Libertarianism -- I just don't buy it.

[lurkerguy]

For every tax dollar that feeds a starving child, 5 tax dollars kill and imprison innocent people.

 

[StagnantReaction]

I still think that Libertarianism is nothing more than than the right to be selfish and give others the freedom to be as selfish as yourself under the constitution. It requires a belief that people will do good to each other if left alone. That doesn't work today because people are inherently selfish, at least in my opinion.

Selfish individual, selfish society. Chicken or the egg?

 

[Jamshyd]

Selfish individuals construct a selfish society, and being selfish, the society self-propagates by indoctrinating selfishness. More of a cycle than a line.

The only way to escape such a cycle is to breach it.

 

[qwe]

For every tax dollar that feeds a starving child, 5 tax dollars kill and imprison innocent people.

and probably alot more money for people who have commited a "consensual crime"

 

[DigitalDuality]

I judge any ideology and 'system' in terms of how good it is at uniting the most, and alienating the fewest.

Despite the fact that I can be a scofflaw and a very self-reliant person, I cannot bring myself to sympathize with Libertarians. The reason is that I don't think Libertarian policies, if put into action, would build very strong or cohesive community values.

Now while the communities i speak of, have some bad qualities to them i don't necessarily approve of (largely being small mindedness) most "small government" types.. are where? Rural towns across america, i can acuse them of many many many things. Not having a sense of community is sure not one of them.


I don't have the energy to fully enter into this debate, but many of the things you speak of... people could take of without the government.. such as pollution for instance.

We're looking at a government who has 10 times the lobbyists than members of congress, easily. You think congress is listening to us? no.

But... people sure as hell look to the government to fix the very problems they create and enable and empower. This nation is not self reliant. Hell i'm not.. and it's a cultural value.

We don't use the market to our advantage. We don't alienate companies and corporate policies from a consumer perspective, we plea to the government to change thigns for us. B/c .. it's too hard to not eat places that pollute, or use transfats, or have smoking sections. We'd rather pull some strings with politicians and enforce our way onto others.

Surely i'm no libetarian purist. But i think many of us could learn a thing or two from them. In a world where republicans and democrats look more the same than different.. where we face the problems we do today.. maybe the further ends of the political and cultural spectrum are bringing us some solutions that may really help.

I'd say this for greens in some regards as much as i would libertarians.

 

[DigitalDuality]

Individual Libertarians, in my experience, are people who are very certain that they, and only they, know what's best for themselves. But how reliable is this sense? Your knowledge of 'better' and 'worse' is not pure cold rational logic. It's also largely preferences you've picked up socially, values you've been taught unconsciously. How many times, in retrospect, someone else has known what's best for me far better than I did!

I am the only person that knows best for me. And ya know what? I might be wrong compared to others advice. I might have been better off listening to others, but i'm better now for it. Maybe not in health or in economics, but as a person.

I'd rather learn through my own decisions based off my own thinking that has been affected by my own conditioning, and learn a lesson, rather than someone nanny me and i just go with the flow and recite the slogan of why i did the "right thing".

Better to truly learn sometimes, than just do the "right thing" because others either said.. or further more.. forced you to

 

[qwe]

I judge any ideology and 'system' in terms of how good it is at uniting the most, and alienating the fewest.

think of how many people are alienated by society itself because of these cohesive values! through-out all of history and continuing to this day, people have been alienated because of race, gender, sexual preference, religion, choice of drug, political ideas, scientific ideas, how they want to marry, who they want to marry, and the list goes on, and every time these people are alienated, it is because society wants to make itself cohesive and united!

i realize you have good intentions. but enforcing these majority-opinion "values" through legislation and prison and other ways DIRECTLY alienates vast portions of society in countless ways

if your goal is minimizing alienation, then you would want to side with the libertarians or some similar philosophy. these philosophies are the least alienating because they are the most tolerant and empathetic to other peoples' lifestyles.

