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 overall picture is sticking to principles. Abandoning principles also causes harm, but it's harm that many don't notice because it isn't immediately evident.
That was my point about free speech. You're using the same reasoning that people who are anti-free speech would use to say we should abandon the principle of free speech.
We understand the long term problem of censoring people's opinions. Sure, a guy who spreads the idea that blacks are inferior and don't have the same rights as others is doing harm to society (and blacks in particular), especially if everyone is jumping on board with those ideas...but you and I understand that we can't just break the principle of free speech to stop that from happening.
So you understand the value of that principle, but freedom of association is just as important to a free society. Some people will discriminate, just as some people will spread racist ideas, but we can't abandon the principle that people should be free to interact with whoever they want.
The state shouldn't be allowed to decide what opinions you're allowed to express, and the state shouldn't be allowed to decide who you must or must not interact with. That doesn't mean we support people saying racist things or not interacting with someone based on race, but we defend their right to do it.
I didn't reference the above in regards to the state.
Again, I am speaking about my personal view, based in part on my humanist ideology, that Libertarianism is not "better" for a society versus a Democratic Republican style of government. I am basing my belief in this regard on the fact that Libertarianism does not consider the human experience in the way we think, feel, and behave in a society. It is contradictory to human experience.
I am for free speech and I am aware that free markets must exist. I also am aware that some form of government must exist either Libertarian or another type. I believe this because free markets and governing systems are a part of the human experience. Please note this does not mean I endorse one form of government over all others. I am comparing our current system - Democratic Republicanism with Libertarianism. IMO Libertarianism is not superior nor would it be beneficial because it ignores the basic facts about humanity - that all people feel, that all people react to everything based on the way they feel as an individual and what they think about those feelings in relation to their experiences in life.
You recently stated that "logic" is greater than "feelings." However, you ignore that logic is in part a way to think based on one's feelings. All humans feel. You cannot, especially in a Libertarian government, tell everyone that their feelings aren't important. If you do, you will get some pretty harsh actions and reactions aimed toward you based on anger - a feeling that is common amongst humans.
As humans we are pretty self-centered. We care mostly about ourselves and/or our families or close friends/associates above all others. Feelings are integral to the human experience and you cannot absolve that just because you value logic more than feelings. People value their personal feelings more than logic.
Isn't being emotional a "natural human experience"?
Not emotional. You can't refute logic. And that's the hallmark of a statist.
Mask what you are all you want but from my experience you're a run-of-the-mill statist SJW racist (which is a bit redundant...admittedly).
I do enjoy the irony of someone calling me "emotional" who believes the possible "hurt feelings" of being refused service for a cookie constitutes force initiation.
At the same time you're perfectly content with theft, murder, and other nefarious activity as long as it's State-sanctioned.
On the bold, yes it is!!! That's why I said I understood why you would feel that way. Emotions and feelings are a part of the natural human experience.
On the cookie analogy, I was thinking in consideration of the individual. Is a personal harm - i.e. a hurt of one's feelings, less or equal in importance to a physical harm, like a pinch on the arm. IMO both are harms of an individual and there is no difference. In calling you emotional I was hoping that you'd realize the bold - that emotions and feelings are a part of the human experience. You cannot get rid of hurt feelings in a Libertarian society. Hurt feelings causes issues in politics and business
People are tribal, but government and society are a totally separate thing.
Government is fragile and artificial, and could easily fall apart.
Imagine for a moment that there were suddenly no police. What would you do?
People would rush to safety. And that means, they would rush to their family, and friends, and others they can trust(IE their tribe).
So you are correct in saying that we wouldn't all just live completely alone. But government is not a natural outgrowth of human tribalism. It is fake, and only held together by force.
I disagree with the bold.
Please consider the fact that those who support Libertarianism want a Libertarian form of "government."
Creation of governing bodies or authoritative bodies always occurs in a community of humans. Someone is either supported by the majority of the people via a voting or democratic process or someone uses their strength to take control of a tribe by force such as in a dictatorship.
If there were suddenly no police and I ran to my family, friends, and others I could trust, we would then - as a body/tribe of humans, seek out leadership and delegate responsibilities to create a system of protection (if needed). This has happened throughout the history of humanity. People always create a government, even in small tribes there is a chief and many times a council of elders. That constitutes a governing body.
I didn't reference the above in regards to the state.
Again, I am speaking about my personal view, based in part on my humanist ideology, that Libertarianism is not "better" for a society versus a Democratic Republican style of government. I am basing my belief in this regard on the fact that Libertarianism does not consider the human experience in the way we think, feel, and behave in a society. It is contradictory to human experience.
