Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 61 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Nobody Is 100% Libertarian (Read 9358 times)
Don_G
Ex Member


Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #310 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 12:43pm
Print Post  
MMMark wrote on Mar 13th, 2018 at 7:17am:
Tues. 18/03/13 07:17 EDT
.post #17

I find this statement interesting enough to comment again; it's an excellent example of what libertarians are up against as they try to explain libertarianism.


It's as if I go to a coffee shop and order my favorite delicious drink called Freedom.
  "I'll take a large, please," I say.  Unfortunately, the shop is under new management and the new policy is that every cup of Freedom is now adulterated with two stale old ingredients, one called Liberalism and one called Conservatism.
  "Yechhh!" I say when I taste it; "you've ruined it!  Listen, please make me another cup and increase the ratio of Freedom."
  "Okay," says the girl behind the counter.  "You want me to add more Conservatism and less Liberalism, is that it?"


Well, you're fairly new here so I have to give you a chance to lay out your position. However, I can assure you that I have never received any sort of explanation from any of the others as to what their brand of libertarianism represents. Anything they have ever attempted to say has just been impossible daydreams. It's always been just as imaginary as your additions to the cup of coffee.

So how about if you get down to some real life talk with me and stop trying to baffle me with bullshit.

The fact of the matter is that everybody on this forum is more interested in pushing their conservative ideas, while dismissing my ideas of 'social responsibility'. So much so that they interpret it to mean 'socialism' or 'communism'. Ilustrating clearly that they are extremist 'rightists' in their views.

I've asked you to define 'socially responsible conservatism' and you seem to admit that it's a contradiction in terms. Maybe? If that's your answer then I'll deal with you accordingly.

I used the Branch Davidians example because it's the most extreme example I could think of to put to a libertarian of government using force that is warranted. And so I'll just add to that, government collecting taxes is another example that is warranted. Libertarians are simply going to have to come to terms with those truths.

Oh, and the latter isn't done at the point of a gun. That's as unreal as the additions to your coffee too.

If you're going to talk in terms of impossibilities and unrealities then you're going to have to start explaining how those imaginary goals can ever be reached. You can rule out the democratic process if you like. It seems to be pretty unanimous with libertarians that they are opposed to democracy.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7486
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #311 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 1:19pm
Print Post  
MMMark wrote on Mar 13th, 2018 at 12:42pm:
After discussing the private covenant community, this paragraph is reminiscent of your evaluation of HOAs:

|At this point, some may further object: "But all communities like this have rules I don't like! All the houses I like are in homeowners-association controlled communities, and it's not fair to make me live somewhere that is not to my liking in every conceivable way!"|

I think I did a poor job of expalining why (I believe) HOAs are inherently bad.  2nd attempt:

These communities are as UNlibertarian as they can possibly be.   Period.   

The CC&Rs are 22 pages of gobbledygook and legal jargon - nobody actually reads it before buying a property in an HOA. You flip through the pages and nod and sign the papers.

We all learn the hard way, when we do something mundane that we've been doing for many years, only to find out that its prohibited in the CC&Rs. But you need a lawyer to decode it for you.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Ex Member


Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #312 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 1:38pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Mar 13th, 2018 at 1:19pm:
I think I did a poor job of expalining why (I believe) HOAs are inherently bad.  2nd attempt:

These communities are as UNlibertarian as they can possibly be.   Period. 


All realities of life are unlibertarian you silly ass.  

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MMMark
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 10th, 2018
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #313 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 2:01pm
Print Post  
Tues. 18/03/13 14:01 EDT
.post #19

Quote:
It's always been just as imaginary as your additions to the cup of coffee.

So how about if you get down to some real life talk with me and stop trying to baffle me with bullshit.

I'm trying to be as clear as I can...not trying to baffle you or anyone else.  I'm also genuinely astonished that you think libertarianism is about "asking that your government become even more conservative."  I employed the "cup of Freedom" metaphor to help you understand that to me, any form of statism contaminates liberty.



Quote:
The fact of the matter is that everybody on this forum is more interested in pushing their conservative ideas, while dismissing my ideas of 'social responsibility'. So much so that they interpret it to mean 'socialism' or 'communism'. Ilustrating clearly that they are extremist 'rightists' in their views.

Sorry to hear that.  Don't give up hope, though.  Communication is difficult; we all have to keep trying to improve.



Quote:
I've asked you to define 'socially responsible conservatism' and you seem to admit that it's a contradiction in terms. Maybe? If that's your answer then I'll deal with you accordingly.

Could you please provide a link to where you asked me this?
Also, can you link to where I "seem to admit that (socially responsible conservatism) is a contradiction in terms"?



Quote:
I used the Branch Davidians example because it's the most extreme example I could think of to put to a libertarian of government using force that is warranted. And so I'll just add to that, government collecting taxes is another example that is warranted. Libertarians are simply going to have to come to terms with those truths.

