Jump to content

Actual Libertarians vs. Strawmen Libertarians


Kevbo_Jones

Recommended Posts

ouch right to my heart. I feel so un libertarian now :rolleyes:

 

You should. You don't even know the difference between Minarchists((read: traditional contemporary libertarian which you label as leftwing liberals) and Neo-Anarchists(read: college kids riding the Ron Paul fad, which is what you are). The debate between the 2 sects is as old as the party itself... But I guess I'm just the misinformed liberal and you know what's best, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should. You don't even know the difference between Minarchists((read: traditional contemporary libertarian which you label as leftwing liberals) and Neo-Anarchists(read: college kids riding the Ron Paul fad' date=' which is what you are). The debate between the 2 sects is as old as the party itself... But I guess I'm just the misinformed liberal and you know what's best, right?[/quote']

 

We both agree greed is bad right? Well **** your silly meaningless picture. I dislike statism because statism is a result of human design. Its a human creation embedded with human greed. Markets are a result of human action. Where both our greed is voluntary and mutually beneficial.

 

To disagree with this basic premise IMO makes you a collectivist. You are not even a traditional libertarian. You voting for Gary Johnson is as :eek: as me voting for Romney.

 

And thats a silly college fad comment. You support Ron Paul, as well as many other adults. So unless your point is just to try to insult me, which you didn't, you are just sounding silly.

 

Stay angry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We both agree greed is bad right? Well **** your silly meaningless picture. I dislike statism because statism is a result of human design. Its a human creation embedded with human greed. Markets are a result of human action. Where both our greed is voluntary and mutually beneficial.

 

To disagree with this basic premise IMO makes you a collectivist. You are not even a traditional libertarian. You voting for Gary Johnson is as :eek: as me voting for Romney.

 

And thats a silly college fad comment. You support Ron Paul' date=' as well as many other adults. So unless your point is just to try to insult me, which you didn't, you are just sounding silly.

 

Stay angry.[/quote']

 

Wrong again, I'm what could be classified as a minarchist. There have been drawn out debates between minarchists(traditional and contemporary libertarian) and anarcho-capitalist/Neo-anarchists(read faddish Paultards and younger generation libertarians) for ages.

 

The difference being that minarchists realizing some form of government and regulation is necessary or at the least bit inevitable, while the latter group thinks if we did away with government altogether and had markets and policy free of regulation, people would magically become virtuous and free of greed and corruption. That is a naive pipe dream.

 

What generally happens when you take a populace and let them have free run with absolutely no guidelines besides consumption and personal interest? Set aside what you think you know for 5 minutes and actually think about it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again, I'm what could be classified as a minarchist. There have been drawn out debates between minarchists(traditional and contemporary libertarian) and anarcho-capitalist/Neo-anarchists(read faddish Paultards and younger generation libertarians) for ages.

 

From what I'm reading about minarchism is that they believe in states defending you from aggression (which is the hypocrisy that pushes me toward Anarcho-capitalism) theft, breach of contract and fraud. None of that = FEMA, a minimum wage, not-private unions, higher tax on rich people. All of which you support. Sounds to me like you are ****ing confused.

 

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it maintains that the state is necessary and that its only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.

Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly on force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity.

 

The difference being that minarchists realizing some form of government and regulation is necessary or at the least bit inevitable, while the latter group thinks if we did away with government altogether and had markets and policy free of regulation, people would magically become virtuous and free of greed and corruption. That is a naive pipe dream.

 

Ive already responded to these points in a hundred posts. I would like to see though which minarchists support your kind of regulation.

 

What generally happens when you take a populace and let them have free run with absolutely no guidelines besides consumption and personal interest? Set aside what you think you know for 5 minutes and actually think about it...

 

I have thought about it Kevbo, a gagillion times. You think this is the only time I debate this ****?

 

I will note that the version of minarchism I posted would be just fine by me if established. Your version ill take a ****ing pass on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore' date=' voting for a libertarian candidate, is, a traditional libertarian move. Voting for a trickle down, invasive foreign policy republican, is... Well... A republican move. You sir, are in fact the one who is sounding silly.[/quote']

 

Im voting against Obama, all there is to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minarchist Kevbo' date=' How do you feel about the mandate of Obamacare? Your philosophy would suggest that the govt should have no interference between you and a private insurance agency? So whats your take on it then?[/quote']

 

I don't support Obamacare. When have I ever said different? I believe my usual response to this is something like "if you have a job that doesn't offer insurance, then get one...

" What is your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support Obamacare. When have I ever said different? I believe my usual response to this is something like "if you have a job that doesn't offer insurance' date=' then get one...

" What is your point?[/quote']

 

...

 

I got better **** to do then argue with spin masters. Im out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I read about Anarcho-Capitalism (Rockwell' date=' Woods, Block), the more I like it.[/quote']

 

Everything should be motivated by monetary gain? Not even possible, because the desire to gain monetarily itself must be motivated by something. Social domination and opportunity don't matter? If that's the case, then why even involve yourself with politics? The whole point of libertarianism is to lessen domination (often premised on that that would increase opportunity).

 

Statism is the only bad and distasteful thing in society? Come on, other people steal from and murder and rape people too. It's true that sometimes X actually is good, but I think in most cases, the things the state involves itself with are things that people do want changed (of course they just end up making things worse, but the point is that X usually is problematic, which is why people beg the state to do something about it in the first place). And finally, while it's entirely understandable for someone to value freedom more than all else; I'd perhaps put myself in that category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything should be motivated by monetary gain? Not even possible' date=' because the desire to gain monetarily itself must be motivated by something. Social domination and opportunity don't matter? If that's the case, then why even involve yourself with politics? The whole point of libertarianism is to lessen domination (often premised on that that would increase opportunity).

