http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/1027278-key-failures-libertarianism.html#post14299841 All kidding aside, I enjoy these type of threads. It's a good exercise in logic and psychology.
Ditto for me, but it can be rather grueling when it's one up against many. I will return to this thread with a real response before too long.
My main beef with Democracy is that minorities are always persecuted. For example, stoners. It is a threat to what I view as my individual rights. However, I do believe that authority is necessary, and the best way to establish authority is through democratic means. So the form of government I support is a Constitutional Republic that enshrines basic individual rights in the core of it's foundation, and restrains the influence of the masses by requiring supermajorities to change or enact major laws. Ideally the size of the state would be small enough to properly represent it's constituents, otherwise the powers should be divided amongst the people to increase representation. So with something like national health care, I'd feel much more comfortable with it if we amended the Constitution rather than allowing congress to expand Federal powers with 51% plurality. What is wrong with that?
I feel like we've hit a brick wall on this one. I feel that if a person can reasonably change something (e.g. not be made to endure terrible suffering in doing so) and they do not, that that reflects a choice. For example, I have hairs in varying density all over my body. Granted, I could pluck each one out individually, but that would be excruciating. I do not consider it a choice to have hair. Conversely, if I live in some bumfuck nowhere town in the sticks, it doesn't matter if it's all I've known my whole life, if my current job or place of residence is located there; I can complain about the town all I want but the reality of the situation is that I could pack my things up and leave, I just choose not to. It is hard to start a new life somewhere else, but many have done it (myself included), and it does not qualify as terrible suffering. I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at in the "government doesn't own all the land" bit. "Ownership" is as much of a theoretical construct as "rights" are... What does the government owning or not owning land / what does land being public or private have to do with a person's choice to live within the borders of a given country? But I (speaking for the government) do not need the natural, imbued-in-my-dna "right" to intrude on your life and property [read: tax you] to do so. All I need, rather, is the consent to do so granted by an adult choosing to be a citizen of my country. Your arguments can be considered logical if one takes it for granted that the rights of which you speak are unquestionably real, that they quite naturally exist. However, the assumption that these truths about what is okay and not okay to do to another human being are imbued into the fabric of the universe as much as gravity is, for example, is anything but logical. You wrote earlier somewhere about how you bring reason and logic to the table, but if you really want to put your money where your mouth is you need to recognize the fact that you are making these assumptions about "rights" that do not mesh either with the popular understanding of them in this country or with the legal code of our nation. That you share these opinions with other libertarians, with certain philosophers, does not automatically make them relevant in the discussion at hand. Defend it as a good decision? Of course not. Defend it as a reflection of popular opinion that, through legislative action, illustrates the proper mode of political development? Yes; governments are supposed to represent the will of their people. There really is a difference, though. There are definitely countries out there that have a smaller degree of state intrusion into the lives of its citizens, countries that are more closely aligned with libertarian sentiments. You contradict your first sentence here by the opening of your last. Regardless of your reasons, you make a conscious choice to live within the United States, knowing full well that to do so legally, as I'm sure you do, entails being a citizen, a title which comes with certain privileges and certain obligations. You know how the game is played and you choose to play it. You can't choose to play and then say you don't consent to the rules! If you don't consent to the rules, don't play!
1. The issue here is that popular consensus =/= uniform popularity along the socioeconomic spectrum. For example, welfare is obviously going to be popular among the low-income groups that use it, as well as those that, while not requiring public assistance themselves, may be not quite so far enough away from those kinds of dire straits to have empathy and desire that this support exists. Welfare is far less popular among the super-rich, not due to its effects on their tax obligations per se, but over a sense of principle. It is a prevalent attitude among the rich to think, "Hey, I'm doing so well for myself and I worked very hard. Therefore, those that are not doing well for themselves did not work very hard." This is an incomplete train of logic at best, but I won't go into that here. The point is that while social programs may enjoy popular support, some of these programs, particularly those directed towards the poor, could not function through the contributions of its staunch supporters alone. 2. I'm not sure how to respond to this one as I don't think I am understanding you properly... There is no sustainable business or set of businesses that could fill the void that would exist if public assistance were to receive the axe. At any rate, the goal of public assistance programs is to encourage self-reliance while avoiding a transition into extremer forms of poverty among its participants. This second part is very important and often overlooked by posters on this board. No one is suggesting that society would descend into some apocalyptic chaos if welfare payments were to be cut in half, say. Rather, the understanding - one that recent US history wholeheartedly supports - is that without social security, without welfare, without food stamps, etc. that significant portions of our society would suffer outrageously, making the trials of the modern US poor look like jokes (which they most certainly are not). On its face I don't see anything blatantly offensive about this ideal that you've outlined, but I question whether or not it would be as effective as you think in stemming the persecution of minorities. Putting aside the issue of feasibility in regards to getting everyone on board with a doctrine that enshrines the individual rights of everyone, including groups the founding fathers didn't explicitly mention (e.g. women, racial minorities, individuals not of a heterosexual orientation, etc.), I worry that localizing power in the way you describe could be more susceptible to the biases and prejudices of legislators than that which we already have in our more federal-centric system. The extremely detailed constitution that you mention could help to limit this, but as they say, "where there's a will there's a way", and it would not surprise me in the least to see the rights of minorities being chipped away to the maximum extent possible on a regional basis. In general, though, I'm all for political developments that function to put the power of self-determination into the hands of the historically under-served, but feel pessimistic about the idea of something like that happening in the United States, given our trajectory from our founding ---> present day.