If you haven't yet, please watch Waco: The Rules of Engagement, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O78gUTO_1M

Also, listen to this commentary:
Siskel & Ebert - "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" (1997)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsaif8wn15E

Atrocious, horrifying...I can't think of an adjective that adequately disparages this wanton governmental act of mass murder.  Burning men, woman and children, alive.  Utterly, devastatingly horrible.  And you seriously defend this?  I find it difficult to believe, to put it politely.

Anyway, please watch the documentary and see if it softens your socially responsible conservative soul a bit.



Quote:
Oh, and the latter isn't done at the point of a gun. That's as unreal as the additions to your coffee too.

"At the point of a gun" is a metaphor but at some "point" it is also literally true.  Taxation is really more akin to extortion than armed robbery because the threat of some punishment for disobedience always accompanies taxation.  Call it "taxtortion," then.  I still think "legal aggression" is good.



Quote:
If you're going to talk in terms of impossibilities and unrealities then you're going to have to start explaining how those imaginary goals can ever be reached. You can rule out the democratic process if you like. It seems to be pretty unanimous with libertarians that they are opposed to democracy.

I think John Maynard Keynes gets it right:

Quote:
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MMMark
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 10th, 2018
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #314 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 2:17pm
Print Post  
Tues. 18/03/13 14:15 EDT
.post #20


SkyChief wrote on Mar 13th, 2018 at 1:19pm:
I think I did a poor job of expalining why (I believe) HOAs are inherently bad.  2nd attempt:

These communities are as UNlibertarian as they can possibly be.   Period.   

The CC&Rs are 22 pages of gobbledygook and legal jargon - nobody actually reads it before buying a property in an HOA. You flip through the pages and nod and sign the papers.

We all learn the hard way, when we do something mundane that we've been doing for many years, only to find out that its prohibited in the CC&Rs. But you need a lawyer to decode it for you.


I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the wording of these CC&Rs is constrained by some or another legislation.

Another thought:  You're familiar, perhaps, with the Free State Project
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Project ),
( https://freestateproject.org/ ) ...

I wonder how successful this idea could be were it applied on a smaller scale, such as a Home Owners Association.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Ex Member


Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #315 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 2:43pm
Print Post  
MMMark wrote on Mar 13th, 2018 at 2:01pm:
Tues. 18/03/13 14:01 EDT
.post #19

I'm trying to be as clear as I can...not trying to baffle you or anyone else.  I'm also genuinely astonished that you think libertarianism is about "asking that your government become even more conservative."  I employed the "cup of Freedom" metaphor to help you understand that to me, any form of statism contaminates liberty.


Thank you for your replies. I'm mostly impressed.
I don't think libertarianism has anything to do with asking your government to be more conservative. Where did you get that idea? I've asked that you explain to me how conservatism could be related to 'socially responsible' government. I see it as a contradiction in terms.



Quote:
Sorry to hear that.  Don't give up hope, though.  Communication is difficult; we all have to keep trying to improve.


Well that's a breathe of fresh air for this forum! I can only assure you that I didn't make that up. The term 'socially responsible government' and 'sociallly responsible' has been rejected almost unanimously by this forum's participants as being really just socialism or communism.


Quote:
Could you please provide a link to where you asked me this?
Also, can you link to where I "seem to admit that 'socially responsible conservatism' is a contradiction in terms"?


No, I won't. If I'm mistaken in saying that you have stated the equivalent then I'll take your word for it. It could have been somebody else. However, if you feel that 'socially responsible conservatism' isn't a contradiction in terms then i'm anxious to hear your explanation.



Quote:
If you haven't yet, please watch Waco: The Rules of Engagement, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O78gUTO_1M

Also, listen to this commentary:
Siskel & Ebert - "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" (1997)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsaif8wn15E


I prefer to not watch either as my time has some constraints. I used the example of Waco. Can you just make your point that you are imagining that those two videos make for you?

Quote:
Atrocious, horrifying...I can't think of an adjective that adequately disparages this wanton governmental act of mass murder.  Burning men, woman and children, alive.  Utterly, devastatingly horrible.  And you seriously defend this?  I find it difficult to believe, to put it politely.


I can't say I defend it. I will say I condemn the Branch Davidians as murderers of their children. They are responsible for the consequences. Not government. But it serves as a learning experience for those who presume to use armed violence against government authority.

Quote:
Anyway, please watch the documentary and see if it softens your socially responsible conservative soul a bit.


I'm not a conservative and I don't believe in 'the soul' as such, in the way you use the term.

I used the example only, so let's try to come to an understanding of why. Government took action that it deemed to be appropriate in the circumstances. The children's lives were being threatened. In retrospect, a different apporach might have been more appropriate. Possibly not. The only issue that is relevant now to my example is an explanation of how you think a 'libertarian' method would have proved better. And why?