libertarian-like philosophies, centered around the principle of freedom of mind and empathetic tolerance, let people live together peacefully, without throwing eachother in jail

i realize your good intentions, this is not an attack, but your way of thinking on these issues (a desire to control other peoples' personal lifestyles through law and 'unite' everyone in terms of moral opinion) is one of the biggest problems facing society, far bigger than a minor percentage of drug users being addicted or a couple people deciding to marry more than one person. it is directly alienating, intolerant, violence causing (but that's okay, because the state is always allowed to be violent......), and is directly counter to the idea that your mind is your own

we don't need to be united by all having the same moral opinions... if we have differing moral opinions, discussion is how this should be resolved, not throwing the 'wrong' people in prison, and turning the 'deviants' against their own police force which are supposed to PROTECT them

the way to be united is to respect every other person no matter what their moral opinions are

btw, you call social libertarians selfish. but you don't want to let someone marry more than one person because YOU might not be able to get any chicks? imo, you need to take a couple rolls and have a conversation with one of these 'deviants' who are a threat to 'social unity'. you will see that they are just like you and me, and that they do not deserve to be thrown into prison

 

[qwe]

How many times, in retrospect, someone else has known what's best for me far better than I did!

unfortunately, that person who knows whats best for you, is usually not in the government

you are saying the government should make certain decisions for us because we dont know any better because we're human

in case you didnt realize, the government is made up of HUMANS

 

[TheDrizzle]

it seems that everyone thinks that the only policy libertarians are supporting is selfishness go read the platform. and just because there are radical libertarians who feel we should do away with public roads, and blah blah blah doesn't mean you can say that represents the whole of the party which is VERY untrue. It is no different than all the crazy fucking hardcore Republicans and Democrats those individuals decided to take a party's platform to the extreme and are getting the majority of the medias coverage. In no way do those individuals represent the whole of the party. And the libertarians economic policy/ rights to freedom are why I support the party. Not to mention they are the only fucking third party that has any chance to get into congress and fix the toal cluster-fuck that washington dc is.

 

[Jamshyd]

it seems that everyone thinks that the only policy libertarians are supporting is selfishness go read the platform. and just because there are radical libertarians who feel we should do away with public roads, and blah blah blah doesn't mean you can say that represents the whole of the party which is VERY untrue. It is no different than all the crazy fucking hardcore Republicans and Democrats those individuals decided to take a party's platform to the extreme and are getting the majority of the medias coverage. In no way do those individuals represent the whole of the party. And the libertarians economic policy/ rights to freedom are why I support the party. Not to mention they are the only fucking third party that has any chance to get into congress and fix the toal cluster-fuck that washington dc is.

To my knowledge, this thread is about Libertarian ideology, not the American Libertarian Party.

 

[MDPVagrant]

What is real freedom, anyway? Big philosophical question. I really think freedom is something of a zero-sum game. The freer you are to do one thing, the less free you are to do something else.

What is real freedom? IMO, it's always freedom FROM something. Freedom from fear/anxiety, freedom from boundaries, freedom from limitations, etc. No such thing as being "free to" do anything. Since when have any of us NOT been free to do whatever it is we basically have to?

That said... I'm not big into the whole libertarian thing either. It's often wrapped in conservativism, which I strongly disagree with. Social Security is the most awesome, actually useful social service program ever, and some idiots want to do away with it. I guess because they are selfish as friggin' hell and would enjoy watching the elderly & mentally ill die on the streets. At least until THEY end up falling into one of these categories some day.

 

[ebola?]

A brief point of clarification:

In the United States, libertarianism typically stands for right-libertarianism, a la the Libertarian party. They support a minarchist "night watchman" state that protects property rights. Pretty much everywhere else, libertarians tend to also be leftist. I, for example, could identify as a libertarian socialist.

>>the reason is that I don't think Libertarian policies, if put into action, would build very strong or cohesive community values. Go ahead and say I've spent too much time in Asia, but I think it's incredibly important for most people (granted not everyone) to see themselves as part of something larger than just themself, and bonding into a community necessarily involves submitting to decisions reached as a group, including a few that you personally might not like.>>

Building a community is one thing. Hierarchical coercion is another. What is the roadblock to the creation of voluntary community links other than the framework of social relations of the status quo? I would say that we seek to cooperate as much as compete. I don't think that centrally coerced activity (of the state or capital) is necessary to build community.

ebola

 

[TheDrizzle]

I'm really sorry for my post... just a confusion, this thread makes more sense to me now.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

qwe, I don't need any lectures about 'social deviants'. My parents being hippies, I grew up surrounded by them. Having taught English in Asia, I've met a lot of people who were pushed/pulled from the Anglophone world by their own strangeness. Working in an inner city hospital now, I meet my share of characters. I'm very familiar with and sympathetic to social deviants, trust me.