1. Libertarians are of the mind that if you have to design a program around and immoral means of functioning in order to work, that program cannot be morally valid. We also happen to believe that these problems exist less (on average) in a free society, where a person is free to sustain themselves however they please without hurting another. 2. Any resources the government can provide to the people, have come from the people in the first place. They did not create anything new, they simply took from some and gave to others. Any set of resources/services the government "provides" to the people also exists without government involvement. Furthermore, it matters not what resource you are talking about.
Also government spending is extremely wasteful. Only a small fraction of each tax dollar allocated towards welfare goes to the people. A free society would not need nearly as much to do the same thing, also everyone would have far more money anyway from the free economy so basically we could all get all our tax dollars back and STILL provide the same level of assistance as the government. I honestly don't see how anyone with a half a brain (mist425) can try and justify government welfare or social security. You do realize these programs are COMPLETELY unsustainable right? Regardless of whether you want them or like them, there is no possible way they can continue like they are now. $60+ trillion in unfunded liabilities... It will be interesting to see what the statists think we should do once the Dollar crashes and the money is all gone. You think the poor are hurting now? Just wait and see what decades of monetary and fiscal irresponsibility will bring down on them, and all of us.
Just because there is a choice, doesn't really change anything. Every human action (and inaction) involves a choice. Being attacked because I live in a certain territory is the initiation of aggression regardless of the ability to leave. I never consented to be a citizen of this country. Simply residing in an area doesn't give someone the right to attack me and it certainly doesn't mean that I consented to being attacked. Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics - Freedomain Radio - Free Philosophy Books You should only need to read part 1 to understand the proof. I can lay the basics of the proof here, but I wouldn't do as good a job of explaining it as Stefan does. Do you know anything about the principles of self-ownership, non-aggression, homesteading, etc.? What issues do you have with them? I meant defend from an ethical standpoint. If the majority of people consent to being enslaved, does that mean only the majority should be enslaved or should everyone be enslaved? I don't consent to the rules and I don't play by the rules. I don't play the game. I violate US federal law every single fucking day. Residing in an area doesn't mean I consent to hundreds of thousands of people being thrown away in prison and tens of thousands being murdered overseas. Your definition of consent is retarded. Having a choice doesn't mean that I consent. Leaving this area doesn't solve the predicament. I'm faced with territorial monopolies on force regardless of where I move to. I stay here because I'm best able to survive and prosper here within this human farm. Staying here doesn't mean I want to be stolen from. Simply residing in an area doesn't give someone the right to attack me. ==================================== No, I shit on them because even if you believe they're a theoretical construct, the other side doesn't hold up their end of the implied bargain, so why the fuck is it a legitimate agreement when one side doesn't have to fulfill their supposed obligations?[/quote] Where is this agreement you keep talking about and what is involved with this agreement (the one where I consented to being attacked)? Am I the only one with obligations in this agreement? When did I sign this agreement? If I didn't sign it, then how is it a legitimate contract? If it's not a legitimate contract, then how is this any different from what a criminal organization does? At this point, if you continue to ignore this, I will consider you to be perpetuating the legitimacy of a fraudulent contract. So far, you've been unable to demonstrate the legitimacy of the agreement in question. You keep claiming that choice means consent despite the fact that there are countless counterexamples to this position. Here are a few: - If someone pulls a gun on me and asks for money, I have a choice of whether to give them my money. - If a group of people (read: government employees, gang members, etc.) knock on my door and demand money or they'll break the door down and attack me, I have a choice of whether to give them my money. - If the mob steps into my storefront and tells me I'm going to have to give them protection money or they'll destroy my store, I have a choice of whether to give them my money, leave, fight back, etc. This doesn't mean that I consented to anything. It means I was threatened with violence/fraud and I reacted accordingly. Consent goes out the window once someone starts threatening to attack me just because I live within a certain area or I walked into (or live in) a bad neighborhood.
