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.
Libertarianism(Constitutionalist) is not Liberalism(Socialist)!
Liberalism is not socialism, not in its classic original sense. Somehow the liberal label has been stolen by socialists, but in a lot of places (most of Europe at least), liberal means something closer to libertarianism than to socialism.
Liberalism is not socialism, not in its classic original sense. Somehow the liberal label has been stolen by socialists, but in a lot of places (most of Europe at least), liberal means something closer to libertarianism than to socialism.
Well, we are talking the good `ol USA, as it is today.
The basis for libertarianism, the most fundamental idea underlying all its ideas on politics and even ethics is what they would probably call the non-aggression principle.
Basically means that the only proper society for human beings to live in is one where the initiation of physical force is banned. The government especially being banned from initiating physical force. Physical force is only to be used for defense or retaliation, and only against those who initiated it in the first place.
The basis for libertarianism, the most fundamental idea underlying all its ideas on politics and even ethics is what they would probably call the non-aggression principle.
Basically means that the only proper society for human beings to live in is one where the initiation of physical force is banned. The government especially being banned from initiating physical force. Physical force is only to be used for defense or retaliation, and only against those who initiated it in the first place.
That is how I roll for the most part. If I'm going to use physical force, there had better be a damn good reason for doing so, such as defense of myself, or my family.
I see where it is bad grammar and sentence structure.
The only real difference is that neoliberals unlike libertarians tend to support military interventionism
The only real difference is, neoliberals unlike libertarians, tend to support military interventionism.
Carry on.
Well, if you really want it to be better, you would type it like this:
The only real difference is that neoliberals, unlike libertarians, tend to support military interventionism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DT113876
I vote for replacing the word "progressive" with "nanny". These are people that want to impose their upper-middle-class, urbanite values on everyone else.
I agree with this. Let's just start calling things what they really are instead of using some label that leads one to believe something else is happening.
The tragedy of the "who would build the roads" argument being out front is that transportation is a small component of government, typically around 5% by spending. Programs that directly benefit a similarly large part of the population* (such as FDA and so forth) typically add up to another 5%.
If you add in the usual fraction spent on food and drug safety and all of the other functions of government the whole public benefit from excluding military and entitlement spending*, it comes to around 10% by spending. What we should be debating about is the other 90-95% of government that has nothing to do with roads or the FDA; even if the "who would build the roads/rail/airports, who would inspect the meat, who would lock up the criminals" arguments were valid and we just kept those functions, government spending would be reduced by at least 90%, a huge libertarian victory by any standard, to the extent that a good case could be made that such a society qualifies as a libertarian free society.
*That would exclude schools and welfare, whose benefits (or curses, depending on your perspective) go to a certain class of people, and arguably Social Security and Medicare (although the vast majority will (or are supposed to) get benefits in the future). Transportation, police, and so forth are designed to benefit everyone, which in practice means a very large cross-section of the public. Military is in a separate category; while armed forces are not strictly necessary, most libertarians agree some kind of American military is a good idea, but the genuinely defensive and under-control military they talk about is dissimilar enough from the current military-industrial complex (especially in cost) to warrant the current military's exclusion from the "whole-public benefits" slice of government. Besides, the military is rarely mentioned in these sorts of arguments - how often have you heard "but who would defend the country?" used as an argument against libertarianism?
Good stuff all.
I just know the first of the many anti-libertarian straw men is of the form "well I guess you don't like roads and schools" which is a straw man containing a couple false dilemmas. The first of them is that only government can build a road or school, because prior to government, nobody ever thought of clearing a path, widening that path, smoothing that path and then eventually paving it, nor did anyone ever learn anything until they were forced by government to herded into school buildings 180 days of the year for 12 years. The next false dilemma is that road building and schools must necessarily be public endeavours, which gated communities/parking garages/industrial-commerce parks/etc and private schools/home schooling all prove is not the case. And finally, the implied all or nothing false dilemma, where to have public roads and schools, you must accept every other thing the government does without question, else you lose the roads and schools, since government must be all or it must be nothing.
If you want public school, you simply must accept the federal register containing over 1 million punitive articles, the majority of which are byzantine crimes against the bureaucracy. If you want a road, you simply must accept the IRS existing almost completely outside the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments. If you want someone else to filter your drinking water, you simply must accept institutional racism that destroys entire cultures. And yeah, if you want a military defending you, well then you simply must accept drone strikes killing people that pose no threat to you whatsoever, but the President finds annoying. If you don't like all the bad stuff, then you get none of the good stuff, because there simply is no middle ground. Totalitarianism or anarchy...you pick.
Most of the time I am simply too tired anymore to explain it, so I become part of the problem by simply ignoring the "oh, so you want anarchy, no schools, dead children, people dying in the streets, blah blah" argumentums ad absurdum. I should try to educate more often than I do, but people have it in their heads that government is the only reason they are not lying in a ditch starving/dead. In the argumentum ad absurdum math, there is 0% and 100%, and no other amount or government can exist.
The basis for libertarianism, the most fundamental idea underlying all its ideas on politics and even ethics is what they would probably call the non-aggression principle.
Basically means that the only proper society for human beings to live in is one where the initiation of physical force is banned. The government especially being banned from initiating physical force. Physical force is only to be used for defense or retaliation, and only against those who initiated it in the first place.
Problem is in a laissez faire society the people with money get to decide what counts as "initiation" of force and what is simply defensive or revengeful force.
Problem is in a laissez faire society the people with money get to decide what counts as "initiation" of force and what is simply defensive or revengeful force.
No they don't.
Natural individual rights are a condition of existence. Law, money, power...none of them change what your natural individual rights are. All they do is rationalize someone else violating them.
Initiation of force is the willful violating of someone's natural individual rights, as such, the definition of initiating force is also a condition of existence.
The non-aggression axiom is centered upon that idea. Does my action violate the natural rights of someone, and/or obligate them against their will? Not according to the US Code, sharia, or the court of public opinion, but based on natural rights conferred by existence.
In a "laissez faire society" there is a government, it is simply a minimal version of what you know now, and it's primary function is to secure, defend and protect the natural rights of the citizen (property rights included) and to enforce/protect/secure/defend CONTRACT LAW. But a government that protects me from initiations of force by other citizens or groups thereof, cannot initiate force against me either, unless I have forfeited my natural rights via my own actions.
A simpler way to describe libertarian government is that government which has no power over others that individual citizens themselves do not possess and can delegate to a government. National defense would still exist, because we each have the natural right of self-defense, and thus can delegate that right to someone to act on our behalf in protecting that right. We do not, however, have the natural right to blow stuff up in a foreign land to protect a petro-dollar oligarchy interest, therefore our government cannot (re: "should not" for practical purposes) have that right/power. We do not have the individual right to steal from to simply give to others or ourselves, so no mater what you want call wealth redistribution, our government really should not have that right/power either.
I consider libertarians to be economic terrorists and sociopaths. Neoliberals are Republicans who drive Priuses.
I agree with the above.
I feel Libertarians really are just communist in reverse.
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.