I DO believe governments shouldn't intervene with violence into people's private lives. My father worked as a prison chaplin for 15 years, and BOY do I see what's wrong with this 'solution'! I think we should be working towards a system that favors restorative justice for violent crime of the non-psychopathic type, rehabilitation for drug addiction, and mediation for most civil disputes. Does this make me a libertarian?

I don't think so, because I don't see why a centralized government couldn't do the best job providing and funding these more compassionate infrastructures. I think if the government were scaled back entirely, leaving private companies to provide these services, A) the profit motive would diminish the potential for real compassion coming from them, and B) they'd likely become unaffordable to many.

It really depends on the country too. Several Asian countries are de facto fascist police states, where everyone does what they can to avoid even getting looked at twice by an officer. But the people there know no other way, can't even conceive of wanting to do anything illegal, and the nation operates like clockwork.

AnalogSingularity, are you familiar with the Suzuki Method? It's a very effective form of learning that relies on absolute trust and (temporarily) complete obedience to your teacher. It involves simply copying the action of your teacher. You are not told why you're doing what you're doing, and are not allowed to ask any questions. Just copy, until you perfect. After learning to copy harder and harder models, the 'why' of it all comes to you in a sudden, usually unspoken, realization. The practical knowledge precedes the abstract reasoning. I've never learned anything by the Suzuki Method, but learning about it made me realize that pretty much none of the skills or thought algorithms I possess were born in my head. They were aped from someone else I was in contact with. It was very humbling. Since then, I've never taken it for granted that I have all I need to look out for my own best interest. If you do, proudaya. I just thought I'd share with you how I came to rather the opposite conclusion.

 

[LostInSpace]

Individual Libertarians, in my experience, are people who are very certain that they, and only they, know what's best for themselves.

So what if people may not always do what's best for themselves? The whole point is to be able to live freely, good or bad. Individuals should have control over their own lives and they (and only they) are responsible for the results of their choices.

You don't like polygamy? Then stay single or marry one person.
What if somebody else is in power and decides that gays shouldn't marry, or black people should only count as 3/5 of a person, or that you can no longer drink orange juice?

The role of the government as intended by our founding fathers (in the U.S. at least) was to be that of an umpire, not a participant.

I'll leave you with some words from people far smarter than myself....


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

"I start…from a belief in individual freedom and that derives fundamentally from a belief in the limitations of our knowledge, from a belief…that nobody can be sure that what he believes is right, is really right.…I’m an imperfect human being who cannot be certain of anything, so what position…involved the least intolerance on my part?…The most attractive position…is putting individual freedom first."
-Milton Friedman





I think you are a little confused as to what Libertarianism is all about.

 

[DigitalDuality]

AnalogSingularity, are you familiar with the Suzuki Method? It's a very effective form of learning that relies on absolute trust and (temporarily) complete obedience to your teacher. It involves simply copying the action of your teacher. You are not told why you're doing what you're doing, and are not allowed to ask any questions. Just copy, until you perfect. After learning to copy harder and harder models, the 'why' of it all comes to you in a sudden, usually unspoken, realization. The practical knowledge precedes the abstract reasoning. I've never learned anything by the Suzuki Method, but learning about it made me realize that pretty much none of the skills or thought algorithms I possess were born in my head. They were aped from someone else I was in contact with. It was very humbling. Since then, I've never taken it for granted that I have all I need to look out for my own best interest. If you do, proudaya. I just thought I'd share with you how I came to rather the opposite conclusion.

i've never been one for authority, no matter how old i grow. I do what i need in order to climb in the world.. but yeah... i have an inherent distrust of people.. be them fallible, wrong, dishonest, malicious, ...to follow a teacher without quesitioning.. why not just strap up and be a soldier?

 

[mariacallas]

Selfish individuals construct a selfish society, and being selfish, the society self-propagates by indoctrinating selfishness. More of a cycle than a line.

