Why Libertarians don't like you

2»

Comments

  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    mikepegg44 just curious, care to give any examples of goverment more limited where things are subjectively better?
    "socialist" governments in europe really bust that theory up. People are happy to pay high taxes to a body that protects them and gives them copious maternity/paternity time as an example. Also, before the market gets called into play, remember that all the business owners haven't fled the country.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    polaris_x said:

    rgambs said:

    polaris_x said:

    rgambs ... by definition - your wife is agnostic ...

    incorrect. Common misconception. A-gnostic (i hate AG-nostic, makes no sense) means that the existence of deity is unknowable..Todays popular definition has been expanded to include those on the fence, but populism doesn't go far in academics. The problem is all the new age "pantheist" types who want to say that God is the universe, we are all God, God is everything yada yada. Gods, by definition, are beings!!! If you do not believe in a supernatural being you are an atheist. My wife does not. It bothers me that people change the meaning of "god" so that they can change the label society has for their beliefs.
    Until we can communicate mind to mind we have to use words. If you don't like the term society has for your situation....TOO BAD!!
    sorry ... my bad ...

    i do think it's a reasonable position as for me - i do believe in a higher power ... whether it's called a god or whatever ... i'm just not interested in proving it's existence or way or another ... that to me is where the exercise is slightly futile ...


    Yeah...what you call higher power, I call nature. These terms are so subjective.

    It's funny how some feel the need to label others though. I'm this, you're that.

    I say have at it, because in the end, who cares? Why divide, separate? No little patches of common ground to be found and fostered?

    Me, I know I don't know and probably never will. And that's fine - who's to say any of us SHOULD know?
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    edited April 2014
    polaris_x said:

    i would say libertarians are not lefties ... i break it down as we vs. me ... i think most people would say their philosophy leads to a better world ... libertarians are definitely about personal freedoms and choices focusing on the individual or me ... i'm sure they will tell you that they believe in the "we" and that their way will get you there but the language is typically "me" ... lefties are about the "we" ...



    I think you are right. Libertarians see people as individuals and wish to treat them as such in the eyes of a governing body. That doesn't mean there isn't a sense of community, but that sense can be stronger or weaker depending on the individual.
    rgambs said:

    libertarians are lefties because they want a better world. They want less corruption and more freedom. Conservatives want to maintain the status quo, hell more often than not they want to regress! You and I want progress we just have different solutions to the problem.
    As an example of how limited governance could work, I'd like to hear with what you would replace FDA regulation?

    There is poison in things we consume that are approved by the FDA, there are drugs that get recalled for one reason or another that were approved by the FDA.
    In the end, the philosophy would be that civil and criminal litigation would be a deterrent to knowingly or otherwise disseminate poisonous products. If the gov't was actually interested in protecting individuals it would be a fairly easy process.

    But some people think that is too idealistic, I will reiterate, drugs that received FDA approval have irreversibly harmed people when taken the correct way. if you can still approve a product that is known to kill/harm like cigarettes, approve drugs that then have to be recalled, etc etc, what fucking good are you?

    Most of the time I hear about added costs to the judicial system when I say that and that is a gov't agency, and I then go back to what I said earlier, libertarian is not the same as anarchy and some gov't is needed, especially in dispute resolution between individuals and other parties be they individuals or corporations.


    edit:

    That of course is just my thinking on the matter, there are others who are far more interested in getting rid of the FDA than I am that will have a different answer.



