Guy Incognito
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 11,216
- Reaction score
- 2,846
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
There are a lot of libertarians on DP, and I think that's a great thing. I was discussing this recently with another poster and I think that the most basic principle of libertarianism is that of noncoercion. Respect for individual liberty is paramount, and any sort of forcible infringement on personal liberty is invalid. I think that is about as perfect a principle as you can come up with in political philosophy.
Now, where I disagree with most of my fellow libertarians is in thinking that the noncoercive maxim is best served by right-wing economic policies such as deregulation and lowering of taxes. Of course, in Libertopia, where our fundamental maxim is always applied in every situation, there are none of these things and never have been. Taxes and regulatory bodies do not exist in Libertopia, indeed, they have never existed.
But in reality, we don't live there, we live in a dystopic world where coercion is the norm, indeed it has been celebrated for the majority of human history.
Libertopia is a wonderful place, free of coercion. How do we best transition this world into Libertopia, then? Lowering taxes for the rich is not the answer. This only allows the bloodmoney built on the past coercive systems to pool into the hands of a privileged few, producing a de facto aristocracy.
The answer is tempering the libertarian maxim with a dose of rationality. If you apply it selectively it creates market distortions that are just as coercive as any government. You can't just adopt a dogmatic adherence to Enlightment-era economic philosophy (Read: Adam Smith). Libertarians, you have to get real.
It's very hard to respond to this, when you have made many errors to the belief system of libertarians.
It's even harder to respond to somebody who won't bother to make an argument. Unfortunately for you, this is basically a concession on your part.
And you're right to concede. You can't point out the errors in my logic because there aren't any. I have argued from the maxim we both agree on to an irrefutable conclusion that is almost precisely the opposite of the one you have. And you can't figure out how to respond because it is sound. That must be hard for you. The fact is, most people who call themselves Libertarians do not really think deeply enough to understand the principles of their own philosophy.
It's even harder to respond to somebody who won't bother to make an argument. Unfortunately for you, this is basically a concession on your part.
And you're right to concede. You can't point out the errors in my logic because there aren't any. I have argued from the maxim we both agree on to an irrefutable conclusion that is almost precisely the opposite of the one you have. And you can't figure out how to respond because it is sound. That must be hard for you. The fact is, most people who call themselves Libertarians do not really think deeply enough to understand the principles of their own philosophy.
It's a bait thread. He's here to show us how damn intellectual he is and that he's the world's only true libertarian. Evidently we're all just supposed to get big ol' hard-ons over just how smart he is and how well considered his version of libertarianism is. Then, and only then, will he finally be able to take a picture of his gorgeous self and go rub one out.
:yawn:
No it's that you automatically assume that libertarians are, for no regulation and tax breaks for the rich.
Both of those are fallacious.
Prudent edit.Last edited by Guy Incognito; Today at 04:18 PM.
AFAIK, Libertarians are for the Constitution, are against the federal income tax, are against the IRS, against big government, war on drugs, pro state rights, pro individual liberty, advocate a non interventionist foreign policy, against the Federal reserve. AFAIK, more or less Libertarians believe the government exists to serve the people and protect our liberty not to control us.
"States' rights" libertarianism should never be a synonym with local despotism.
Prudent edit.
You know jack **** about me, ace.
I'm here to show you how you've misapplied the fundamental principle that forms the core of your espoused ideals. If you can't be bothered to make an argument against it, and can only back up your position with ad hominem attacks, it just demonstrates how indefensible your position actually is.
I think you're describing Liberalism, not Libertarianism.you cannot coerce others into providing freedom for have nots and that is why you fail as a libertarian. Your belief system is that those without cannot be free and thus freedom requires them being given certain essentials which of course requires coercion of others
The issue with "states' rights" libertarianism is that while the concept is often used to protect against the tyranny of the federal government, it is also often used to promote tyranny of the state governments. Remember, it was the state governments that perpetuated racial segregation and Jim Crow laws. And it was the federal government that struck such laws down.
"States' rights" libertarianism should never be a synonym with local despotism.
I'm hardly arguing against a straw man here. So you're saying most right-wing Libertarians support the estate tax? They are generally against corporate personhood? The ones I meet support deregulation and tax breaks for the rich reflexively. The Libertarian Party are like hippy Republicans.
I'd be only too happy to address a real argument from you, if you think something I said is wrong then please take the time to explain how it is wrong.
That is why I started this thread in the first place. If you have a counter argument I'd love to hear it. If I'm mistaken about something then explain why.
If, on the other hand, your only response is to behave obnoxiously because you disagree, then kindly stay out of it.
Remember too, that there were other state governments who had no such laws.
Wasn't perfect but it's much more preferable to Federal Jim Crow laws.
At least people could leave.
By the way, why are a few instances of wrong, completely acceptable to dismiss an entire belief?
If you're asking for perfection in this world, I've got news for you....
On the other hand, because of 1) the sheer size of the federal bureaucracy and 2) the amount of scrutiny that federal officials are under as compared to state officials, it is easier to deal with such instances on a federal level than on a state level.
While it only took an executive order from Wilson to segregate the U.S. military, it only took an executive order to desegregate it from Truman.
Also, some rights are universal. Some rights a person has no matter which government he has over him. Those rights benefit from having a higher government authority to protect.
If you ask me to accept states' rights libertarianism despite "a few bad apples" and because nothing is perfect, why can't I ask you to accept centralization of government despite "a few bad apples" and because nothing is perfect?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?