we shouldn't be capable of it, but human nature dictates we aren't. Look at the two major political views of the times, Conservatives and Liberals, you either have unbridled capitalists who will take advantage of any opportunity for money and exploit anything for profit, or you have those who feel the government is obligated to provide for every need. Both of these ideologies are like kryptonite to Libertarianism, because there is no personal responsibility being used. Liberalism without personal responsibility, will result in eventual anarchy, because it can't work without it.

The concepts surrounding libertarian viewpoints are good ones, don't get me wrong, it would be nice to live in a society where adults acted responsible and used marijuana in the privacy of their own homes and didn't harm anyone else with it, but that wouldn't be the case. It would be great to live in a world where government didn't have to support certain industries and businesses, and the market could take care of things, but certain industries would collapse, and opportunists would fill the vacuum, while the average citizen paid the price. For every great libertarian idea, there is an inherent downside, and it usually revolves around mankind's inability to regulate himself.

Tell that to FreedomAndGlory, Neu Leonstein and a few others here. I was merely quoting them.
Here's the idea: There are positive liberties (such as not dying from disease) and negative liberties (such as not having my stuff taken against my will).

The trick is in balancing these. Strictly enforcing positive liberties means the complete disappearance of negative freedom, as any wish to do anything at all would have to be accommodated by the destruction of others. Strictly enforcing negative liberties means severely curtailing, in some cases even pretty much completely eradicating, positive freedom, as the only things that you can freely do are those which don't affect someone else's person negatively against their will, of which there are very few. And hunger and disease are pretty important ones.

You think the scale should be further towards positive liberty, and you're ready to give up some freedom from interference for that. It's your choice and I tolerate that. You freely accept that you are just a limited cog in a wheel, and that just because you don't agree with a policy doesn't mean others don't have the ability to think better than you do.

Personally, I think there are problems with that. Firstly there's the difficulties of positive freedom: If we only enforced negative liberties, there would be no conflicts between them (although I can think of a theoretical exception, which I'll grant you I can't solve without making the assumption of thinking agents seeking to maximise their positive freedoms). If we enforced all positive liberties without caring about negative ones, we'd fail. There is a positive freedom in having medicine that allows us to keep living, but there is also a positive freedom in being able to earn one's keep and buy a nice, shiny car. Positive freedoms contradict each other all the time and in practice, and you'd necessarily be forced to decide between them. But that's a subjective thing - you don't really know why one is better than the other, you'd make exceptions for yourself, your rules are arbitrary - especially so when you're no longer choosing between two people and their positive freedom, but millions. Moreso, you can't maximise positive freedom without a central force, because a right to positive freedom implies a right to take from others even without consulting or ever having seen them. The only thing that could give you the brute force required to do this is a government.

Right now that brute force is working on pure subjectivity. We call it democracy, but all we have is dictatorial leaders voted into office by disinterested blobs for a limited term who only decide on their personal preferences without any need for or reference to an objective standard. A constitution is the only thing that could create such a standard (or rather something resembling it), but it doesn't - it specifies a few negative liberties (which consequently get ignored anyways) and that's it.

Secondly, I could never choose to accept my own limitations and take the word of others at face value without understanding or seeing the need to understand. I consider that a fundamental human trait, without which existence is meaningless. Living beyond mere survival and understanding are linked, one without the other is not possible. Hell, unless someone understands, even survival is not possible.

The entire world can believe in one thing, but if I haven't come to the same conclusion upon examination of the facts, that is meaningless. The decision to accept because others say so is abominable, and this time I'm not being sarcastic.

When I say "my right to own a nice car trumps your right to medicine", I don't mean you shouldn't have medicine. I mean that enforcing your right to medicine at my expense is a dead-end. My goal is to see humanity move as far from "might makes right" as possible, in order to allow every person to see and interact with the world as best they can, using their own brains. It is unfortunate that I don't see anarcho-anything working in practice on anything like a significant scale, because I realise that for me the ultimate destination of that thought process is an anarchist "society". But I do consider a minarchist state possible, in which our negative freedoms are guaranteed and our positive freedoms the product of ourselves. If you want to share everything with friends and comrades, my personal utopia wouldn't stop you. Property rights and a left-anarchist commune are not mutually exclusive. But if I don't, then I wouldn't be stopped either - and that is what an anarcho-communist, or a socialist world or even the modern state can't give me.

You'll keep reducing all that and all the thinking that led me to this point to nothing and feel you know me and my argument. I can't stop you, nor would I make you if I could. I suppose I'm hardly the first person in history to be treated like that, because deviation from the "normal" way of thinking and therefore the "normal" standards of morality is rarely tolerated.

