Libertarian ideology

12467…13

Comments

  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hehe...why don't you just shoot him? Me too. It would be easier.

    I'm sure the "Laws of the Universe made me do it" defense would hold up in court.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    mammasan wrote:
    I'm sure the "Laws of the Universe made me do it" defense would hold up in court.
    The laws of the universe dictate that undesirable traits be removed from a system, lest that system collapse. Why should a court of law, which exists in the universe, be any different?

    So no, it wouldn't hold up in court. :D
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    Sorry, this is a libertarian thread. The courts have no authority here.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    RainDog wrote:
    The laws of the universe dictate that undesirable traits be removed from a system, lest that system collapse. Why should a court of law, which exists in the universe, be any different?

    So no, it wouldn't hold up in court. :D

    OK you lost me at The. :)
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    Sorry, this is a libertarian thread. The courts have no authority here.

    Libertarians certainly believe in courts. Libertarian and anarchist are not synonymous.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Libertarians certainly believe in courts. Libertarian and anarchist are not synonymous.
    But how are the rulings of that court enforceable without a cadre of men with guns telling other people what to do?

    in other words, can't I make a passing joke - even if solely for my own amusement?
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Libertarians certainly believe in courts. Libertarian and anarchist are not synonymous.

    But why have courts. In case you missed it we have no will of our own. All of our actions are determined by the Laws of the Universe. We are no longer responsible for what we do or refuse to do.

    I think I'll go grab the ass of beautifull woman who sits down the hall. When security and my boss come I'll throw my arms up in the air and say the universe made me do it, just go ask Fransis Crick.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Libertarians certainly believe in courts. Libertarian and anarchist are not synonymous.

    How do libertarians have law and protection of property with no taxes to fund a government upholding law and protection of property?
    If my life is my property wouldn't the government have to protect my life by :
    - not sending me to war
    - not giving me a death sentence
    - curing me from a potentially mortal disease
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    mammasan wrote:
    OK you lost me at The. :)
    Well, I do find it to be one of the hardest words to define, so I understand not getting past it. ;)
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    But how are the rulings of that court enforceable without a cadre of men with guns telling other people what to do?

    They aren't, outside theory. Libertarians typically support the use of force in retaliation to aggressive acts.
    in other words, can't I make a passing joke - even if solely for my own amusement?

    Of course ;)
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    RainDog wrote:
    Well, I do find it to be one of the hardest words to define, so I understand not getting past it. ;)

    It's not my fault. The universe prevents me from defining it.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Kann wrote:
    How do libertarians have law and protection of property with no taxes to fund a government upholding law and protection of property?

    Charity and charge, of course.
    If my life is my property wouldn't the government have to protect my life by :
    - not sending me to war

    Libertarians strongly oppose conscription.
    - not giving me a death sentence

    Libertarians typically oppose the death penalty.
    - curing me from a potentially mortal disease

    A "mortal disease" is not a form of social oppression - forcing others to cure you would be. A Libertarian would certainly believe in protecting you from corporations or individuals who willingly infected you with a disease, but would see no obligation to protect you from disease itself.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    mammasan wrote:
    But why have courts. In case you missed it we have no will of our own. All of our actions are determined by the Laws of the Universe. We are no longer responsible for what we do or refuse to do.

    I think I'll go grab the ass of beautifull woman who sits down the hall. When security and my boss come I'll throw my arms up in the air and say the universe made me do it, just go ask Fransis Crick.
    While I don't entirely believe in the lack of "free will" - remember, under Anhimus' view, that while the universe might "make" you play grab-ass, it will also "make" the reaction.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    RainDog wrote:
    While I don't entirely believe in the lack of "free will" - remember, under Anhimus' view, that while the universe might "make" you play grab-ass, it will also "make" the reaction.

    So then none of us is held accountable for what we do. I can't be held accountable for grabbing her ass and the security guard can't be held accountable for breaking my arm while he drags me out of the building kicking and screaming.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    RainDog wrote:
    While I don't entirely believe in the lack of "free will" - remember, under Anhimus' view, that while the universe might "make" you play grab-ass, it will also "make" the reaction.
    so basically it's exactly the same. We willingly won't grab ass to not get in trouble, we'll just do that knowing we didn't choose to do that out of free will but out of the knowledge of a possible reaction.
    It's a boring theory really.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    mammasan wrote:
    So then none of us is held accountable for what we do. I can't be held accountable for grabbing her ass and the security guard can't be held accountable for breaking my arm while he drags me out of the building kicking and screaming.
    Basically.

    Or, you could look at it another way and say that you're still held accountable - in the same way that a virus is held accountable by an immune system, or an asteroid is held accountable by gravity.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Kann wrote:
    It's a boring theory really.

    I think coma inducing is a more acurate term.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Charity and charge, of course.
    but isn't that a bit risky for the independance of justice?
    Charity comes with a high risk of corruption. I'm not saying it doesn't exist in our justice system but the risk would be as high in the system you describe
    Libertarians strongly oppose conscription.
    Libertarians typically oppose the death penalty.
    Yeah I put these before the disease part because I know you oppose those ways.
    A "mortal disease" is not a form of social oppression - forcing others to cure you would be. A Libertarian would certainly believe in protecting you from corporations or individuals who willingly infected you with a disease, but would see no obligation to protect you from disease itself.
    that seems logical. but what of an emerging disease? who takes the appropriate measures to stop that?

    And how does a libertarian system interact with other countries? (I'm sorry I'm completely new to this)
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    mammasan wrote:
    I think coma inducing is a more acurate term.

    It may be a boring theory, but it's reality and as such we should model our social and political systems around it.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Kann wrote:
    but isn't that a bit risky for the independance of justice?

    No more risky than it is now when a tiny percentage of the population supports the system we have now.
    Charity comes with a high risk of corruption. I'm not saying it doesn't exist in our justice system but the risk would be as high in the system you describe

    Very much so, yes. Corruption isn't a function of money. Corruption is a function of power and evil. Any system of justice stands a high risk for corruption. Correcting that is done by ensuring checks and balances.
    Yeah I put these before the disease part because I know you oppose those ways.

    Ok.
    that seems logical. but what of an emerging disease? who takes the appropriate measures to stop that?

    The market.
    And how does a libertarian system interact with other countries? (I'm sorry I'm completely new to this)

    Libertarians are typically isolationists. Ron Paul's views on international relations are a very good representation of the typical Libertarian viewpoint.

Categories