Consent does not exist where there is coercion. If I hold a gun to your head and ask you which would you rather keep, your tongue or your hands, and you choose hands; this does not justify me in taking your tongue. You have not consented to the taking of your tongue. Consent, by definition, must be voluntary. You're ignoring the gun in the room. I'm not sure what game you're referring to either; I'm not here to play games with the State. I'm here to live my life in peace.
There is no more effective way to protect minorities than to protect every individual equally. The 14th amendment clarified that. It is intended to be a document that can change with the times. The Federal government always restrict state power if a supermajority supports it. Otherwise, that state can secede. The alternative to this is forcing your will on 49% of people like a dick. If the states don't follow the Constitution then they aren't members of the union. Unconstitutional Federal abuse of power since the civil war has only exacerbated racial tensions in this country. States' rights would quickly show that a free and equal society is best. Coercion breeds resentment.
I don't make a conscious choice to live within the United States, I make a conscious choice to continue residing in the location where I currently reside. The fact that some State or another has asserted control over the territory I happened to be born in means nothing. Someone builds a basketball court with my house being dead in the center. They then tell me that 'consciously choosing' to live there, instead of packing up and moving, constitutes my consent to playing basketball.
Or, for another parallel between this ridiculous "You choose to live here" garbage: Were the children who were born into slavery consenting to be slaves because they were born to parents who were slaves?
Interesting thread. Libertarianism as a political movement is a failure. The key reason is it can't compete with the promises/goodies delivered by political philosophies. Also no matter what the policy, those that support the policy have a void of empathy in relation to the policy. Ex. 1: A person who supports 'social programs' is, for the most part, emotionally impervious to the damage to other peoples' lives produced by implementing the policy. To put it simply, they will support it no matter how much damage it causes. Ex. 2: A person who supports 'national defense' is, for the most part, emotionally impervious to the damage to other peoples' lives produced by implementing the policy. To put it simply, they will support it no matter how much damage it causes. So basically libertarianism, as a political movement, has the same nature as liberalism, conservatism, fascism, etc., and is less appealing than the others because it offers less. It's like libertarianism is a 1oz soda. Who would want that when the store across the street is offering 12oz sodas? Fuck soda...metaphorically speaking of course. To those libertarians still involved in politics, honestly ask yourself: Why is socialism far more popular than minarchism?
This is really it. Thats really all that needs to be said and people have the biggest problem understanding this. Like Stefan Molyneux says, "it doesn't matter".
So basically liberatarians are wring because we don't want to submit to rule if the mob taking away rights just because they want wellfair? Fail post
The first two are way over-generalizations (although you did state "for the most part" you are still generalizing way more than if you used an individual in your example... lol but then i guess you'd have no point would you ... you might even sympathize with these someones at that point (that is a person and not just a demographic, whoah)... which is also really funny, were it to be the case, because you really have no idea...whatsoever... which is because people's emotions are actually their own (not yours lolz), that they are even easier to act out...and whoever these people are... my guess is you've not experienced life through these peoples skins...) You might as well and at least try and seem like you care about individuals. They exist... somewhere... lol. Now, I'm not a libertarian here, but i will say that minarchism and socialism are not exclusive by any means. Socialism can exist without a state. Socialism can exist with a mini state. Yawn... All real libertarians are already living in the woods sharpening sticks and fixing cornmeal, for the journey to Mordor begins tomorrow. Wake me up when John Galt gets here....
Also i feel that libertarianism would be more widely accepted were it not for the tendency that some seem to have which is a tendency to be the thought police... by that i mean there are certain libertarians who seem to think that they are some sort of human computer or something (mentat lol) it's usually pretty cool to witness, logic is awesome... but when that person loses an argument they are just an ass. Another libertarian who kind of weirds me out is the hardcore moralist. These people kind of exuberant a vibe that their morals are superior to your own, which is really silly because morals do not exist objectively anywhere, and any notion that they do is simply clinging to cultural conditioning. Oh the deplorability! Tribulation! That being said my Dad voted for GJ, and i've got a lot of respect for my dad. I don't think that Gary is an idiot either, just that he ain't my guy. Edit: I also want to add that there is no criticizing of capitalism with the liberty crowd, or even entertaining the possibility that it is not ahem..."THE BEST GODDAMN SYSTEM UNDER THE GODDAMN SUN!!!" Another thing that gets me is calling democracy mob rule... lol ok mr. Grinchypoo. Seriously ya'll are supposed to be the liberty crowd and your best response to the responsibility of being a part of a group is... "I don't want to move or be apart of your democracy. I don't care that the state was here first, i want to be a vocal supporter of liberty." I tend to think... Jesus dude get off the cross your going to hurt yourself. Plus your supposed to be liberated. Get lost. Go on git.