I am for free speech and I am aware that free markets must exist. I also am aware that some form of government must exist either Libertarian or another type. I believe this because free markets and governing systems are a part of the human experience. Please note this does not mean I endorse one form of government over all others. I am comparing our current system - Democratic Republicanism with Libertarianism. IMO Libertarianism is not superior nor would it be beneficial because it ignores the basic facts about humanity - that all people feel, that all people react to everything based on the way they feel as an individual and what they think about those feelings in relation to their experiences in life.
You recently stated that "logic" is greater than "feelings." However, you ignore that logic is in part a way to think based on one's feelings. All humans feel. You cannot, especially in a Libertarian government, tell everyone that their feelings aren't important. If you do, you will get some pretty harsh actions and reactions aimed toward you based on anger - a feeling that is common amongst humans.
As humans we are pretty self-centered. We care mostly about ourselves and/or our families or close friends/associates above all others. Feelings are integral to the human experience and you cannot absolve that just because you value logic more than feelings. People value their personal feelings more than logic.
I think libertarianism only lays down a framework for a society where no initiation of force, theft, or fraud is tolerated. It isn't a philosophy that covers every part of life...it just says that it's wrong to attack and steal from others, even if you think it's for a good cause.
From there, within that framework, you can worry about people's feelings and helping everyone live the best life possible. The only limits on that are that you can't initiate force, steal, or commit fraud in order to achieve your goals.
Please consider the fact that those who support Libertarianism want a Libertarian form of "government."
Creation of governing bodies or authoritative bodies always occurs in a community of humans. Someone is either supported by the majority of the people via a voting or democratic process or someone uses their strength to take control of a tribe by force such as in a dictatorship.
If there were suddenly no police and I ran to my family, friends, and others I could trust, we would then - as a body/tribe of humans, seek out leadership and delegate responsibilities to create a system of protection (if needed). This has happened throughout the history of humanity. People always create a government, even in small tribes there is a chief and many times a council of elders. That constitutes a governing body.
I wouldn't consider what you described in your last paragraph as a government. I think it's very anarchist. Going to people you trust and delegating responsibilities isn't the same as giving anyone in your group the right to force things on you and take your money.
It becomes a government when you designate a person or group that has permission to order everyone else around and take their resources, whether they agreed to that or not, and you're punished if you resist that person or group.
Please consider the fact that those who support Libertarianism want a Libertarian form of "government."
Libertarians are not made of a finer clay than the rest of humanity. To the extent that they support libertarianism, it is because it is a means to an end. And if that end could be achieved in any other way, then they would support different means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Creation of governing bodies or authoritative bodies always occurs in a community of humans.
Humans have existed on this Earth for hundreds of thousands of years. Civilization is only a few thousand years old. And "the state" is only about 500 years old. And the nation-state is only 200 years old.
It is true that, in ancient times, humans had tribes, and the head of the tribe was a chief, or a council of elders, which operated as a pseudo government. But those systems were nothing like the modern state. The chief was really just a head of the family, or of an extended family(think of the mafia for some reference).
And the truth is, these chiefs never had any real power, and the members of the tribe could, and often did, go their separate ways. The chief was mainly an honorary position. He would have the greatest influence, but he was not a despot.
The idea of a despotic state is a relatively new invention.
In any case, you're buying into the whole "social-contract" theory of human society. That humans, at some point in the past, voluntarily gave up some of their rights to a government, to protect the rest of their rights.
There is no evidence that civilization came about through a voluntary process. All the records of history show that conquest, coercion, oppression, and murder have been the tools for the creation of government, and states.
The truth is, if the government did not keep its boot on our necks, and its guns in our faces, our government would cease to exist. Society would cease to exist. The only thing holding any of us together, is force.
No society could ever exceed Dunbar's number without violence. And you know that to be true. So why argue with me?
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-06-2016 at 04:06 PM..
In any libertarian society, a small group of people will eventually become very wealthy at the expense of the majority. Said people will eventually get wealthy enough to buy the government, further entrenching their privileged position. At that point, the society is no longer libertarian, but plutocratic.
My question for libertarians: how could a plutocracy be prevented? Wouldn't there need to be some kind of government intervention to keep a small cohort of wealthy individuals from buying politicians?
Can you validate your supposition or are we to accept your fantasy summary as evidence of reality?
On the bold, yes it is!!! That's why I said I understood why you would feel that way. Emotions and feelings are a part of the natural human experience.
On the cookie analogy, I was thinking in consideration of the individual. Is a personal harm - i.e. a hurt of one's feelings, less or equal in importance to a physical harm, like a pinch on the arm. IMO both are harms of an individual and there is no difference. In calling you emotional I was hoping that you'd realize the bold - that emotions and feelings are a part of the human experience. You cannot get rid of hurt feelings in a Libertarian society. Hurt feelings causes issues in politics and business
Wow.
That's all I got.
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.
That's why I said I understood why you would feel that way. Emotions and feelings are a part of the natural human experience. 
