Libertarianism: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Gabo]

I happen to be a hardcore libertarian, and was so glad to find the party when I did because it portrays exactly how I think the US should be. However, I'm sure plenty of people have their criticisms for the party's beliefs and idealogies, so this thread is for all of us to discuss and debate the ideas of libertarianism.

PS: If you don't know what libertarianism is, go to www.libertarianism.com to find out more.

PPS: Please keep flames to a minimum, as constructive posts make you sound less like an idiot and make your posts sound more valid.

 

[argexpat]

Libertarianism is the ideological opposite of communism. (Neither system has ever been successful on a large scale; the most successful modern economies have all been a mix of the private and public sectors.) But the political spectrum isn't linear, it's circular. Extreme libertarianism and extreme communism essentially meet each other at the other end, and in practice would be virtually indistinguishable from each other, because in both systems everyone owns everything.

The reason these two extreme ideologies haven't succeeded is that they essentially violate human nature. People want inherently contradictory things: they want freedom to do as they wish, and they want to be told what to do. This contradiction is embodied in the Republican Party, which preaches liberty and freedom while glorifying military and religious authoritarianism. This is why Christians have flocked to the party: they want to be free to be told what to do.

Libertarianism, like communism, is totalitarian, in that it cannot work unless everything is libertarian. You can't be a little libertarian, or a little communist. But these ideologies do have a place in a healthy economic mix. There are some things the government does well, and there are some things the private sector does well. An enlightened socio-economic system knows which is which, and applies different ideologies like ingredients in a recipe: the key is in using them in the right amounts.

For these reasons there will never be a pure libertarian society, just as there has never been a pure communist society in the modern age. Yet libertarianism is used by many of its adherents as an over-simplistic answer to the gnawing societal questions that challenge us. (If we could just achieve this unachievable state, everything would be better.) It’s essentially utopian, evidenced by libertarians who pine for a lost golden age that never existed. I suspect many who call themselves libertarian (as I once did) do so simply as an excuse to do nothing.

 

[Gabo]

Libertarianism and communism are complete opposites!

With Communism, the state owns and controls every aspect of our lives.
With Libertarianism, the people own and control every aspect of their life.

Libertarianism is the purest form of Capitalism.
Capitalism is the OPPOSITE of Communism.
Therefore, Libertarianism is the OPPOSITE of Communism.


Think about Anarchy.
Seems all fine and dandy, but there is ONE problem.
Your choices could compromise someone else's (murder, etc.)

Libertarianism is one step up from Anarchy, eliminating the one problem.
It only constricts your choices so you don't compromise anothers'.
If you do, it makes you give retribution for what you've done.

Thus, everyone is allowed the maximum amount of freedom possible.


Communism is slavery of the entire nation. You have no rights, nor any incentives to do your best (let alone any incentives to exist at all).


The political spectrum is not a circle, either. It is a sphere.
At the north pole exists libertarianism, and the south pole is communism.
Left and right (liberal and conservative) are the part of the globe that circles around making a loop.

 

[Schweddy]

Most of the time I COMPLETELY disagree with argexpat, but in this case I believe he is correct.

I took the "liberatarian challenge" several years ago and I really like some of the positions that they have. The biggest issue I had was 'open borders'. They wanted to completely open the borders to Canada and Mexico - allowing passage every which way. Interestingly enough, I have been told that sinse 9/11 that has changed. They no longer want open borders.

So, one booboo and the Liberitarians are willing to change thier principles?

But, to take the another approach - when our nation was founded - everyone was practically a Libertarian.

 

[argexpat]

Most of the time I COMPLETELY disagree with argexpat, but in this case I believe he is correct.

Dear God, hell must have frozen over!

But, to take the another approach - when our nation was founded - everyone was practically a Libertarian.

Everyone except slaves, Native Americans, women, immigrants and white males without land.

 

[Schweddy]

:rofl


Thank you for the correction.

 

[KBeta]

Most of the time I COMPLETELY disagree with argexpat, but in this case I believe he is correct.

Look out! argexpat and vague agree! The end it nigh!

I don't see politics as either a circle or a sphere. It's clearly a torus:

It inflates and deflates depending on how much hot air is injected into it, but it is ALWAYS hollow.

Sorry. I've been taking things too seriously lately. Now we return to your regularly scheduled debate...

 

[Schweddy]

Thank you Kbeta... I needed a good chuckle!

(wipes away tears from eyes...)

Actually I am glad for this thread.
I needed a reminder to revisit the libertarian website again.

 

[Gabo]

I took the "liberatarian challenge" several years ago and I really like some of the positions that they have. The biggest issue I had was 'open borders'. They wanted to completely open the borders to Canada and Mexico - allowing passage every which way. Interestingly enough, I have been told that sinse 9/11 that has changed. They no longer want open borders.

So, one booboo and the Liberitarians are willing to change thier principles?

Not necessarily. Many libertarians (myself included) still want to keep the borders open.

The huge problem here now is the fact that a situation caused by the Republicans and Democrats, this terrorism issue, has no real answer from libertarians. Under libertarian rule, it would never have happened in the first place.

I still believe the borders should remain open. If terrorists are going to kill people they're going to kill people. Being extremely unfair to tons of innocent people by refusing them life in this country is not worth the possibility of preventing a couple terrorists from entering. And if people don't want their businesses bombed, they can install preventative measures on their own to stop suspected terrorists from entering their buildings.

 

[Jufarius87]

yes but what we must remember is that common people at that time considred themselves citizens of their state before citizens of the bigger usa govt so naturally they would be libertarian

 

[Gabo]

yes but what we must remember is that common people at that time considred themselves citizens of their state before citizens of the bigger usa govt so naturally they would be libertarian

Sorry, you confused me here.