But I do have to appeal to your brain: isn't there a part of you that wants to prove me wrong by strength of argument, not by believing it hard enough?

And even if you proved me wrong and all these arguments were in fact of no consequence whatsoever and you would still be happy to use me for your ends by means of force - then you'd still have to face the second and infinitely stronger argument for, if not full libertarianism, at least the individualism, self-interest and self-correcting mechanics of market economics.

So whatever you do, saying "I don't care about others" and trusting in others' emotional outrage to make your point for you simply cannot be the answer. If you think free-market libertarianism is wrong, then face up to it.

I was under the impression that libertarianism and a libertarian society, in practice, will really just involve social liberalism coupled with capitalism. Perhaps the natural progression of this is anarchocapitalism, but look, that probably won't work. As Neu Leonstein said, libertarianism is to anarchocapitalism what social democracy is to communism. Anyway, considering this forum is so socially liberal, and we don't get angry rants about capitalism (too much) I don't understand why the two combined raises cries of evil and abhorrence.

As usual I'm ridiculously oversimplifying things and will most likely get flamed to a crisp, and have also broken my personal rule of not touching economics with a ten foot pole. I just find the labelling of libertarianism as the worst ideology evar as rather silly and offensive, same as applying that label to socialism, which would be immediately called out.

I'm going to regret this.

I'm a cynic with absolutely no trust in the rationality of society, which is why I find libertarianism attractive. Not because I believe in the perfect efficiency of the free market/the ideal of liberty, but because, under a small, limited government, an irrational society/majority does not have the power to coerce the rational minority.

That said, I am more of a classic liberal. I believe that a free and public education is absolutely necessary. Even if the majority reject it for ignorance, there must be a somewhat significant, enlightened class of people, the "rational", which could not exist without education. If I became supreme overlord of the United States tomorrow, I would quadruple spending to public education and maintain infrastructural spending, eliminating pretty much everything else.

Agorists do not need to spread ideology to succeed, the practicality of the counter-economic movement will succeed in time.

Yes, You've pretty much already said this. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13200457&postcount=65) Answering an objection by simply restating the same thing objected to isn't very helpful.

Liar.

And just exactly on what basis do you call me a liar?

Agorists do not need to spread ideology to succeed, the practicality of the counter-economic movement will succeed in time.

That's what the Stalinists said, and we all know what happened to that ideology.

No. Someone is not actively trying to starve you, no? Through negligence, has any party been directly responsible for your lack of money to buy food? NO. To put it bluntly, you are not capable of functioning in society, so you cannot use society to provide for you. You must find other means to feed yourself or become functional in society.

PROVE IT! IT IS NOT ADEQUATE TO MERELY ASSERT IT! PROVE IT! PROVE THAT ALL MISFORTUNE IS CAUSED BY A LACK OF INITIATIVE! PROVE THAT ALL THE UNDERPRIVILEDGED ARE LAZY! PROVE THAT ANY OF THE POOR OR DISABLED OR OTHERWISE UNDERPRIVILEDGED ARE "INCAPABLE" OF FUNCTIONING! PROVE THAT EVERYONE CAN HAVE EVEN A BASIC LIFESTYLE WITHOUT ASSITANCE FROM ANYONE! PROVE THAT NEEDING ASSITANCE MAKES ONE UNFIT TO BE IN SOCIETY! TELL ME TO MY FACE THAT MY DISABILITY MAKES ME UNWORTHY! PROVIDE CONCRETE PROOF OF YOUR ASSERTIONS, OR BE EXPOSED AS THE SELFISH HYPOCRITE YOU ARE!


PROVE IT!

I use to be a full Libertarian with some Anarcho-capitalist leanings, but I came to see the flaws of the ideas in regards to the economy and government.

As of right now, I would consider myself a social libertarian, that is I believe that so long as you are not directly and non-consensually interfering with anothers Rights you should be able to do what you want.

Politically I consider myself a Democratic socialist though, since I believe in a mixed economy, though I do still hold some Libertarian influenced economic ideals, such as Free Trade between free and democratic countries, and keeping the government form becoming so massive that it interferes with things it ought not be.


Anyways, economic Libertarianism is flawed in the fact that it would within 10-50 years completely destroy the market by allowing a single super-monopoly to form, thus stopping all economic and corporate innovation, which would have the trickle down result of you not being able to buy a product from a different company because one companies product sucks and the others does'nt, since one company would own and produce all the products, thus eliminating the choice to buy a different product.

