Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just trying to figure out Libertarian approach on equality, gay right, and such. Many "libertarians" are contradicting each other on the net, certainly cause confusion.
So you don't support laws against discrimination? Sorry to pester, but I just want it to be clear that advocating a law against something is threatening people with prison or death if they disobey. That's why I'm against any law punishing non-violent "crime".
I'll definitely check out that thread when I get a chance. Thanks.
A little tidbit here. What annoys me, as the OP stated, although in somewhat less defining terms, is that libertarians do not believe in externalities which is shoving the costs (of seeing you nude in the OPs example) on someone else. And they say if there are externalities, its only because of government interference. Bullcrap.
A little tidbit here. What annoys me, as the OP stated, although in somewhat less defining terms, is that libertarians do not believe in externalities which is shoving the costs (of seeing you nude in the OPs example) on someone else. And they say if there are externalities, its only because of government interference. Bullcrap.
Only some libertarians believe that way. I am more of a Milton Friedman type libertarian. I do recognize the need to prevent third parties from being harmed by a contract they are not part of.
I actually prefer to label myself a classical liberal. Both Hayek and Friedman labeled themselves liberals.
Trying not to offend I find Libertarian some what wishy washy, not really making a stand on much, too much willing to go with the flow. Kind of reminds of the "soup of the day."
I concerned changing parties, but I could not see a connection, I did learn this:
"Libertarian" with a large L refers to the political party.
"libertarian" with a small l refers to a philosophy.
The philosophy is one of non-initiation of force, small government, personal responsibility, and individual freedom. Yet, how many want the government to wide open legalize MJ without looking at the repercussions on our youth? Rather than fight for the freedom to smoke and not do prison time, they fight for more illiterate children and unofficial medical drug shops with drug cartel connections.
How many fight to free prisoners doing time for possession of MJ????
What a cowardly position. You know there is not a single person anywhere arguing for the right of kids to do drugs.
Like freedom of speech, it is unattainable unless all men in their degree are capable of reason and moral responsibility.
Human systems are a composite of logic, custom, common sense and (one hopes) compassion. Common sense is subjective, does common sense even exist? Compassion is also subjective, becuase many believe
"taking care of my own people" is the highest level of compassion
Laws against racial discrimination are effectively an action of the heart. They are legal under our constitution, they are morally right, and they constitute one of the infringements on perfect personal liberty that I am happy to see. Do you believe this is one of those areas where the free market would ever solve the problem?
Hi there lilyflower,
I agree with much of what you've said here. Sometimes I don't understand when folks say something like they defend a person's right to be 'wrong or irrational, et cetera'. Sometimes it seems as if they are not only defending a person's free speech but they are defending the rationale upon which the person's position is based.
For example, (not claiming this is a perfect analogy) when most folks' 'common sense' told them that persons designated as property were not persons & therefore the rights designated for 'real persons' did not apply. Not only has the 'common sense' of most folks changed but the science upon which it was based has proven to be inaccurate, wrong, based upon false evidence, etc. Doesn't it make sense to have laws based on logic? Wouldn't it be necessary to question the logic, reason, rationale upon which a position is based? In any event, natural consequences cannot help but be applied to inaccurate reasoning.
Scientists (of all stripes) tend to accept the evidences of the senses while in reality, problem solving (of all stripes) tends to involve imagination, critical thinking, reasoning & other skills (not saying any of these is mutually exclusive). There's a progression in thinking in problem solving & in the various methods used. A flexibility of mind is perhaps necessary? Maybe being able & willing to navigate between the concrete & the abstract?
Another example, in the 17th century, the science of physics became more mathematical & that's not to say it became more concrete (or evident to the senses) but rather the opposite. This was the time of Galileo & the average person could see (through the evidences of their senses) the Sun go around the Earth. The average person today accepts the Earth goes round the Sun although this is not by the evidences of the senses but by faith in the demonstration of ideas & concepts that are abstract, theoretical, conceptual & sometimes even abstruse. & so it goes.
I don't know what else to say? Meaning, isn’t defending a person's right to be 'wrong' or 'irrational' sometimes evidenced as defending their reasoning as well?
Tell we who is fighting to free pot smokers in prison? Where will legalize pot help the 15 year old over the 40 yr old.
It's coward to not present my opinion......sorry you only see your needs and not the needs of our youth!
I think your post is selfish to not see 15-18 yr olds will get it easier......laws mean nothing!
Most would be happy to grow their own and not do prison time.......sure would keep the cartel from claiming Americans smoke their crap.
I have no idea what the argument against putting people in prison for pot has to do with this argument. It is not hard for 15-18 year olds to get pot now. No one is arguing for minors to be able to use drugs.
