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.
I hate to discuss this topic, because it feels like I waste my time trying to explain the world to people, when no one even wants to listen.
Let me state two things really quickly. First, the best government when it comes to productivity, the absence of corruption, and the existence of healthy and positive relationships between people, would be libertarian, almost to the point of anarchy.
But secondly, a libertarian society cannot exist, because the people won't allow it to exist. People are inherently socialistic. And the real purpose of government is not what most people think. The real purpose of government is simply to make people get along with each other. Especially people of diverse backgrounds. And in the absence of government, people of diverse backgrounds, who have different morals, values, and traditions, would constantly be at each others throat, without a means to reconcile those differences. Basically, libertarianism and anarchy don't provide a means to resolve moral or philosophical disagreements. And the outcome of libertarianism or anarchy would be a very divided society, which heavily limits movement and trade. Not because of laws that prohibit it, but because of people simply not being able to get along.
First there is no reason why people with diverse backgrounds can't get along. The problem isn't that people can't get along. It's the fight to make people accept the beliefs of others by government edict that is the problem.
Are you saying that you can't get along with someone who has different beliefs than yourself?
Many lands have actually been privately kept and maintained (those lesser known battlefields or historical sites). It can work. For those important places (like Gettysburg), it would be appropriate to have it either as a State or Federal historical park. In this day of tight budgets and overspending on our military/government and the maintenance of our empire, we can't afford the upkeep of all these lands.
And there we have it. We must sacrifice public institutions because The Empire is getting more expensive to maintain.
There is little "upkeep" on wilderness areas except for monitoring their health, and the park system isn't that expensive. Why not downsize The Empire instead? That's what progressive democrats want to do, yet you throw in with the Corporate Empiricist Party.
BTW, any corporations profiting from these newly-acquired lands will certainly lobby congress for more tax breaks and shelters while utilizing the loopholes they already enjoy, and which repubs want them to have. Remember, the repub party has been for 5 years saying "no new tax revenue", and blocking any legislation which brings upper-crust capital gains rates up to that of Joe Lunchbox, even as far as advocating for zero taxes on those "most deserving".
Even as a "natural-born liberal," there are a few principles I find attractive in libertarianism, points which I don't think are stressed enough when they're being characterized by their critics. These principles include a sense of skeptical realism about human nature and our power (or right) to mold it, and a commitment to non-coercion and tolerance.
Although it's easy to stereotype our political opponents as stupid jerks, let's admit that there are decent people (and jerks) across the political spectrum. Sometimes when I listen to people with strong political opinions posit their views, I imagine at heart that these people would like to live in a world in which everyone thought exactly like them. Some of those people, if it was in their power, would even want to force people to "do the right thing" (for their own good, mind you).
Isn't working for a world in which everyone can peacefully pursue their dream (even if it's different from mine) a noble thing? A world of diversity doesn't just include cool people like me hanging out in a drum circle; diversity also accepts that some people want to be unhip businesspeople, religious fundamentalists, or cantankerous weirdos that haunt internet forums, right? And libertarianism holds that all types can indulge their appetites as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.
Whether libertarianism is feasible is a legitimate question, but I've never seen the Green party, for example, (whose platform also sounds noble, but which is incredibly heavy-handed), criticized to such a degree --- except when they skim Democrat votes.
Even as a "natural-born liberal," there are a few principles I find attractive in libertarianism, points which I don't think are stressed enough when they're being characterized by their critics. These principles include a sense of skeptical realism about human nature and our power (or right) to mold it, and a commitment to non-coercion and tolerance.
Although it's easy to stereotype our political opponents as stupid jerks, let's admit that there are decent people (and jerks) across the political spectrum. Sometimes when I listen to people with strong political opinions posit their views, I imagine at heart that these people would like to live in a world in which everyone thought exactly like them. Some of those people, if it was in their power, would even want to force people to "do the right thing" (for their own good, mind you).
Isn't working for a world in which everyone can peacefully pursue their dream (even if it's different from mine) a noble thing? A world of diversity doesn't just include cool people like me hanging out in a drum circle; diversity also accepts that some people want to be unhip businesspeople, religious fundamentalists, or cantankerous weirdos that haunt internet forums, right? And libertarianism holds that all types can indulge their appetites as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.