Under welfare capitalism a reserve pool of people is kept undereducated, under-skilled, and unemployed, largely along racial and gender lines, to exert pressure on those who are employed and on organized labor.
The employed pay for this knife which capitalism holds to their throats by being taxed to fund welfare programs to maintain the unemployed class and their children.
In this way the working class is divided against itself; those with jobs and those without are separated by resentment and fear. In socialism, full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work.

Under welfare capitalism a reserve pool of people is kept undereducated, under-skilled, and unemployed, largely along racial and gender lines, to exert pressure on those who are employed and on organized labor.That is not true. Since education is free in welfare capitalism it is up to the individual to improve one's own conditions.

I'm not a pure laissez faire capitalist by any means, but I don't really view child abuse/labour laws as an economic matter, and more a social matter. If a company is doing something illegal (abusing children), then it should be punished. Libertarians do not think that companies should be allowed to break social laws in order to achieve goals. If child labor is a "social matter", then why isn't all labor a social matter?

The government cannot justify forcibly taking money from someone (and coat it all you want, taxes are not voluntary, and so are forced. Taxes are, however, necessary.) to better others. If taxation is theft (it isn't, but for the sake of argument I'll say it is) and taxation is necessary, does this mean that theft is sometimes necessary?

People can, have, and will survive without money or society, with or without training. Using society requires that you contribute to society, and providing for yourself is not exclusive to society, merely easier.Not all social contributions are measured in the free market.

They would in every way replace welfare. They function exactly the same way as welfare does, simply without coercive collection of the means. Before I elaborate, however, I would like to see the argument as to why they would not. See, a corporation could be far more expansive if it simply stole to expand itself, but as this is prevented by the very laws that protect both individuals and the free market itself, this does not happen. However noble a cause is, the ends never justify the means.The reason that the poster you are replying to is incredulous is that there's no reason to believe that private charity will ever be sufficient, and every reason to believe it won't be.

No. Someone is not actively trying to starve you, no? Through negligence, has any party been directly responsible for your lack of money to buy food? NO. To put it bluntly, you are not capable of functioning in society, so you cannot use society to provide for you. You must find other means to feed yourself or become functional in society.Unable to support oneself financially =!= unable to function in society.

If you want to share everything with friends and comrades, my personal utopia wouldn't stop you. Property rights and a left-anarchist commune are not mutually exclusive. But if I don't, then I wouldn't be stopped either - and that is what an anarcho-communist, or a socialist world or even the modern state can't give me.Property rights and a left-anarchist commune are not mutually exclusive, but it would take a particular agreement between the commune and the capitalists next door in order for them to get along together. Without such an agreement, there will likely be trouble.

That is not true. Since education is free in welfare capitalism it is up to the individual to improve one's own conditions.Education to a limited degree is. However, this limited education is not sufficient to acquire most forms of employment.

PROVE IT! IT IS NOT ADEQUATE TO MERELY ASSERT IT! PROVE IT! PROVE THAT ALL MISFORTUNE IS CAUSED BY A LACK OF INITIATIVE! PROVE THAT ALL THE UNDERPRIVILEDGED ARE LAZY! PROVE THAT ANY OF THE POOR OR DISABLED OR OTHERWISE UNDERPRIVILEDGED ARE "INCAPABLE" OF FUNCTIONING! PROVE THAT EVERYONE CAN HAVE EVEN A BASIC LIFESTYLE WITHOUT ASSITANCE FROM ANYONE! PROVE THAT NEEDING ASSITANCE MAKES ONE UNFIT TO BE IN SOCIETY! TELL ME TO MY FACE THAT MY DISABILITY MAKES ME UNWORTHY! PROVIDE CONCRETE PROOF OF YOUR ASSERTIONS, OR BE EXPOSED AS THE SELFISH HYPOCRITE YOU ARE!


PROVE IT!

Your rather large size font...

Of course it is not adequate to assert something. That does not, however, mean that anything is ever proved on this forum. Quite simply, the assertions of 'Libertarians are completely selfish' are just as unfounded, and I am replying in kind to illustrate this point. When the criticism of the institution of welfare is raised with these assertions, it is instantly identified and criticized. My main point was, however, that society gives you nothing if you do not contribute. This is as true for rich millionaires who are retired as to the poorest man on the street. Thusly:
1. You earn money or reward of some form by providing a good or service of some form;
2. You use this reward to exchange for a good or service you need or want;
Repeat. Economically, the main emphasis, is what I was discussing. Contributing socially, however, requires input as well. You don't get something for nothing.

