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 government's job to serve the people. If people are dying from starvation and all the government can do is pass laws that make it illegal to die from starvation.
No it isn't. Governments job is to enforce the law and protect the rights of the citizens, not to serve them. If you can't feed yourself it isn't governments or anyone elses responsibility to do it. Sadly most governments stray far from that mandate and meddle far to much.
Thank you, "Exhibit A", for providing more evidence that within the mindset of every so-called "progressive" who hates and fears libertarian beliefs, there lies an unashamed Fascist.
Hardly fascist, I am just curious what a real libertarian country would look like. I doubt anyone who calls themselves libertarian in this country would actually want to live in a real libertarian country.
No it isn't. Governments job is to enforce the law and protect the rights of the citizens, not to serve them. If you can't feed yourself it isn't governments or anyone elses responsibility to do it. Sadly most governments stray far from that mandate and meddle far to much.
Why would there be only one definition of what every single government does or must do?
Overly simplistic definitions of government are what make it so easy for libertarians to pretend that all government is evil and must be stopped/limited.
Thank you, "Exhibit A", for providing more evidence that within the mindset of every so-called "progressive" who hates and fears libertarian beliefs, there lies an unashamed Fascist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Hardly fascist, I am just curious what a real libertarian country would look like. I doubt anyone who calls themselves libertarian in this country would actually want to live in a real libertarian country.
And I have never characterized myself as a dogmatic ideologue; that sort of oversimplification is the province of undergraduates, and most of us outgrow it.
And I think that most of us who started out as ideologically-oriented (Capital "L") libertarians left those ideas behind a long time ago. Speaking only for myself, I don't have a problem with a simple "safety net" -- one administered as close as possible to the local level, so that those with a predilection toward "gainful indolence" can be identified and "weeded out'
This arrangement did, in fact, exist in much of America during the early stages of industrialization; the "Overseers of the Poor" were usually local farmers and small businessmen who often had a need for casual labor; they were, of course, very "tight with a dollar" and universally hated by the local ne'er-do-wells.
The advocates of further centralization of a system which is clearly wasteful, overbuilt and breaking down are driven by an understanding that the only way to increase their budgets, staff, and power is to cook up more "problems" for Big Brother/Sister to "solve" at taxpayer expense. They are every bit as delusional as a 19-year-old who has "discovered" faux libertarianism, but they are a lot more expensive to maintain.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 04-25-2015 at 02:20 PM..
Actually, reminds me of the many groovy intentional community ideas I have known about over the last 40 years.
Most of which fell apart in the face of actual, as opposed to ideal, humanity. But a few actually did succeed - i.e., hang together as an entity, although with significant departures from their founders' intentions.
Yea, like the USA! Our politicians (on both sides) have defiantly departed from what the founding fathers envisioned.
And I have never characterized myself as a dogmatic ideologue; that sort of oversimplification is the province of undergraduates, and most of us outgrow it.
And I think that most of us who started out as ideologically-oriented (Capital "L") libertarians left those ideas behind a long time ago. Speaking only for myself, I don't have a problem with a simple "safety net" -- one administered as close as possible to the local level, so that those with a predilection toward "gainful indolence" can be identified and "weeded out'
This arrangement did, in fact, exist in much of America during the early stages of industrialization; the "Overseers of the Poor" were usually local farmers and small businessmen who often had a need for casual labor; they were, of course, very "tight with a dollar" and universally hated by the local ne'er-do-wells.
The advocates of further centralization of a systems which is clearly wasteful, overbuilt and breaking down are driven by an understanding that the only way to increase their budgets, staff, and power is to cook up more "problems" for Big Brother/Sister to "solve" at taxpayer expense. They are every bit as delusional as a 19-year-old who has "discovered" faux libertarianism, but they are a lot more expensive to maintain.
I agree with you completely, unfortunately what you've made clear will go right over their heads.
Like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spatula City
Why would there be only one definition of what every single government does or must do?
Overly simplistic definitions of government are what make it so easy for libertarians to pretend that all government is evil and must be stopped/limited.
...a person who has no clue what Libertarianism is about, yet parrots the talking points (lies) of the two party ideologues.
