Libertarinism Ideology

[RGacky3]

0%...........................................................................100% government

anarchy falls under 0, ...............................................with communism falling under 100%

if the founders meant for the federal government to be limited by its 18 powers, they would not have wanted 50% or more.

what's your percentage point for government?

This is such a rediculous way of looking at it, most anarchists are communists ... Anarcho-Communism is a huge part ...

They call themselves anarcho-communists because they believe the earth and it's resources are the commons and that private property is as much state tyranny as the state itself is.

Also you can't do this 0-100% thing, If you cut the military in half but make healthcare public do you have more or less government? I doesn't make any sense.

If you privitize and regulate a river is that more or less government? Things are not black and white.

 

[Mr X]

Libertarians tend not to be anarchists. They exist as a subgroup, the anarcho-captialists but most of us understand the necessity of some amount of government. Government, however, should be limited to the necessary functions. Secure our rights and liberties, provide for our national defense (not offense), and general welfare.

Modern society is too complex for this to be reality. Who would be in charge of testing the safety of new medical drugs? Who would set minimum safety standards for things like electrical goods? Would you be prepared to accept the reduced education of the population which would come from the removal of state education, and the impact that would have with foreign companies looking to invest? Who would pay for infrastucture like road building?

 

[Mr X]

Corporations aren't so heartless. A corporation who cares not for its employees will lose those employees to competitors*. Corporations who show blatant disregard for a community will lose to its competitors. In short, doing bad things is antithetical to running a good business. I do agree that consumers, the free market, are the greatest regulators we have**.

* Doesn't really work in real life. There will always be new people desperate for work to replace any people who decide to leave.
** How are consumers meant to act as regulators if corporations will do unethical things in secret?

 

[Master PO]

This is such a rediculous way of looking at it, most anarchists are communists ... Anarcho-Communism is a huge part ...

They call themselves anarcho-communists because they believe the earth and it's resources are the commons and that private property is as much state tyranny as the state itself is.

Also you can't do this 0-100% thing, If you cut the military in half but make healthcare public do you have more or less government? I doesn't make any sense.

If you privitize and regulate a river is that more or less government? Things are not black and white.

you make it harder then its needs to be.

 

[RGacky3]

you make it harder then its needs to be.

No I don't, I make it honest.

I can say the same thing

Libertarians want an extreme class society and communists want no calss society from a 0-100% ... but that would be false wouldn't it, a false dictomy.

If you arn't going to know what you're talking about then don't talk about it.

 

[Master PO]

No I don't, I make it honest.

I can say the same thing

Libertarians want an extreme class society and communists want no calss society from a 0-100% ... but that would be false wouldn't it, a false dictomy.

If you arn't going to know what you're talking about then don't talk about it.

there can be only 2 points.....zero government or 100% government, you cant have anything outside of those boundaries.

the founders delegated 18 powers to congress while all other powers belong to the states, since the state have vast powers, and the federal government few and fined, government cannot be at the 50% level.

 

[RGacky3]

there can be only 2 points.....zero government or 100% government, you cant have anything outside of those boundaries.

the founders delegated 18 powers to congress while all other powers belong to the states, since the state have vast powers, and the federal government few and fined, government cannot be at the 50% level.

No ... what is 100% government? What does that even mean?

And there can be many other points ... zero slavery 100% slavery, zero regulation 100% regulation, zero Capitalism 100% capitalism.

It's impossible to quantify percentage levels for government because they are and will always be based on arbitrary criteria.

 

[Master PO]

No ... what is 100% government? What does that even mean?

And there can be many other points ... zero slavery 100% slavery, zero regulation 100% regulation, zero Capitalism 100% capitalism.

It's impossible to quantify percentage levels for government because they are and will always be based on arbitrary criteria.

are you are able to understand, that "0" means no government, nothing exist.

where 100 % government, would be something like north Korea.

 

[RGacky3]

are you are able to understand, that "0" means no government, nothing exist.

where 100 % government, would be something like north Korea.

