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.
Right now, the only form of libertarianism that matters is Koch-style libertarianism, because that's the only form of libertarianism being successfully pushed on the country. Koch libertarianism wants to take the country back to the 1890s.
Okay, and the only kind of socialism that matters now is "national socialism."
Koch brothers "libertarianism" has about as much to do with libertarianism as Nazism has to do with socialism. That's corporatism, and I have yet to meet or hear of a Libertarian who wants corporatism.
It is a telling fact that no corporations ever support libertarian candidates, even when they have a good chance at winning. For example: Ron Paul in doing better than many other candidates at one time, but he never got big corporate money. (He's a paleo-libertarian, btw)
Quote:
was I don't care about obscure theoretical forms of libertarianism discussed by academics over tea and crumpets. It isn't relevant because it isn't being advanced by powerful interests.
First, they are not "obscure" in that they are the dominate strains of Libertarianism within the LP, the fastest growing party in America, which is growing while the two main parties shrink, and has over a hundred elected officials national wide, including two in state legislature (something no other third party can boast)
No form of libertarianism is being advanced by "powerful interests." Libertarians want a free-market, and the last thing corporations want is a free-market. A world with no bailouts or regulations that work in their favor is a world the 1% doesn't want to live in...
ohh, and the whole "1% vs the 99%" thing is an old libertarian motto that was intended to replace the Marxist idea of "bourgeoisie vs proletariat". I love when ignorant people attack libertarianism when they both have no idea what it is about and use libertarian language to do so.
You'll notice that a lot of these arguments are that the ends justify the means. Ex: We need to help the poor, so that makes it okay to take from people against their will.
That's really where the discussion breaks down. The libertarian argument is that the ends don't justify the means, and the pro-state argument is that they do.
I like the sentiments that we are cold-hearted unforgiving bastards.
I'm robbed at gunpoint every two weeks just like the rest of them and still contribute (quite a bit I might add) to the care of a mentally disabled relative.
I mean...my sister (other contributor who has young kids) and I could just rely on the government's programs that we pay for to solely care for this relative. If I did that though my relative would be wondering the streets homeless and behind on about 500 million mandatory documents that the government requires she fill out.
Okay, and the only kind of socialism that matters now is "national socialism."
Koch brothers "libertarianism" has about as much to do with libertarianism as Nazism has to do with socialism. That's corporatism, and I have yet to meet or hear of a Libertarian who wants corporatism.
It is a telling fact that no corporations ever support libertarian candidates, even when they have a good chance at winning. For example: Ron Paul in doing better than many other candidates at one time, but he never got big corporate money. (He's a paleo-libertarian, btw)
First, they are not "obscure" in that they are the dominate strains of Libertarianism within the LP, the fastest growing party in America, which is growing while the two main parties shrink, and has over a hundred elected officials national wide, including two in state legislature (something no other third party can boast)
No form of libertarianism is being advanced by "powerful interests." Libertarians want a free-market, and the last thing corporations want is a free-market. A world with no bailouts or regulations that work in their favor is a world the 1% doesn't want to live in...
ohh, and the whole "1% vs the 99%" thing is an old libertarian motto that was intended to replace the Marxist idea of "bourgeoisie vs proletariat". I love when ignorant people attack libertarianism when they both have no idea what it is about and use libertarian language to do so.
Ok, so the Koch Brothers are not "true" libertarians in your mind. I suppose they are not True Scotsmen either.
At any rate, it's irrelevant what you personally think libertarianism is or isn't. The Koch-run think tanks and lobbying groups call themselves libertarian, and they have a lot of power and influence in American politics.
Ok, so the Koch Brothers are not "true" libertarians in your mind. I suppose they are not True Scotsmen either.
At any rate, it's irrelevant what you personally think libertarianism is or isn't. The Koch-run think tanks and lobbying groups call themselves libertarian, and they have a lot of power and influence in American politics.
I'll stop calling myself a libertarian (go with anarchist/voluntaryist) if you agree to go by murderous statist?
I like the sentiments that we are cold-hearted unforgiving bastards.
Yes, apparently, the combination of volunteering only your money to charity + being unwilling to pledge other people's money be taken from them against their will makes you heartless.
Oh, and advancing/advocating the Non-Aggression Principle somehow means you want to hurt people?
