A Definition of A Libertarian - Penn Jillette

[roughdraft274]

If people are willing to pay for the research I see no reason it wouldn't be paid for.

If...

Sorry but your positions can't be taken seriously. I can't waste my time on outlandish fringe ideas.

 

[Henrin]

The "minarchist" position is insane and stupid. I can hardly discuss it without laughing. If you don't like civilized society, go buy an island.

How do you define a civilized society?

 

[Henrin]

If...

Sorry but your positions can't be taken seriously. I can't waste my time on outlandish fringe ideas.

Yes, if the investment is something they find of some personal interest and they think it can return them something they find desirable then they will invest in it. People spending money towards those things they desire and investing and risking their capital in things of some interest to them are things people do everyday.

 

[LowDown]

But yet Cons support spending, (taxing), to spend on many things that are not per that above definition, legitimate. Anyone that claims that the Cons only support spending/taxing to spend on "legitimate" issues is either delusional or an outright liar.

Conservatives are not the same as libertarians. Many conservatives are fine with big government as long they like the government's policies. Libertarians do not agree. Most Tea Party members want smaller government with less government spending and have nothing to say about social issues. You could call them right leaning libertarians.

Libertarians have been characterized as socially liberal (no to death penalty, yes to choice, pro legalization of most drugs, etc.) and fiscally conservative. The common thread there is less government power and intrusiveness. Conservatives want the government to step in and do all sorts of things -- stop abortion, hang murderers, stop the illegal drug trade, and so on.

 

[LowDown]

It could be done by voluntary effort. But then you'd have a country full of patchwork schools, parks and library's etc. and numerous poor areas without adequate access to any of these things. There are many very generous people, and there are many very generous wealthy people. But there aren't enough to adequately supply education and infrastructure in any meaningful way. The role of government is an important discussion to have, and I'll fully admit that there are areas it needs to be rolled back, but Penn's positions are so far outside of reality that it's laughable. And that's coming from someone that genuinely likes the guy.

It would be patchwork of no effort at all was made to coordinate efforts, and that could be done. Again, people, including most conservatives, are indoctrinated to the effect that government is the only way, and it's not.

 

[Casper]

Conservatives are not the same as libertarians. Many conservatives are fine with big government as long they like the government's policies. Libertarians do not agree. Most Tea Party members want smaller government with less government spending and have nothing to say about social issues. You could call them right leaning libertarians.

Libertarians have been characterized as socially liberal (no to death penalty, yes to choice, pro legalization of most drugs, etc.) and fiscally conservative. The common thread there is less government power and intrusiveness. Conservatives want the government to step in and do all sorts of things -- stop abortion, hang murderers, stop the illegal drug trade, and so on.

While I agree with some of the Libertarian stand on issues I part ways with them when it comes to foreign affairs, in that area Libertarians are either naïve or just plain idiots, hence why people such as Ron Paul could not break through with American voters and why Libertarians will never become the Party that represents a majority of Americans. As for the Tea Party, they had some good ideas when it came to taxes and had they left it there they would have done far better within the GOP and even among Dems, the problem is they did not stick to that and instead expanded into social issues and their stand on those was very conservative and as such lost the ability to bring in more supporters.

 

[roughdraft274]

It would be patchwork of no effort at all was made to coordinate efforts, and that could be done. Again, people, including most conservatives, are indoctrinated to the effect that government is the only way, and it's not.

It might not be the only way. But for some choices it's the best way.

 

[Henrin]

Do the minarchists here agree with the following quote?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. - Frédéric Bastiat

 

[LowDown]

While I agree with some of the Libertarian stand on issues I part ways with them when it comes to foreign affairs, in that area Libertarians are either naïve or just plain idiots, hence why people such as Ron Paul could not break through with American voters and why Libertarians will never become the Party that represents a majority of Americans. As for the Tea Party, they had some good ideas when it came to taxes and had they left it there they would have done far better within the GOP and even among Dems, the problem is they did not stick to that and instead expanded into social issues and their stand on those was very conservative and as such lost the ability to bring in more supporters.

I think most libertarians agree that one of the legitimate functions of government is to organize for national defense. As for isolationism, I don't think that necessarily is libertarian. As long as the government acts in the interests of self defense then it is legitimate. It's only common sense to fight the enemy in the theater that provides us the best advantage and to destroy an enemy's base of operations is sometimes the only way to secure peace. To wait until an enemy attacks us on our own soil is crazy in this day and age. The trouble with some people is that they act as if the US has no enemies, as if there is no legitimate reason to take up arms. It has more to do with common sense than one's philosophy of government.

 

[MrWonka]

Defending our country and our way of life is legitimate.
Building a library? Funding the arts? No, these are not justifiable uses of force.

This assumes a ridiculous notion that the only way to defend a country and our way of life is using a gun.

Education is Defense. It enables the economic development and technological advancement that gives nations like America the ability to defend itself. It also keeps people out of poverty so that they do not grow desperate and turn to violence to solve their problems in the first place.

Art is also defense. Not only does Art improve education, but it improves the quality of life in a society thus making people want to put more effort into it's defense. Just look at the military for example. Most military units have some form of military band. A number of my close friends actually served in Iraq playing for bands that would go around doing various U.S.O. type shows for the troops.