The only way to escape such a cycle is to breach it.

IMHO, escaping the cycle begins with the individual. Become what you believe. Believing without a doubt that everybody is selfish and that society is inherently selfish leads to it being a self-fulfilling prophecy dont you think? And the cycle begins anew. You must be the change you wish to see in the world...cliche.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

i've never been one for authority, no matter how old i grow. I do what i need in order to climb in the world.. but yeah... i have an inherent distrust of people.. be them fallible, wrong, dishonest, malicious, ...to follow a teacher without quesitioning.. why not just strap up and be a soldier?

Because I'm against war, except as a self-defensive last resort.

Sure people are fallible, including myself. But bonding with other people is what life is all about, at least that's what I've found. That requires taking a risk, putting faith in people, putting your well being in others' hands when you're out of your element. By all means have a Plan B in case they DON'T come through for you. By all means stop trusting a person if they're consistently untrustworthy. But I can't count the number of times I've gained so much as a result of deciding to take the risk of trusting someone completely. I'd far rather take the pain of frequent interpersonal friction but always have someone there for me, than be always safe making all my own decisions but cynical. But this is a matter of personal taste.

You don't like polygamy? Then stay single or marry one person.
What if somebody else is in power and decides that gays shouldn't marry, or black people should only count as 3/5 of a person, or that you can no longer drink orange juice?

The role of the government as intended by our founding fathers (in the U.S. at least) was to be that of an umpire, not a participant.

It isn't that simple. Any choice any of us makes affects other people. As I've already explained, it's not just a matter of me being monogamous because I don't like polygamy. Consider all the society. There's going to be guys who can't find a wife, and that raises rape rates, among other things, which is bad for everyone. I just can't see how anyone who takes a holistic view of society, with each person like a cell in a body or a player in an orchestra, can defend each person just doing as they please, and expecting everyone to look out for their own ass and nobody else's.

 

[panic_the_digital]

it seems that everyone thinks that the only policy libertarians are supporting is selfishness go read the platform. and just because there are radical libertarians who feel we should do away with public roads, and blah blah blah doesn't mean you can say that represents the whole of the party which is VERY untrue. It is no different than all the crazy fucking hardcore Republicans and Democrats those individuals decided to take a party's platform to the extreme and are getting the majority of the medias coverage. In no way do those individuals represent the whole of the party. And the libertarians economic policy/ rights to freedom are why I support the party. Not to mention they are the only fucking third party that has any chance to get into congress and fix the toal cluster-fuck that washington dc is.

Hooray for The Drizzle!

You people can argue all day about "libertarian philosophy", but the kind of Ayn Rand bullshit you are all debating is unpopular with just about everyone. If the majority of people had any kind of hope that a third party could get elected, it would be these people for sure.

 

[LostInSpace]

1. Sure people are fallible, including myself. But bonding with other people is what life is all about, at least that's what I've found. That requires taking a risk, putting faith in people, putting your well being in others' hands when you're out of your element. By all means have a Plan B in case they DON'T come through for you. By all means stop trusting a person if they're consistently untrustworthy. But I can't count the number of times I've gained so much as a result of deciding to take the risk of trusting someone completely. I'd far rather take the pain of frequent interpersonal friction but always have someone there for me, than be always safe making all my own decisions but cynical. But this is a matter of personal taste.



2. It isn't that simple. Any choice any of us makes affects other people. As I've already explained, it's not just a matter of me being monogamous because I don't like polygamy. Consider all the society. There's going to be guys who can't find a wife, and that raises rape rates, among other things, which is bad for everyone. I just can't see how anyone who takes a holistic view of society, with each person like a cell in a body or a player in an orchestra, can defend each person just doing as they please, and expecting everyone to look out for their own ass and nobody else's.

what are you smoking? I'm not trying to be a dick, and I'm being as unbiased as possible, but you are making really poor arguments.

1. I'm sorry but this argument doesn't make sense. How does this even relate to the idea of libertarianism vs. collectivism? Libertarians aren't loners any more so than any other group. They have people they put their trust and faith in. they're called friends and family.

2. I'm too frustrated to reply to this one right now.