    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,675
    Libertarians, here's a question for you: What is your stance on environmental issues? I don't mean, "Do you recycle?" Recycling is good but only a very minor aspect of environmentalism and conservation. What is you stance on the deeper aspects of environmentalism- global warming, species die-off, human over-consumption of non-renewable resources, pollution, etc? Without regulation, do you believe people in general and especially corporations will do enough to solve our negative environmental impact? I ask this because so often I hear about how you want freedom but on a planet inhospitable to humans (and other large animals), freedom is a moot point. The only party that strongly addresses these issue is the Green Party and they don't seem to be able to gather much force. But maybe there is something about your philosophy I missed.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • curly
    curly Posts: 704
    looks like an interesting idea....will read it when I have the time....hopefully sooner that later...
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    i would say that we have civil and criminal court IN ADDITION TO the federal oversight and we still have major pollution violations and poisoned food. I like your question mr lux I haven't had the pleasure of hearing a libertarian opinion on the environment.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    rgambs said:

    i would say that we have civil and criminal court IN ADDITION TO the federal oversight and we still have major pollution violations and poisoned food. I like your question mr lux I haven't had the pleasure of hearing a libertarian opinion on the environment.


    We do not have criminal sanctions against members of businesses for shitty products that poison do not exist as far as I know. If those things exist with federal oversight in place, what does that say about the effectiveness of costly federal oversight? I would rather criminal sanctions be levied than federal oversight and federal fines. There will not be criminal penalties for the CEO of GM for example. No one from Chevrolet will be prosecuted criminally for knowingly selling dangerous cars.

    Strict personal property rights deal with pollution as well. One question for you, do you agree with carbon credits? I ask because that would allow the rich to pollute at their leisure, but something I see touted as a win for environmentalism all the time.

    If you pollute my property I sue. Pollution rarely stays put. Air quality affects us all, rivers and streams. I suppose if a company bought an entire lake they could pollute the shit out of it, if and only if that pollution did not leave their property. We are already a litigious nation, and again, I have no problem with judicial dispute resolution. I am for civil restitution but also criminal prosecution of property rights violations. I would love to see our jails filled with people who pollute rivers and streams rather than Crack users and pot dealers.

    But again, the retort is always "too idealistic" or "impractical", "couldn't ever work" "too much strain on justice system"...well fine. Then let's keep it the same way and see what happens to the environment.

    rgambs said:

    mikepegg44 just curious, care to give any examples of goverment more limited where things are subjectively better?
    "socialist" governments in europe really bust that theory up. People are happy to pay high taxes to a body that protects them and gives them copious maternity/paternity time as an example. Also, before the market gets called into play, remember that all the business owners haven't fled the country.

    Subjectivity is the key there. I cannot tell you what makes you happy. I can only want to create a world where you have the ability to do what makes you happy without forcing the same type of "happiness" on others. There are no real life examples of fully libertarian societies, because libertarianism, like many other forms of gov't philosophy are by degree. On a freedom scale of my own design, a "Socialist" gov't can be more libertarian than a capitalist country.

    Countries where taxation is high are just fine as long as there is some give and some take. I mean, if I am socially free as shit to do what I choose I may or may not notice my level of economic freedom as much. I would say if I had a degree of choosing social freedom would be much higher on my list than all things economic freedom, but those things do overlap. I mean, people would say we are "more free" in the US, but we don't ever really own property here. We say we are free, but we are far less so than many "socialist" countries we deem as evil.
    polaris_x said:


    norway? iceland?

    sure - you can highlight instances of corruption ... but if you look at any indexing on corruption - it's generally lowest in modern day socialist countries ...

    there just is no example of the type of governance you wish for working anywhere ...

    well, since it has never been done no one should ever try ;) Also, what happens to the happiness in Norway when the oil money runs out?


    I am not here to tell you the only way to live, I am here to tell you the way I would be happiest, and the way I believe would lead to less world conflict. People don't really want to fight wars, gov'ts do and the corporations who buy them do...socialist or not I would rather not have gov't entities so large that they could literally alter all life on earth because of a ridiculous disagreement.

    if a community of people gets together and decides to pool resources that is fine with me, I just don't think a gov't needs to be involved in doing it. I personally believe in community, but I don't believe I have the right to force that on you or anyone else
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mikepegg44 said:

    I am not here to tell you the only way to live, I am here to tell you the way I would be happiest, and the way I believe would lead to less world conflict. People don't really want to fight wars, gov'ts do and the corporations who buy them do...socialist or not I would rather not have gov't entities so large that they could literally alter all life on earth because of a ridiculous disagreement.