Wait, one more...advocating for 100% voluntary associations means something like wanting people to starve...or die...or something. I can't recall every straw man convolution, but apparently, wanting to be left alone while also wanting to leave others alone is the pinnacle of evil.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Yes, apparently, the combination of volunteering only your money to charity + being unwilling to pledge other people's money be taken from them against their will makes you heartless.
Oh, and advancing/advocating the Non-Aggression Principle somehow means you want to hurt people?
Wait, one more...advocating for 100% voluntary associations means something like wanting people to starve...or die...or something. I can't recall every straw man convolution, but apparently, wanting to be left alone while also wanting to leave others alone is the pinnacle of evil.
You forget the downside of a voluntary relationship, it can be ended at anytime. So if one donor decides he wants a new Mercedes that month, the he doesn't even have to be the one to tell the families dependent on those donations that they won't get them that month, sucks to be them....
You forget the downside of a voluntary relationship, it can be ended at anytime. So if one donor decides he wants a new Mercedes that month, the he doesn't even have to be the one to tell the families dependent on those donations that they won't get them that month, sucks to be them....
So instead of making it voluntary we'll just force everyone to contribute at gunpoint?
You forget the downside of a voluntary relationship, it can be ended at anytime. So if one donor decides he wants a new Mercedes that month, the he doesn't even have to be the one to tell the families dependent on those donations that they won't get them that month, sucks to be them....
Yes, voluntary relationships can indeed be ended at anytime, unless a contract exists (that was agreed to voluntarily) which precludes that. That's why people shouldn't become dependent on the goodwill of others, because there is no guarantee of perpetuity.
Now, let's address the implied slavery in your quote. If it is your contention that relationships being voluntary is bad because someone dependent on charity might get less/zero charity should the donor class choose to stop donating, this necessarily means that the "good" is these relationships being mandatory. A mandatory relationship that is based on one person having right or claim to any portion of another person's labor or fruits thereof is THE DEFINITION OF SLAVERY. Thus, slavery is the "good" because it creates a predictable model of dependence, and voluntary association/freedom is bad because total dependence will be less predictable.
Basically, anyone totally dependent is the master, and those who work to allow someone else's total dependence to be comfortable and profitable are the slaves. Yes, that is indeed how Fabian socialist welfare states work. Government is nothing but the collective force of taskmasters and overseers on this particular plantation. Therefore, freedom in this particular system is found most efficiently by doing/being/producing as little as possible, preferably nothing at all. This makes you the master.
How are we suppose to ignore what people vote for?
Most deny human nature. Some times they are right, some times they are wrong. The bail outs were wrong. Both the (D)'s and (R)'s were huge believers in trickle down despite (D)'s railing against that idea for decades. I don't think that people who defend the indefensible have much standing in condemning the indefensible.
Is this all you have to defend the libertarian movement? I am not a huge believer in trickle down. I am not even a democrat. I support anyone who has a strong pro-worker track record and is not funded by big business. That obviously doesnt apply to most democrats in Congress and certainly not any Republican.
Now, lets get back to the subject. Do you deny that the libertarians deny human nature when they claim that volunteerism can make up for a proper public safety net?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Yes, voluntary relationships can indeed be ended at anytime, unless a contract exists (that was agreed to voluntarily) precludes that. That's why people shouldn't become dependent on the goodwill of others, because there is no guarantee of perpetuity.
Now, let's address the implied slavery in your quote. If it is your contention that relationships being voluntary is bad because someone dependent on charity might get less/zero charity should the donor class choose to stop donating, this necessarily means that the "good" is these relationships being mandatory. A mandatory relationship that is based on one person having right or claim to any portion of another person's labor or fruits thereof is THE DEFINITION OF SLAVERY. Thus, slavery is the "good" because it creates a predictable model of dependence, and voluntary association/freedom is bad because total dependence will be less predictable.
Basically, anyone totally dependent is the master, and those who work to allow someone else's total dependence to be comfortable and profitable are the slaves. Yes, that is indeed how Fabian socialist welfare states work. Government is nothing but the collective force of taskmasters and overseers on this particular plantation.
You just built a man of straw the size of the Empire State Building. In reality, the taxpayer is still better off than the beneficiary, as the beneficiary lives in poverty despite the donations, while the taxpayer has a good quality of life despite having to pay taxes
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.