You are drawing unnecessary offense and conclusions. Fortunately for argument's sake, I never said 'Misfortune is caused by a lack of initiative.' Sorry, that is not the case. I merely said that no one person is responsible for it. Misfortune is in general random, and can quite suck, but that doesn't mean I am responsible to pay for other's misfortunes. Nor did I say that all the underprivileged are lazy. Quite the opposite. Poor, disabled, or otherwise are perfectly capable of functioning... and I never said otherwise. Its just harder, and I respect this. They can and do participate and contribute to society... but those who don't give don't get back. Proving that someone can have a basic lifestyle without assistance, is of course, impossible. Naturally enough, you extend 'welfare' to encompass the entirety of 'assistance'. Everyone gets assistance, from various friends, family, charity, parents, etc. at some point. Needing assistance doesn't make someone 'unfit' to be in society. Simply the fact that if you cannot contribute to society then society gives you nothing back. If you need assistance to contribute (and this is only the completely and utterly basic argument) then you can find it; there are plenty of private organizations (and I assume you do have family, and friends; if you don't, have my pity.) but don't look towards the government for it. I can not tell you to your face because this is an internet forum; there is no need, however, because I neither consider you unworthy nor incapable. I am going out on a very large limb here, but by posting here you have internet access of some form, and do probably have employment of some form. (Forgive me if I'm wrong... please.) Have you not then, found a way to contribute to society? Instead of relying on the ephemeral world of the physical, physically disabled people still have access to the mental world, an infinitely more lucrative level. (just ask Mr. Stephen Hawking himself.) And how does any of this 'expose me as the selfish hypocrite' I supposedly am? For all you know, I could be a poor, disabled man.

If taxation is theft (it isn't, but for the sake of argument I'll say it is) and taxation is necessary, does this mean that theft is sometimes necessary?
One, explain how taxation isn't theft. Taxes on commerce are not theft, I realize now. So, thus I recant and revise, to NOT ALL BUT SOME taxes are theft. Such as income tax.
Some taxation is necessary, because nobody is going to fund the government privately. That doesn't mean it isn't theft, it means its better than either relying on private contributions to be regular or having a private influence on the government. Government impartiality is worth some taxation. I would tolerate higher taxation if I agreed as to where my money was going, and my money would not be wasted in a stupid government decision (*cough* Iraq war *wheeze*)

Not all social contributions are measured in the free market.
And your point is? Give me an example.
Even so, selflessly dedicating yourself to a noble social cause that happens to not be measured in the 'free market' without a means to support yourself is a rather foolish decision, one that eventually helps no one. If, in the case of non-profits and religious organizations, you are not focusing on profit, then I'm afraid you will have to rely on private donations (wait... its being done! and working!) or else will not exist.

The welfare state in its entirety (unemployment insurance, subsidized services, TANF, health and safety regulations etc.) are what matters, not just TANF (commonly referred to as welfare). Several times during the early 20th century, socialism was on the brink of becoming a major force in American politics. In 1912, Eugene Debs earned 6 percent of the popular vote, running in an election where everyone tried to portray themselves as progressive.

FDR's New Deal co-opted most of Norman Thomas' Socialist Party platform. Had he not run, there would have likely been a revolution.
I'm afraid the rise of this form of liberalism hardly qualifies as a revolutionary movement. Instead it was a shift of focus so the government could fix the current problems. Several new ideas were developed and put into practice... but the government was not deposed... nope, same America, just different politicians.

The welfare state is the only force that keeps conditions sufficiently satisfactory in this country to not leave the door open for revolutionary action.
Explain then the existence of governments that are neither and yet had no revolutionary action, then.

One, explain how taxation isn't theft. Taxes on commerce are not theft, I realize now. So, thus I recant and revise, to NOT ALL BUT SOME taxes are theft. Such as income tax. Taxes are not theft because theft implies the taking of something from some person that that person had a right to.
Since people don't have the right to the money that they're taxed, it isn't theft.

Some taxation is necessary, because nobody is going to fund the government privately. That doesn't mean it isn't theft, it means its better than either relying on private contributions to be regular or having a private influence on the government. Government impartiality is worth some taxation. I would tolerate higher taxation if I agreed as to where my money was going, and my money would not be wasted in a stupid government decision (*cough* Iraq war *wheeze*)Why is impartiality in government valuable, but not impartiality in charity or employment? (By that I mean the idea that a white racist would not give charity or employment to a black person.)

And your point is? Give me an example.
Even so, selflessly dedicating yourself to a noble social cause that happens to not be measured in the 'free market' without a means to support yourself is a rather foolish decision, one that eventually helps no one. If, in the case of non-profits and religious organizations, you are not focusing on profit, then I'm afraid you will have to rely on private donations (wait... its being done! and working!) or else will not exist. I was referring to something like a nonprofit, yes.
Even still, while nonprofits exist and distribute aid, they are not numerous enough (and almost certainly wouldn't be) to give aid to everyone who needs it.

One, explain how taxation isn't theft. Taxes on commerce are not theft, I realize now. So, thus I recant and revise, to NOT ALL BUT SOME taxes are theft. Such as income tax.
Some taxation is necessary, because nobody is going to fund the government privately. That doesn't mean it isn't theft, it means its better than either relying on private contributions to be regular or having a private influence on the government. Government impartiality is worth some taxation. I would tolerate higher taxation if I agreed as to where my money was going, and my money would not be wasted in a stupid government decision (*cough* Iraq war *wheeze*)

1) . . .Because you can't steal from yourself, and government action, including taxation, is legitemized by your consent to the method of determining government policy. We set up a government whereby policy is determined by vote of the populace for elected representatives who vote for us. By voting, you endorse this method of policy determination and consent to live by it. The elected representatives, and the people of the various states themselves in the early part of the 20th century, consented to provide an income tax at a rate to be determined by the legislature. Following the logic, you endorsed government taxation expressely (unless of course you've never voted, but even then you'd have to have tacitly supported it by using the fruits of government action. . .like the internet), and you can't steal from yourself, ergo, taxation is not theft.

2) Stealing by definition implies taking for the sole good for the stealer, whereas the purpose of taxation is taking for the good of the general public, ergo, taxation isn't stealing.

While I agree that the government does not always live up to the principle of committing funds for the general welfare and only the general welfare, that represents a contractual failure on the part of the government that must be rectified through change of representatives or complete overthrow of the Constitution. In no case does picking and choosing when you get to spend your tax dolllars fall into either of the two above categories. That's just latte anarchism.

I'm European, and I HATE libertarianism. It's like anarchy except much more worse. Libertarian society could never work, as individuals always want to boost their own goals and needs. Libertarian society would be incredibly inefficient and annoying. The only good thing would be the fact that sooner or later a strong-minded group of people would take control. And the people would have Order again.

...I don't get it: what's the point of "Oh, so much liberty" anyway? "Liberty" is not the best thing in the world, you know. There are several more important values like Justice, Order and Safety. None of which can get along with Libertarianism. And Libertarianism would lead to greediness and corruption, too.

I HATE LIBERTARIANISM! I HATE IT! I HATE LIBERTARIANISM WITH PASSION! LIBERTARIANISM IS A TUMOR FOR THIS PLANET! WE MUST GET RID OF IT! WAKE UP, PEOPLE! WAKE UP! STOP BEING LIBERTARIANS!

I'm European, and I HATE libertarianism. It's like anarchy except much more worse. Libertarian society could never work, as individuals always want to boost their own goals and needs. Libertarian society would be incredibly inefficient and annoying. The only good thing would be the fact that sooner or later a strong-minded group of people would take control. And the people would have Order again.

...I don't get it: what's the point of "Oh, so much liberty" anyway? "Liberty" is not the best thing in the world, you know. There are several more important values like Justice, Order and Safety. None of which can get along with Libertarianism. And Libertarianism would lead to greediness and corruption, too.

I HATE LIBERTARIANISM! I HATE IT! I HATE LIBERTARIANISM WITH PASSION! LIBERTARIANISM IS A TUMOR FOR THIS PLANET! WE MUST GET RID OF IT! WAKE UP, PEOPLE! WAKE UP! STOP BEING LIBERTARIANS!
European libertarianism or American libertarianism? The two are different things.

European libertarianism or American libertarianism? The two are different things.

All forms of libertarianism. I don't like any political ideology situated at "libertarian right" in Political Compass test.

Property rights and a left-anarchist commune are not mutually exclusive, but it would take a particular agreement between the commune and the capitalists next door in order for them to get along together. Without such an agreement, there will likely be trouble.
Certainly. But I have enough confidence in the brains on both sides to realise that neither is hurt by the others' existence. Or if they are, there is something wrong with themselves that will not be fixed by destroying the other.

2) Stealing by definition implies taking for the sole good for the stealer, whereas the purpose of taxation is taking for the good of the general public, ergo, taxation isn't stealing.

Eh?

So if I rob a convenience store, then give half the money from the till to charity, I'm not a thief?