0 means to government like what ... Somalia in the 2000s? Do warlords count as government? How about Anarchist spain, to neighborhood councils count as government?

also take something like Sweden vrs the US, which has more government? Sweden because they have public healthcare and social services? Or the US becasue they have a huge military and more of a police state ... It's all arbitrary.

Communism vrs Capitalism has to do with the role of private property vrs the role of the commons .... Not the role of the state.

 

[Master PO]

0 means to government like what ... Somalia in the 2000s? Do warlords count as government? How about Anarchist spain, to neighborhood councils count as government?

also take something like Sweden vrs the US, which has more government? Sweden because they have public healthcare and social services? Or the US becasue they have a huge military and more of a police state ... It's all arbitrary.

Communism vrs Capitalism has to do with the role of private property vrs the role of the commons .... Not the role of the state.

oh brother!
here play with this link, awhile

John Birch Society - Overview of America - Part 2 - YouTube

 

[RGacky3]

oh brother!
here play with this link, awhile

John Birch Society - Overview of America - Part 2 - YouTube

really ... the John birch society ....

Democracy isn't a governemnt type, it's a method of decision making, of legislating, a republic just means not a monarchy, or a constitutionally based system, the USSR was a republic, you're mixing apples and oranges, it's like saying "Basketball isn't a game ... It's a sport."

Don't send me to some nonsense John Bich society propeganda, make an actual point and/approach my points.

 

[Master PO]

really ... the John birch society ....

Democracy isn't a governemnt type, it's a method of decision making, of legislating, a republic just means not a monarchy, or a constitutionally based system, the USSR was a republic, you're mixing apples and oranges, it's like saying "Basketball isn't a game ... It's a sport."

Don't send me to some nonsense John Bich society propeganda, make an actual point and/approach my points.

have you ever heard of over analyzing something..............well your well on your way.

 

[RGacky3]

have you ever heard of over analyzing something..............well your well on your way.

It's not over analyzing, its .... just analyzing and being honest and accurate.

 

[Master PO]

It's not over analyzing, its .... just analyzing and being honest and accurate.

oh, your cannot understand 0 means 0 nothing............. and 100% means everything, or all

or are you going to argue over that to

 

[RGacky3]

oh, your cannot understand 0 means 0 nothing............. and 100% means everything, or all

or are you going to argue over that to

Yes ... I understand that. But it depends on what your definition of government is, what does and does not count. It also depends on what is included in "everything." It's all abitrary.

 

[Master PO]

Yes ... I understand that. But it depends on what your definition of government is, what does and does not count. It also depends on what is included in "everything." It's all abitrary.

can no government exist.......yes it can.

can a government exist where government controls every aspect of a persons life, and the things around him ..yes it can.

 

[Ikari]

Modern society is too complex for this to be reality. Who would be in charge of testing the safety of new medical drugs? Who would set minimum safety standards for things like electrical goods? Would you be prepared to accept the reduced education of the population which would come from the removal of state education, and the impact that would have with foreign companies looking to invest? Who would pay for infrastucture like road building?

What makes you think we cannot have regulation, oversight, or education? This is one of those things that people keep trying to say libertarianism is against when fundamentally it's not. There are certainly folk subscribing to libertarian philosophy that take this route, but it's not inherent to the entirety of the philosophy.

If you're going to denegrate a political philosophy, please at least understand what you are talking about first.

 

[JayDubya]

YOur use of the word RETARDED tells me all I need to know about your views.

Your retarded "medical metaphor" tells us all we need to know about yours.

Your post offered no insight, no explanation, only ignorant hate.

 

[Neomalthusian]

This misses the point. Of course the concept of property is useful. I rather like it. The issue is how to regulate it in a manner that make sense according to various values we want to promote as a society. Libertarianism, however, starts with a false narrative that property is some sort of natural right that popped Athenalike out of Zeus's head and cannot be questioned.

Values we want to promote as a society? You're using "we" language to try to lend power to "your" opinion. Your collectivist dreams are not a trump card.

And of course property can be "questioned," in fact people can be flat out deprived of it via due process, case by case. Libertarians not only acknowledge and accept this, they defend it.