 

Statism is the only bad and distasteful thing in society? Come on, other people steal from and murder and rape people too. It's true that sometimes X actually is good, but I think in most cases, the things the state involves itself with are things that people do want changed (of course they just end up making things worse, but the point is that X usually is problematic, which is why people beg the state to do something about it in the first place). And finally, while it's entirely understandable for someone to value freedom more than all else; I'd perhaps put myself in that category.[/quote']

 

I don't know any of what you are saying to be true of Anarcho-capitalism philosophy...but I will check into it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know any of what you are saying to be true of Anarcho-capitalism philosophy...but I will check into it

 

I'm not trying to be combative just discussing some of the points I disagree with. Extreme polarities in either direction are foolish, and as with most things the sane answer lies in between.

 

Markets need to be free enough to encourage innovation and prosperity, and regulated enough to keep private powers from eclipsing the public good.

 

Government should be a tool in the hands of the people and it can both create problems and solve problems. Each issue and each policy should be examined and judged individually.

My distaste for some "true libertarians" is directly proportional to the number of extreme over-generalizations I see being spread under that label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything should be motivated by monetary gain? Not even possible, because the desire to gain monetarily itself must be motivated by something. Social domination and opportunity don't matter? If that's the case, then why even involve yourself with politics? The whole point of libertarianism is to lessen domination (often premised on that that would increase opportunity).

 

So many things wrong with this paragraph. Free markets are not motivated by anything. Its just a system to barter. Its doesnt have goals. It doesnt have wants or desires. Its a place where voluntary transactions occur.

 

Vast wealth has never been created by the motivation of monetary gain. No one got rich off just the goal of monetary gain alone. That would mean they stole it which is ****ing illegal. They have to produce something that is wanted in the market place. And most things wanted tend to increase the standard of living for both. After all it is a voluntary transaction taking place with a win win motive.

 

Also you would have to point me to an example where complete domination has occured without state involvement to believe your last part.

 

Why are there so many types of energy drinks out there? Why didnt red bull dominate the market? Is it because govt regulation? Or does rockstar produce a quality product at a lower cost? Also, why do new brands of energy keep popping up? Because there is a **** load of money in drinks. With plenty of room to COMPETE!

 

Statism is the only bad and distasteful thing in society? Come on, other people steal from and murder and rape people too. It's true that sometimes X actually is good, but I think in most cases, the things the state involves itself with are things that people do want changed (of course they just end up making things worse, but the point is that X usually is problematic, which is why people beg the state to do something about it in the first place). And finally, while it's entirely understandable for someone to value freedom more than all else; I'd perhaps put myself in that category.

 

This is an interesting post because you are actually arguing with yourself here. It was your original post that said "statism is the only bad and distaful thing about society". When have I or any other libertarian said that?

 

I love your examples that followed it because they represent what is bad and distastful about society. Which is the use of force! Murder, rape, statism. Its all about the use of force against another individual. I dont care what color you make it, what name you give it. Use of force is the problem. Is a black rapist more bad than a white rapist? Its the act itself thats the problem is it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which "not greedy" group of individuals are you going to have organize society for us?

 

Definitely not a group of people that thinks a market free of some form of regulation would actually work. Or that the solution to all government entities being replaced by insurance policies. See, you point out things that you disagree with, but you offer up absolutely no feasible alternative. You go to complete and utter extremes on just about every issue and barring you starting a colony on a deserted island somewhere, would never be implemented. You ignored my last post to point out that I was "arguing with myself." No ****?!? You don't say? That was the point. Apparently pragmatics are not an Ancap or Neo-Anarchists strong suite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely not a group of people that thinks a market free of some form of regulation would actually work. Or that the solution to all government entities being replaced by insurance policies. See' date=' you point out things that you disagree with, but you offer up absolutely no feasible alternative. You go to complete and utter extremes on just about every issue and barring you starting a colony on a deserted island somewhere, would never be implemented. You ignored my last post to point out that I was "arguing with myself." No ****?!? You don't say? That was the point. Apparently pragmatics are not a Ancap or Neo-Anarchists strong suite.[/quote']

 

lmao

 

stay angry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lmao

 

stay angry

 

What was angry about that? Your solutions aren't practical nor feasible. Offer up some ideologies that aren't akin to libertarian versions of ultra-left or ultra-right and maybe we can have a decent discussion about this. About the only thing we agree on, which is a feasible alternative is gold backed currency and the disbanding of the federal reserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we have to even debate on what party someone is when parties are the reason if you ask me that our country is failing. We have a very flawed electoral college system that completely eliminates the chance of a third party rising up.

 

Puppet on the left puppet on the right it makes close to no difference and we will never understand this till we break the retarded barriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again' date=' I'm what could be classified as a minarchist. There have been drawn out debates between minarchists(traditional and contemporary libertarian) and anarcho-capitalist/Neo-anarchists(read faddish Paultards and younger generation libertarians) for ages.

 

The difference being that minarchists realizing some form of government and regulation is necessary or at the least bit inevitable, while the latter group thinks if we did away with government altogether and had markets and policy free of regulation, people would magically become virtuous and free of greed and corruption. That is a naive pipe dream.

 

What generally happens when you take a populace and let them have free run with absolutely no guidelines besides consumption and personal interest? Set aside what you think you know for 5 minutes and actually think about it...[/quote']

 

 

Hot damn, Kevin & I are actually on the same side after all....(or at least on the surface, anyway)

 

Look up minarchist' date=' thats where I'm at. Then again, I really couldnt care less what "label" I fall under - my intent is max liberty which is effective for a modern society. How we get there is debateable. There are more than a few ways to skin a cat. Feel me?[/quote']

 

 

http://forums.ufc.production.sparkart.net/showthread.php?p=2914170&highlight=minarchist#post2914170

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...