However, in spite of my strong libertarianism, I can't help but utterly hate so many other libertarians. The reason is that many of them appear to hold on to 2 utterly stupid and a selfish ideas which I believe is why libertarianism has gotten a bad name with many people from both the left and the right:
-The idea that nothing can possibly be unethical just as long as it isn't illegal to do.
-That individual liberty means you have no reason to show consideration towards other people.
Neither of your straw man points is a position of libertarian philosophy or, by extension, ideology. Anarchists maybe, but not libertarians, as the two things are vastly different. So what you hate is a media caricature straw man of what liberals tell you libertarian is, or what people who aren't libertarians but are claiming to be are professing as libertarian philosophy when they think John Locke is a guy who installs deadbolts and doorknobs at your house.
First point - ethics is the systematic philosophy of right and wrong conduct, and morality is then the extent to which a thing is right or wrong based on one's own perceptions. Libertarians, by and large, are actually very binary and much more exacting where morality and thus ethics are concerned, which in the world of perpetual grey area nuance that liberals and conservatives like to wander around in where what is ethical and moral gets changed on a whim for the sake of convenience, libertarians (the real kind) constantly struggle with consistency of ethics and morals. Logical consistency is freaking hard in the real world, which is why there are so few people who sign up for the libertarian thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin
The first is self-explanatory, and is simply the idea that as long as drowning puppies isn't against the law then doing so must be totally fine.
Right after the sovereignty of the individual and their natural rights as foundational belief comes the Non-Aggression Principle (Axiom) of "first, do no harm." This is a tricky area, because the logical endpoint of the do-no-harm thing is Janist buddhism, which is vegan on steroids where you don't even move for fear of stepping on an unseen bug. For the average libertarian in the US, do-no-harm is not harming your fellow man or the property of others, and most folks in our corner of the 1st World consider puppies to either be property or anthropomorphized family members. So drowning a puppy clearly involves doing harm for no freaking reason, which is totally contrary to the Non-Aggression Principle.
The law does not dictate moral or immoral, rather, initiation of force and doing harm to others dictates that. ALL initiations of force that are not an emergency measure to save the individual from greater harm are considered immoral. I qualify that last because a common rebuttal for people arguing the initiation of force thing is "well what about shoving someone out of the way of a bus about to run them over?" and many discussions and essays on that very notion have been bantered about in libertarian land, and the general consensus is that yes, shoving a person out of the way of the oncoming bus is indeed an initiation of force, but one you will likely be forgiven for by the person upon whom you applied said force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin
The second, is the idea that because people have freedom this means they have no reason to care about the effect it has on others. I will use nudity and cursing as an example. There are some libertarians who believe that cursing and being naked in public should not be illegal and are just fine things to do, because they believe it's just "other people's fault" if they find it offensive, and that their individual liberty should not be infringed upon by being told that they cannot curse or be naked in public. However, even as a libertarian myself I find the reasoning behind this to be total bull****.
The libertarian ideal is that you can do as you please as long as you are not causing discomfort or harm to others. If some fat ugly piece of crap walks naked into my room and forces me to stare at his horrible body until it makes me want to puke, and also curses in every other word until it makes me want to tear of my ears, then how on earth is he not causing me discomfort? Don't get me wrong, I don't think cursing (I do it all the time) or nudity are bad things per say, I just don't think people should throw it into other people's face.
Another common straw man. Libertarians recognize the private and public spheres, and how the public sphere shrinks the private one. Example - smoking. In private, smoke like you're on fire, have a blast, smoke 500 cigarettes per day if you want. But in the public sphere, where smoke can and does travel through the atmosphere, your private sphere shrinks because of sharing the surrounding environment with people who wish to breathe clean air inside their private sphere. Accomodations must be made to the public sphere so that private actions in the publoic sphere do not indirectly cause harm to others. Every real libertarian understands this implicitly, because what's the first rule again - FIRST, DO NO HARM.
Being naked or cursing in public is foggier because different people define nudity and vulagarity differently where causing harm is concerned. For that, the public sphere has a set of guidelines that anyone wishing to operate in the public sphere needs to accept if they wish to operate within the public sphere properly, politely and yes, legally. Example, you have the right to get buck naked and swear a blue streak in your home, but do it in my home and I am knocking you out. One must make accommodations when they CHOOSE to shrink their private sphere in order to operate with the public sphere. Something that once again, all real libertarians understand completely. Now, the nudist camp/colony/beach, where the public sphere has been defined differently, or the standard bar at happy hour where vulgarity is more loosely defined are examples of public spheres with a much more relaxed moral code, and people who find that offensive need to understand that different areas of the public sphere have shifting moral perceptions, so let the buyer beware when operating in different parts of the same public.
So that pretty much handles your second straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hakkarin
But ok, let's say that their argument isn't wrong and that it's only other peoples fault if they get offended at their public display of cursing and nudity, and that it should thus not be illegal. Well guess what, they are still selfish pieces of ****s for doing it. There is a reason for why the term "legal but unethical" was coined. Even in a setting where doing those things is not banned, if a person decides to do something like this even knowing that it will be frowned upon by everybody around them and claims the reason they do it anyway is simply because they don't give a **** about other people then that person is still a major *******, regardless of if they have the right or not.
Basically it's this "I have rights so I don't need to be considerate towards others" bull**** that pisses me the **** off. Liberty and freedom are valuable, but they also need to be treated with respect. A person who believes they should just do anything they want as long as it's not banned without regard for others is a sociopath. Nothing more.
Am I the only libertarian on this forum who feels this way?
And once again, all that follows is attacking straw man that has nothing to do with libertarianism. You are attacking anarchy, not libertarianism. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. If you want to say that anarchists p1$$ you off, and here's why, then fine, you'll get no argument from me. But nothing you are attacking is a position of libertarianism the philosophy, nor the platform of the political party that shares the name. You are attacking anarchy. Get your nomenclature correct.
Only some libertarians believe that way. I am more of a Milton Friedman type libertarian. I do recognize the need to prevent third parties from being harmed by a contract they are not part of.
I actually prefer to label myself a classical liberal. Both Hayek and Friedman labeled themselves liberals.
Ok, that's good. Lol.
Now my problems with Hayek and Mises. The problem I have with those two is their assumption of government intervention always leads to more intervention. Really? I get his example with price controls, Mises's, but it's pretty elementary. Actually, I don't ever really see the government do too much with price controls. A lot of their actions seem to be more along the lines of public/club good type of problems.
My problem with Hayek is that he thought depersonalization was bad. The modern corporate/consumer culture has a lot of depersonalization, but I don't see a problem with it. My interactions with police officers should be depersonalized. Plus, for an example, my parents just had their floor done by a friend. They were upset with the quality. Because it's a friend, they can't complain or say anything bad. If it was a depersonalized interaction, they could.
The Libertarian Party will never gain any political power in large part because a sizable portion of them don't really believe that state power is legitimate anyway.
Well, gosh, how convenient to have a tautological argument to justify their failure.
So, how do you plan on enforcing Contracts?
You just gave me $100,000 to build you a home, and I skipped town.
Now what?
Even without a State, you still need some neutral forum to enforce contracts and settle disputes.
Or is your plan to go sit in a corner and sulk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalbound12
Organizing libertarians is like herding cats and a lot of libertarians despise the political process and find it morally bankrupt.
So, by your own admission, libertarianism is not democratic in any form.
Why?
Because all forms of democracy require vigilance.
According to you, Libertarians should remain the lethargic, apathetic and morally bankrupt imps they are, sitting on the sidelines doing nothing -- refusing to participate in any process, because we all know that cutting off your nose to spite your face works so well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalbound12
Another reason the LP will never become popular and libertarian principles will probably never become widespread is they are not popular.
That's because all you do is talk a good game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalbound12
Libertarian principles are a hard sell compared to statist principles because the opposition offers free stuff, security, and comfort. Libertarianism offers you freedom and the ability to take ownership of your life, good or bad.
Then you need to show people how that works, instead merely pining for it, or pining for the fjords.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalbound12
Despite Benjamin Franklin's heeding most people prefer security to liberty and will vote over and over again for the Nanny State and Big Brother.
Then educate them.
Libertarians are so damned pathetic, you can't even win control of school board.
Win a school board.
Win a majority or coalition majority with Conservatives as trustees for an unincorporated township; or trustees or commissioners of an incorporated township; or council members in village, a town, or city government; as county commissioners....
....and show us how wonderful your position really is.
You're all talk and no action.....why should anyone ever take you seriously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalbound12
Democracy in action and I find that we get the government we deserve, not the government we need.
And your refusal to participate is part of the problem.
How's that working out for all you Libertarians?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalbound12
I find it hilarious when someone votes for Romney or Obama and then complains about the government. Don't complain, you are only getting the fruits of your vote.
Should they be like you and not participate?
Apathy is the reason why your political system sucks.
All forms of democracy require vigilance.
All forms....pure democracies, representative democracies, even aristocracies, require vigilance.
The populace must participate, or the government you end up with is not a government of the people, by the people for the people, rather it's a government of those who particiapte, by those who participate for those who participate.
Politically...
Mircea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. The problem I have with those two is their assumption of government intervention always leads to more intervention. Really? I get his example with price controls, Mises's, but it's pretty elementary. Actually, I don't ever really see the government do too much with price controls. A lot of their actions seem to be more along the lines of public/club good type of problems. 