There are different kinds of people who follow the libertarian philosophy. I was a minarchist, the minimal government Ron Paul type, and I became an "anarchist" libertarian (anarcho-capitalist, voluntaryist, whatever) after having it explained to me. It took a little time to really understand it, but since I got there I don't see how I can go back.
Anyway, if you look up the definition of libertarian you'll see "an adherent to the libertarian philosophy", "a person who believes in the doctrine of free will", "seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice", "upholds the principles of individual liberty", etc.
A stateless society is the only one that is consistent with that. Most libertarians are minarchists because they don't believe that a stateless society could exist (I didn't) but I think they'd want it if it were possible. I completely believe it's possible, and have become more confident in it the more I learn. I actually think it will happen at some point, 100% inevitably.
Adam Kokesh has a book that he's on tour promoting right now called FREEDOM! and it seems like a lot of people are understanding the message and in agreement with it. I think it covers most of the bases.
Kokesh's transformation has been an interesting one. I would say it is similar to yours in that he briefly tried adhering to the idea that a state...even a "small one"...would be ok because it would show people (after the world didn't end without the government telling folks where and when they could buy a beer) that just one more step equals the stateless society.
I never got to that step. Some just skip over it completely and I identify exactly as you do - anarchist libertarian.
Of course that's my natural default setting and joining voluntary organizations from that point on is always on the table.
It's sort of like the movie "War Games" with Matthew Broderick. Throughout the movie the super-computer "JOSHUA" is trying to "win" a mock nuclear war while utilizing different strategies programmed by humans.
Finally the computer "learns" that the only winning move is to not play the game.
That's basically what this boils down to: the only winning move is to not accept ONE shred of aggression/force because that means you've lost.
But the statist believes there are "acceptable" forms of aggression/force/theft in the mere pursuit (in their mind anyway) of a "better world".
Kokesh's transformation has been an interesting one. I would say it is similar to yours in that he briefly tried adhering to the idea that a state...even a "small one"...would be ok because it would show people (after the world didn't end without the government telling folks where and when they could buy a beer) that just one more step equals the stateless society.
I never got to that step. Some just skip over it completely and I identify exactly as you do - anarchist libertarian.
Of course that's my natural default setting and joining voluntary organizations from that point on is always on the table.
It's sort of like the movie "War Games" with Matthew Broderick. Throughout the movie the super-computer "JOSHUA" is trying to "win" a mock nuclear war while utilizing different strategies programmed by humans.
Finally the computer "learns" that the only winning move is to not play the game.
That's basically what this boils down to: the only winning move is to not accept ONE shred of aggression/force because that means you've lost.
But the statist believes there are "acceptable" forms of aggression/force/theft in the mere pursuit (in their mind anyway) of a "better world"
THIS ^^^^^
In the end statists always become totalitarian and always at the top of the food chain. They persue a "better world" mostly for themselves on the backs of the masses they exploit.
And I have never characterized myself as a dogmatic ideologue; that sort of oversimplification is the province of undergraduates, and most of us outgrow it.
And I think that most of us who started out as ideologically-oriented (Capital "L") libertarians left those ideas behind a long time ago. Speaking only for myself, I don't have a problem with a simple "safety net" -- one administered as close as possible to the local level, so that those with a predilection toward "gainful indolence" can be identified and "weeded out'
This arrangement did, in fact, exist in much of America during the early stages of industrialization; the "Overseers of the Poor" were usually local farmers and small businessmen who often had a need for casual labor; they were, of course, very "tight with a dollar" and universally hated by the local ne'er-do-wells.
The advocates of further centralization of a systems which is clearly wasteful, overbuilt and breaking down are driven by an understanding that the only way to increase their budgets, staff, and power is to cook up more "problems" for Big Brother/Sister to "solve" at taxpayer expense. They are every bit as delusional as a 19-year-old who has "discovered" faux libertarianism, but they are a lot more expensive to maintain.
I partly agree, though I think it is naive to think the small businesses and farmers can properly attend to the poor.
Hardly fascist, I am just curious what a real libertarian country would look like. I doubt anyone who calls themselves libertarian in this country would actually want to live in a real libertarian country.
Because you think they would all be going around raping and killing each other? Somalia a isn't an example of a libertarian nation. It's an example of Muslim African culture.
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.