Why would a libertarian choose a different solution to the problem the government was facing? Why would it have been a better choice. Is there a libertarian philosophy laid out that says a differeent approach would have been a better approach? Non-aggression perhaps? Explain how that would have worked?



Quote:
"At the point of a gun" is a metaphor but at some "point" it is also literally true.  Taxation is really more akin to extortion than armed robbery because the threat of some punishment for disobedience always accompanies taxation.  Call it "taxtortion," then.  I still think "legal aggression" is good.


It's a metaphor and it's used far too often. It's a metaphor as surely as your additions to your coffee are metaphors.



[quoteI think John Maynard Keynes gets it right:

[/quote]

How does what Keynes says relate to the discussion on libertarians ruling out democracy?

I'll accept that you don't if you are taking that position. As I've said, you're new here and you're likely not aware of the positions these pseudo-libertarians have taken.

Fwiw, pay close attention to ahhell. You will likely come to the conclusion that he's the only one who has anything in common with my rational approach.





  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RubyHypatia
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2555
Location: Greer, SC
Joined: May 12th, 2011
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #316 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 4:37pm
Print Post  
SkyChief, I wasn't saying police should sell drugs to minors.  I'm saying drugs should be legal, but selling them to minors should not be.  And in that case, local police, not the DEA, should handle cases of minors being sold drugs.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #317 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 4:37pm
Print Post  
This is a theoretical discussion, right?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MMMark
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 38
Joined: Mar 10th, 2018
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #318 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 5:03pm
Print Post  
Tues. 18/03/13  17:03 EDT
.post #22


Quote:
Thank you for your replies. I'm mostly impressed.
I don't think libertarianism has anything to do with asking your government to be more conservative. Where did you get that idea?

From you:
Quote:
The part that you're missing, and nearly all libertarians are missing, is that the US government is corrupt. Other good governments can be trusted to manage 'social' programs for the people because they are 'socially responsible'.

You're all barking up the wrong tree. Asking that your government become even more conservative is the opposite approach to social responsibility.



Quote:
The term 'socially responsible government' and 'sociallly responsible' has been rejected almost unanimously by this forum's participants as being really just socialism or communism.

I have no objection to socialism, communism, or socially responsible government - provided that no legal aggression is used to impose it on those who don't want it.  I wish like-minded socially-responsible people could form their own voluntary communities and set the best possible example they can, and try to attract new members and grow peacefully.  That would be great.



Quote:
if you feel that 'socially responsible conservatism' isn't a contradiction in terms then I'm anxious to hear your explanation.

It might be oxymoronic...I don't know much about it.  Maybe you could elaborate.




Quote:
I prefer to not watch either as my time has some constraints.

Quite understandable.



Quote:
I used the example of Waco. Can you just make your point that you are imagining that those two videos make for you?

Quote:
The part that you're missing, and nearly all libertarians are missing, is that the US government is corrupt. Other good governments can be trusted to manage 'social' programs for the people because they are 'socially responsible'.

I'll let John Dalberg-Acton answer:
Quote:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.



Quote:
I can't say I defend it. I will say I condemn the Branch Davidians as murderers of their children. They are responsible for the consequences. Not government.

Disappointed to hear this.




Quote:
The only issue that is relevant now to my example is an explanation of how you think a 'libertarian' method would have proved better. And why?

'Better' is subjective, I suppose.  My (libertarian) preference is non-aggression, live and let live, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you...you get the idea.  I'm understandably no fan of mass murder, and governments are the most successful, most prodigious mass murderers.  Waco, while horrible, is a drop in a bloody ocean.




Quote:
Why would a libertarian choose a different solution to the problem the government was facing? Why would it have been a better choice. Is there a libertarian philosophy laid out that says a differeent approach would have been a better approach? Non-aggression perhaps? Explain how that would have worked?

Gosh, how about leaving them alone?  The question to ask here, really, is: Can you think of how it could have been any worse?


Quote:
How does what Keynes says relate to the discussion on libertarians ruling out democracy?

I'm not sure that it relates to your second and third sentences, but it does relate to your first.  What I hear Keynes saying is similar to what Victor Hugo said:
On résiste à l'invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l'invasion des idées.
(One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas.)




Quote:
Fwiw, pay close attention to ahhell. You will likely come to the conclusion that he's the only one who has anything in common with my rational approach.

Thanks.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 33527
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Reply #319 - Mar 13th, 2018 at 5:12pm
Print Post  
MMMark wrote on Mar 13th, 2018 at 5:03pm:
It might be oxymoronic...I don't know much about it.  Maybe you could elaborate.
Thanks.

Meanwhile, far into the libertarian future, people like Don_G ("progressives") are still trying to replace civilization with the Law of the Jungle.

As I have said many times, I'm very disappointed with the futuristic 21st Century world where everywhere is reverting to the Dark Ages.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 61
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Nobody Is 100% Libertarian
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy