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.
Seth, you have not answered the question. Do you agree, or do you disagree, that it is always wrong for one person to initiate force against another? If you disagree, then you disagree with the fundamental concept of libertarianism, ...
On the other hand, if you agree with the proposition, yet you still don't like the conclusions that libertarians draw from it, then we can refocus our attention on the chain of logic that leads to those conclusions and find where you feel the weak link is.
I'm still waiting for Libertarians to fulfill Ayn Rand's prophecy of creating a Galtian Society. My guess is that they won't and instead they return to montoring Amazon Review, Youtube and message boards like this one.
Libertarianism is a morally bankrupt philosophy. As an undergrad I took a political philosophy course. The professor was a libertarian, but a darn good philosophy prof. He dichotomized the reading for the course based around Rawls vs. Nozick.
At the time, I was sympathetic to Libertarianism, believing that "live and let live" would be a good general moral precept if applied equitably and consistently.
While Rawls is boring reading material, Nozick seemed as if he disregarded historical examples of the inherent problems in the nightwatchman state, thus rendering him a little out of touch with reality.
I view Libertarians today as the "do-nothing" party. Their typical responses for social/economic problems is to do nothing and let the system work itself out, regardless of any social evils that come about as "unintended" consequences.
The way the prof structured the class gave me a good view of two different sides of the debate, and I changed my mind in the course of the class from sympathy with this morally bankrupt philosophy to completing opposing it. It just doesn't work. My old prof would probably say that's what Libertarianism is supposed to do...nothing.
The Rawls side promotes social justice, which too has its inherent flaws. But at least social justice theorists are attempting to arrive at solutions rather than letting the system work itself out.
I am a libertarian and this isn't even worth responding to.
Every political party is viewed as illogical by a different party. If we all agreed we would not have a multi-party system.
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.