Whether libertarianism is feasible is a legitimate question, but I've never seen the Green party, for example, (whose platform also sounds noble, but which is incredibly heavy-handed), criticized to such a degree --- except when they skim Democrat votes.
Oh, I love Ron Paul speeches and interviews. He and others like Jesse Ventura and Gary Johnson get the best reception from progressive democrat "liberal" interviewers. Of course the RW posters here don't know that.
It's a shame the way he is treated by the RW even though libertarians seem to like repubs better. They are short on details and ramifications, especially where it concerns privatization and regulation of markets. I fear their "hands off" approach would just lead to more of the same trickle-down disaster we have experienced. Also their fascination with objectivism is troubling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWccp9Y8gzs
First there is no reason why people with diverse backgrounds can't get along. The problem isn't that people can't get along. It's the fight to make people accept the beliefs of others by government edict that is the problem.
Are you saying that you can't get along with someone who has different beliefs than yourself?
People of diverse backgrounds will necessarily disagree with each other. There are certain things that they do that you can ignore, while there are other things that you cannot ignore.
Take for instance prostitution. Should it be legal or illegal? Why? Most will argue that it should be illegal because it is immoral. That it has a deleterious effect on society, and promotes immorality and irresponsibility elsewhere. The same argument can be made for a variety of other things that are illegal, such as drugs.
Another question might be, what should the age of consent be? Sixteen? Eighteen? What if there is a religion which believes that the age of consent/marriage is twelve? How can such a disagreement be reconciled?
Another good example is education. What should be taught in schools? Evolution? Creation? What about African history? Asian history? American history? Was George Washington a good man or a bad man? He had slaves you know. What about Abraham Lincoln? What about the Mexican-American war? What about the Vietnam War? Or WWII?
Who should be in control of what children learn in schools? I mean, its impossible to teach the entire history of the world to anyone in primary. So who gets to pick and choose what is relevant?
The point is, you don't seem recognize that government already imposes its own morality and biases. I lean libertarian, almost to the extent of anarchy(and thus, I'm not a big fan of legislating morality anyway). But you have to recognize that individuals and communities will always desire to impose their own morality and values on others. That is simply human nature.
For instance, the Amish might largely exist independent of the government. But they have some of the most restrictive rules in regards to morality at least within their own pseudo jurisdiction(their communities).
There are cities in this country that don't allow shopping on Sundays. There are cities that try to impose a dress code.
That is human nature. You believe your values and traditions are good, and everyone else's are bad. Your family imposes certain rules of morality around your own home. Your church has rules for morality. Your school has rules for morality. Your job has rules for morality. It is nearly impossible for people not to impose their morals and values on others in at least some capacity.
If we take the argument for libertarianism for instance. It is generally built more on the idea of the family/community/church as being the social-safety net, instead of the government. But while that is true, the family/community/church also acts as a form of government. And families/communities/churches will inevitably require its members to follow certain rules(laws), or they could be punished in some way.
The idea that you can live in a society completely without rules, is simply ridiculous. And when people of diverse backgrounds interact with each other. Both parties will say the other acts in an immoral or unethical manner. And will try to impose their own values on the other party. This invariably leads to conflict, and many times into direct violence.
It is impossible for diverse people to live side-by-side without conflict. And thus, the real job of the government is really to keep the country "as united as possible". By finding ways to alleviate the conflict to basically the point that it is at least tolerable, and stave off direct violence. Because that will destabilize society, and potentially cause it to break apart.
Basically, in the absence of the government, there could never even be a civilization to begin with. Humans would remain as nothing but small extended families or small tribes, rarely interacting with anyone else.
Of course, that is also unsustainable. Because a world built on small extended families or small tribes would be easily taken over by anyone who came along that could unite even diverse people for a common goal, such as the desire for more land and resources. And that organized faction could then impose its morals and values on those that it conquered.
Thus the government is the necessary evil to protect from outsiders. And a nation desires to have as much people and resources as possible, to make it powerful enough to resist outside influence.
As I mentioned before, had our government remained libertarian over the course of the 20th century. I think it would have been difficult to stave off the influence of the Soviet Union. The aggressive Soviets basically would have marched across Europe and the Middle-East, then up through the America's. Choking off America from its previous allies and its access to world resources. Most likely, the United States would have fallen apart under the pressure of the cold war. And eventually dissolved into a handful of nations. All easily succumbing to Soviet pressure.
The reason why Muslims can't seem to get along in Europe. Is because the Muslims see the Europeans as immoral. That their women are all whores, that dress too provocatively. That they allow homosexuality to control society. That they eat pork. While the Europeans believe the Muslims are immoral. That they treat women poorly, that they are too restrictive in their dress. That they don't have the same values for education.
What we are seeing is a clash of civilizations. And in the state of their expansive socialistic societies, one or the other is going to have to win. There is no middle-ground in a nanny state. The Europeans want the Muslims to assimilate. And the Muslims want to turn Europe into the middle-east. The question is, who is going to win? Someone has to win. And what side you take is indicative of your own values and beliefs. Which you would like to impose on others.
I would like to continue a bit more in regards to libertarianism, the United States, diverse people, and freedom.
Libertarians tend to view the United States as if it began as a libertarian nation. And while it is sort of true that it was more libertarian in the past than it is today. It isn't quite true that the United States really began with the philosophy of freedom as a central uniting idea. But rather it was a consequence of what the United States was at the time. Basically, a relatively disunited body of diverse people, who had very little faith in a central government.
The truth is, many parts of the country had relatively expansive governments. Several states even "state religions". Other states has welfare systems, and of course a body of laws regulating daily life. Massachusetts in the year 1800 was hardly libertarian.
Where the concept of libertarian really exists, is in the relationship between the federal government and the states. Or the churches/communities and the state. But for what purpose?
Well, the reason is that, this nation was founded by quite a diverse set of people. And at that time, many of them could scarcely tolerate each other. I'm talking about a time of great religious strife. Where this country was almost entirely broken down on religious lines. Catholics didn't live in protestant neighborhoods. Quakers didn't interact with Methodists. Lutherans created their own colonies absent of everyone else. There are parts of this country where German was the primary language spoken into the 20th century. Where practically everyone in the communities were related to each other, and all went to the same church. The concept of diversity in its modern application hardly even existed until the early to mid 20th century. Because up until industrialization, people of different backgrounds simply didn't live alongside each other.
The truth is, in the early years of this country. The reason we were libertarian, wasn't because the people necessarily wanted to be libertarian. It was that, the people of different religions and backgrounds simply didn't trust each other, and thus refused to hand power to a central legislative body which could allow certain religious groups to impose their will on others, even if democratically. The restrictions placed on the government by the constitution was basically to prevent the diverse groups from fighting with each other.
Think of it like this. Lets pretend that every single person in the United States in 1787 had been a white anglo-saxon protestant. Would we have ended up with such a restricted central government? No. Had we all been white anglo-saxon protestant in 1787, we probably would have ended up with a monarchy/theocracy. Or at the very least, a highly centralized federal government. Instead of a bunch of supposedly "sovereign states".
Thus, if you understand my point. You will recognize that the freedom that existed in the early days of the Republic, was the consequence of diverse peoples not trusting each other, and thus, not trusting the government with any power.
And if you want to know the primary change that enabled the expansion of government? Public schools. Without them, you never would have had the assimilation in the late 1800's and early 1900's, which was necessary to turn our Republic into a nation. Public school is primarily a form of "social-engineering". That trains children to trust the government. Especially by practically forcing young children to pledge their allegiance to America every day. While having control over what children learn, especially in regards to history, and how America is the best country on Earth and always does good.
If you want to sustain this nation, support public schools. Demand the pledge be spoken every day. Demand English be the primary language taught in all schools. Use schools as a device for assimilation and social-engineering. And seek to ban private schools and homeschooling.
If you want freedom. Push to abolish public school. But know that it could eventually cause this nation to fall apart.
People of diverse backgrounds will necessarily disagree with each other. There are certain things that they do that you can ignore, while there are other things that you cannot ignore.
Take for instance prostitution. Should it be legal or illegal? Why? Most will argue that it should be illegal because it is immoral. That it has a deleterious effect on society, and promotes immorality and irresponsibility elsewhere. The same argument can be made for a variety of other things that are illegal, such as drugs.
Let the places that want it legal make it legal and the places that want it illegal remain illegal. If there are negative effects either way they are yours (the area that made the decision) to deal with.
The problem is places that do things that cause negative results wants the places that didn't institute these policies bail them out of their bad decisions while on the same hand, not being willing to change the things that caused their problems in the first place.
Quote:
Another question might be, what should the age of consent be? Sixteen? Eighteen? What if there is a religion which believes that the age of consent/marriage is twelve? How can such a disagreement be reconciled?
By doing what people have always done. Come to a reasonable agreement and live with it. This brings up a different point though. Few argue that the freedoms allowed to adults should all be granted to minors. There are very reasonable arguments why 9 year olds shouldn't drive.
Quote:
Another good example is education. What should be taught in schools? Evolution? Creation? What about African history? Asian history? American history? Was George Washington a good man or a bad man? He had slaves you know. What about Abraham Lincoln? What about the Mexican-American war? What about the Vietnam War? Or WWII?
How about we simply teach the facts? There is no need to teach about whether Washington was good or bad. Just teach the facts.
Quote:
Who should be in control of what children learn in schools? I mean, its impossible to teach the entire history of the world to anyone in primary. So who gets to pick and choose what is relevant?
Local school boards. Will everyone be happy? No.
Quote:
The point is, you don't seem recognize that government already imposes its own morality and biases. I lean libertarian, almost to the extent of anarchy(and thus, I'm not a big fan of legislating morality anyway). But you have to recognize that individuals and communities will always desire to impose their own morality and values on others. That is simply human nature.
It is but over time people tend to find their place. It's why people like Mayor Bloomberg is having a conniption. Before anyone goes there I think NYC is a great place. I love to visit but I have no desire to live under someone like Bloomberg so all I would ever do is visit.
Yes, the Bloombergs will always try but they should be dealt with like we once did. Tar and feather them and run them out of town.
By and large though there are people living all sorts of lifestyles in NYC. It's a hodge podge of people overwhelmingly leaving each other alone to do their thing. I see no one harrassing the women wearing the veil. The gay couple. The smelly hippy. The many not speaking english.
In the rare instances that it does happen few have a problem with an intervention by an official.
Quote:
For instance, the Amish might largely exist independent of the government. But they have some of the most restrictive rules in regards to morality at least within their own pseudo jurisdiction(their communities).
There are cities in this country that don't allow shopping on Sundays. There are cities that try to impose a dress code.
So what? I am in Amish country quite often and while they have their own code they live by which isn't enforced by some law of the government by the way they have no problem with those around them that do not subscribe to their beliefs.
Besides the food in Amish country is simply amazing and I want people to just leave them alone to do whatever it is they are doing. (this could be an entirely different subject but I wont get off topic) Oh well, I will ask anyway......how can they constantly eat all of this food that is suppose to be bad for you but you never see a fat Amish?
Quote:
That is human nature. You believe your values and traditions are good, and everyone else's are bad. Your family imposes certain rules of morality around your own home. Your church has rules for morality. Your school has rules for morality. Your job has rules for morality. It is nearly impossible for people not to impose their morals and values on others in at least some capacity.
For the most part I care less what others hold as far as morality goes. While communities will enact certain standards those standards differ in each community. The problem is wanting every community to have the exact same standard enacted by government edict.
Quote:
If we take the argument for libertarianism for instance. It is generally built more on the idea of the family/community/church as being the social-safety net, instead of the government. But while that is true, the family/community/church also acts as a form of government. And families/communities/churches will inevitably require its members to follow certain rules(laws), or they could be punished in some way.
But nobody is forcing you to be a member of that family/community/church. If you don't like it, leave. There are many options out there for you. You want to run around naked? There are places for you. Want to have someone construct every aspect of your life for you? Unfortunately, there are places for you there also.