    if a community of people gets together and decides to pool resources that is fine with me, I just don't think a gov't needs to be involved in doing it. I personally believe in community, but I don't believe I have the right to force that on you or anyone else

    no ... we get that ... i think we've spent enough time on this board discussing these opinions ... what we are looking for is any example of your desired form of governance actually achieving what you claim ... conceptually libertarianism sounds fine but the assumptions that are made in order for it to succeed simply do not hold water ... just as in a socialist system - there are people that will abuse it ... how can one not see that in a libertarian system - there will be just as much abuse ... it's human nature ...

    the problem i have with your second paragraph is simply that if a community of people decide to pool resources - it has to have someone administer and manage it ... why can't it be gov't!? ... the issue i always have with libertarians is that I don't think anyone has ever made a strong case against the concept of gov't ... just pointing out that current gov'ts are wastefull and corrupt doesn't necessarily mean the concept of gov't is bad ...

    as for norway ... and the oil running out ... the same could be asked of the US ... what percentage of the economy is tied to oil ... pretty big i would imagine ... norway has long diversified its revenue stream and is actively moving away from oil as a fuel source so at the very least - they are preparing for it ...

    i think people like to point to norway's oil as the only reason they have succeeded when in fact the real reason they've succeeded is that they have a populace that fundamentally believes in the values they govern by ... their divide is not as partisan and wide as in north america ... combine that with relatively low corruption and you got the foundation for a successful system ...
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,675
    polaris_x said:

    mikepegg44 said:

    I am not here to tell you the only way to live, I am here to tell you the way I would be happiest, and the way I believe would lead to less world conflict. People don't really want to fight wars, gov'ts do and the corporations who buy them do...socialist or not I would rather not have gov't entities so large that they could literally alter all life on earth because of a ridiculous disagreement.

    if a community of people gets together and decides to pool resources that is fine with me, I just don't think a gov't needs to be involved in doing it. I personally believe in community, but I don't believe I have the right to force that on you or anyone else

    no ... we get that ... i think we've spent enough time on this board discussing these opinions ... what we are looking for is any example of your desired form of governance actually achieving what you claim ... conceptually libertarianism sounds fine but the assumptions that are made in order for it to succeed simply do not hold water ... just as in a socialist system - there are people that will abuse it ... how can one not see that in a libertarian system - there will be just as much abuse ... it's human nature ...

    the problem i have with your second paragraph is simply that if a community of people decide to pool resources - it has to have someone administer and manage it ... why can't it be gov't!? ... the issue i always have with libertarians is that I don't think anyone has ever made a strong case against the concept of gov't ... just pointing out that current gov'ts are wastefull and corrupt doesn't necessarily mean the concept of gov't is bad ...

    as for norway ... and the oil running out ... the same could be asked of the US ... what percentage of the economy is tied to oil ... pretty big i would imagine ... norway has long diversified its revenue stream and is actively moving away from oil as a fuel source so at the very least - they are preparing for it ...

    i think people like to point to norway's oil as the only reason they have succeeded when in fact the real reason they've succeeded is that they have a populace that fundamentally believes in the values they govern by ... their divide is not as partisan and wide as in north america ... combine that with relatively low corruption and you got the foundation for a successful system ...
    The part I bolded and mikepegg's comments about community got me to thinking- are libertarianism and the concept of a nation- at least one as large as the US- mutually exclusive? Think about it- can you have a large libertarian nation? If the US were to become mainly libertarian could it still exist as one large nation?

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    this topic beats the pants off gun control!
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,675
    rgambs said:

    this topic beats the pants off gun control!

    Ah, so you're referring to naked gun?
























    sorry!

    :))
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • backseatLover12
    backseatLover12 Posts: 2,312
    edited April 2014
    Why Libertarians don't like me?


    Why does everything have to be a battle?

    EDIT: I just read that you take this lightheartedly, Unsung. Good to know.
    Post edited by backseatLover12 on

Categories