Even dip **** "libertarians" like Glen Beck admits that he learned about the dangers of socialism because "books are free."

Jon Stewart ‘proves’ Glenn Beck is a commie

The reality is that any type of investment in the country that makes the country stronger is an investment in the defense of the country. Investments in science not only put a man on the moon, but they also enabled intercontinental ballistic missiles and spy satellites.

 

[Henrin]

Even dip **** "libertarians" like Glen Beck admits that he learned about the dangers of socialism because "books are free."

Umm..people can decide to give away their products for free under capitalism.

 

[MrWonka]

Umm..people can decide to give away their products for free under capitalism.

Yeah, that's not what he meant and you know it. Books are free because they are available at the socialist government run public library that exists in virtually every town in America.

 

[Henrin]

Yeah, that's not what he meant and you know it. Books are free because they are available at the socialist government run public library that exists in virtually every town in America.

They can however be provided for free without government. For example, there are dozens of sites all over the internet where you can get books for free. Hell, even Mises Institute has books for free.

The days of people being able to successfully argue the necessity of the public library are all but over.

 

[MrWonka]

For example, there are dozens of sites all over the internet where you can get books for free.

The days of people being able to successfully argue the necessity of the public library are all but over.

And how do you expect to get on the internet? Are there any places that allow you to use that for free?

Hell, even Mises Institute has books for free.

They give you the books they want you to read because they think it benefits themselves. If you'd like to choose what knowledge you learn to insure you're getting all sides of the argument it helps to have a library.

 

[Henrin]

And how do you expect to get on the internet? Are there any places that allow you to use that for free?

So you want a place where people can go to get on the internet? You do realize that places like that exist, right?

They give you the books they want you to read because they think it benefits themselves. If you'd like to choose what knowledge you learn to insure you're getting all sides of the argument it helps to have a library.

Yes, that's the idea. There is however other sites you can go to get books on other ideologies and other economic schools of thought for free.

 

[Paleocon]

If you would feel justified in using a gun to do something by force then it's a legitimate function of government. Government is the guys with guns who use force to do things we want.

Preventing murder is legitimate.
Preventing rape is legitimate.
Defending our country and our way of life is legitimate.
Building a library? Funding the arts? No, these are not justifiable uses of force.
Sure, these are important. We should absolutely ask people to support these things. But using force to do them? No.

Read the whole thing (the above is paraphrased from this): http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-how-became-libertarian-453565

I as a private individual would not be justified in imprisoning a murderer or rapist, but the government is.

QED

 

[Mithrae]

You would be incorrect, and you should stop thinking in terms of caricatures. We recognize the need for essential laws and of good public order, and those who break laws by going vigilante should be subject to arrest and prosecution.

It's not a caricature, it's exactly how you/Jillette defined the legitimate function of government in the OP:

"A Definition of A Libertarian - Penn Jillette

If you would feel justified in using a gun to do something by force then it's a legitimate function of government."

The fact that you realise vigilantism is not a good or justifiable thing only proves how shallow and ill-considered that viewpoint is. Government agencies are different to individual whimsy; at their best they have a mandate from democratic legislation, clear regulations, oversight and transparency, and public accountability. They have legitimate roles which are not shared by individuals, as you have just acknowledged.

Don't blame me for the shallow content of your own OPs :lol:

 

[Mithrae]

Do the minarchists here agree with the following quote?

Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Logically therefore, Bastiat/you must be opposed to involuntary taxation even to support a military or police force.

This is the second and lesser of libertarianism's two major, obvious hypocrisies: Screaming themselves hoarse, metaphorically speaking, over being taxed against their will for education say... and then insisting that it's all good to tax the anarchists to maintain a military or police force.

The first and greater hypocrisy is pretending that private property - which by definition is restriction of other folks' freedom - can pass as if by divine fiat as a foundation for a supposed liberal philosophy.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

And how do you expect to get on the internet? Are there any places that allow you to use that for free?



They give you the books they want you to read because they think it benefits themselves. If you'd like to choose what knowledge you learn to insure you're getting all sides of the argument it helps to have a library.

Many places offer free wifi, such as mcdonalds and starbucks. Are they communists? No, they want people to hang out there, firstly because the longer they're there, the more likely they are to huy something. But in addition, they want to garner good will. Even well before the internet, mcds had free playgrounds, for the same reasons. So, no force involved, and both parties get what they want. That's true freedom, and a truly civilized society.

 

[MrWonka]

Many places offer free wifi, such as mcdonalds and starbucks.

And how are you going to get the free laptop to use that free wifi?

 

[David_N]

Libertarians are silly. They love the idea of a massive increase in private sector debt. Just listen to their calls to gut spending!

 

[Citizen.Seven]

And how are you going to get the free laptop to use that free wifi?

Good god, man, how much coddling and provision to you want in the parentland?

 

[poweRob]

I like Penn. Disagree with him yes... but I like him. He's of the Libertarian fold that one can actually talk to and you can see he makes sense and you can understand where he is coming from. I just disagree with his stances. Those kinds of Libertarians are fun to talk to.