Quote:
The idea that you can live in a society completely without rules, is simply ridiculous. And when people of diverse backgrounds interact with each other. Both parties will say the other acts in an immoral or unethical manner. And will try to impose their own values on the other party. This invariably leads to conflict, and many times into direct violence.
And then we get back to it. Libertarians do not believe in a society with no rules. They simple believe in as few rules as possible.
Quote:
It is impossible for diverse people to live side-by-side without conflict.
No it is not. People do it every day. Catholics live besides Atheists who live besides Muslims, who live beside Baptists, who live besides Universalists who........we get the point.
I live in a small town in WV. 2,911 people. Two houses up from me we have a new citizen to this country from India. I got to know him because I own a Royal Enfield. They are now made in India and he of course was inquisitive. When he first moved here he was not a citizen but we had a special acknowledgement at city council when he became one.
Really, nobody has tried to run him out of town. For the most part the majority do not care what you do as long as you dont insist on them participating if they do not want to.
Are there individuals everywhere that for some reason or another that can't abide by leaving others alone? Yes, some we allow the officials to deal with and others we elect to office.
Quote:
And thus, the real job of the government is really to keep the country "as united as possible". By finding ways to alleviate the conflict to basically the point that it is at least tolerable, and stave off direct violence. Because that will destabilize society, and potentially cause it to break apart.
Basically, in the absence of the government, there could never even be a civilization to begin with. Humans would remain as nothing but small extended families or small tribes, rarely interacting with anyone else.
Again, Libertarians are not looking for a society absent of government. It's like the question I asked about earlier and never received a reply. Where has someone like Ron Paul called for a complete absence of government and has he not argued that government has a place when he notes that only Congress can call for war?
Quote:
Of course, that is also unsustainable. Because a world built on small extended families or small tribes would be easily taken over by anyone who came along that could unite even diverse people for a common goal, such as the desire for more land and resources. And that organized faction could then impose its morals and values on those that it conquered.
Thus the government is the necessary evil to protect from outsiders. And a nation desires to have as much people and resources as possible, to make it powerful enough to resist outside influence.
The Constitution clearly lays out the right of government to protect the country. libertarians are not arguing otherwise.
Quote:
As I mentioned before, had our government remained libertarian over the course of the 20th century. I think it would have been difficult to stave off the influence of the Soviet Union. The aggressive Soviets basically would have marched across Europe and the Middle-East, then up through the America's. Choking off America from its previous allies and its access to world resources. Most likely, the United States would have fallen apart under the pressure of the cold war. And eventually dissolved into a handful of nations. All easily succumbing to Soviet pressure.
The Soviet Union couldn't even take Afghanistan. Any entity that would try and get as large as you suggest will fall apart. It's impossible to control that many people.
Quote:
The reason why Muslims can't seem to get along in Europe. Is because the Muslims see the Europeans as immoral. That their women are all whores, that dress too provocatively. That they allow homosexuality to control society. That they eat pork. While the Europeans believe the Muslims are immoral. That they treat women poorly, that they are too restrictive in their dress. That they don't have the same values for education.
What we are seeing is a clash of civilizations. And in the state of their expansive socialistic societies, one or the other is going to have to win. There is no middle-ground in a nanny state. The Europeans want the Muslims to assimilate. And the Muslims want to turn Europe into the middle-east. The question is, who is going to win? Someone has to win. And what side you take is indicative of your own values and beliefs. Which you would like to impose on others.
Europe is going to win. It's no different than China. China tried to keep their country closed to outside influences for a very long time. It's now a small world and those who once worked for next to nothing now want the items they are manufacturing for themselves also.
This is why the Muslims leaders are pissed. This is why they want us to stay home. They know the western influence will lead to the younger generations to discard veils for women. Here in the U.S. we do not have to create laws to ban veils on women. It will happen on it's own. 200 years ago most people lived even more basic than the Amish do today.
There will always be a few that want to hang on to the old ways and so what. Let people be until they want to intrude into the space of others.
Last edited by pknopp; 07-10-2013 at 07:31 AM..
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.