 

[head of joaquin]

Values we want to promote as a society? You're using "we" language to try to lend power to "your" opinion. Your collectivist dreams are not a trump card.

And of course property can be "questioned," in fact people can be flat out deprived of it via due process, case by case. Libertarians not only acknowledge and accept this, they defend it.

Wow, a lumpen nonresponse. How predictable. So now values are a bad thing and society is an enemy.

As I said earlier, another false libertarian narrative which without more is enough to reject this adolescent ideology.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Wow, a lumpen nonresponse. How predictable. So now values are a bad thing and society is an enemy.

What the **** are you talking about?

As I said earlier, another false libertarian narrative which without more is enough to reject this adolescent ideology.

Look at that irony, you quickly build a laughable strawman out of my comment and then accuse me of a false narrative.

What a joke. You argued libertarians regard property as sacrosanct, which is dead wrong, and now you're retreating to even more absurd comments because your strawman argument failed.

 

[Ikari]

What the **** are you talking about?



Look at that irony, you quickly build a laughable strawman out of my comment and then accuse me of a false narrative.

What a joke. You argued libertarians regard property as sacrosanct, which is dead wrong, and now you're retreating to even more absurd comments because your strawman argument failed.

There are a couple haters on the forum, they rarely make sense. But haters got to hate.

 

[head of joaquin]

What the **** are you talking about?



Look at that irony, you quickly build a laughable strawman out of my comment and then accuse me of a false narrative.

What a joke. You argued libertarians regard property as sacrosanct, which is dead wrong, and now you're retreating to even more absurd comments because your strawman argument failed.

Why is it that nobody knows less about libertarianism than libertarians?

One premise of libertarianism is the self-evidence of property, which is supposed to transcend society and hence is somehow natural. The premise is false. This often gets captured in the "natural law" strains of libertarianism, which has another set of unsupported assumptions.

Another premise is that humans are individuals who "got together" to form societies and that society threatens their "natural" freedom. Another false premise. People have always lived in society and indeed the concept of individualism (and individual rights) is a fairly recent development of fairly modern societies. It has no universal meaning. It's more accurate to say that societies create individuals than the other way around. But there you are with your anti-society fetish, making ahistorical claims that literally make no sense.

In general libertarianism makes naïve universalist claims about humans and society that are either totally unsupported by history, or actually totally rebutted.

Why you would call this analysis "hate" is bizarre in itself, but I suspect it's because you can't rebut it. That's another element of libertarianism -- a certain paranoia.

 

[Ikari]

Why is it that nobody knows less about libertarianism than libertarians?

One premise of libertarianism is the self-evidence of property, which is supposed to transcend society and hence is somehow natural. The premise is false. This often gets captured in the "natural law" strains of libertarianism, which has another set of unsupported assumptions.

Another premise is that humans are individuals who "got together" to form societies and that society threatens their "natural" freedom. Another false premise. People have always lived in society and indeed the concept of individualism (and individual rights) is a fairly recent development of fairly modern societies. It has no universal meaning. It's more accurate to say that societies create individuals than the other way around. But there you are with your anti-society fetish, making ahistorical claims that literally make no sense.

In general libertarianism makes naïve universalist claims about humans and society that are either totally unsupported by history, or actually totally rebutted.

Why you would call this analysis "hate" is bizarre in itself, but I suspect it's because you can't rebut it. That's another element of libertarianism -- a certain paranoia.

Mostly because it's a lot of disingenuous exaggeration, over simplification, and hyperbole.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Why is it that nobody knows less about libertarianism than libertarians?

Because your entire description of libertarianism is a straw man argument, so obviously libertarians will roll their eyes at it.

One premise of libertarianism is the self-evidence of property, which is supposed to transcend society and hence is somehow natural. The premise is false. This often gets captured in the "natural law" strains of libertarianism, which has another set of unsupported assumptions.

Does one's right to life "transcend society?" Is it "natural?" Life can be deprived by law (due process). So can property. So can liberty. Natural rights can be denied by society. It just has to be via due process, not democratic whims. We didn't vote whether to imprison that Zimmerman fellow. Because our court system denies these rights according to our laws. Our court system, not your assessment of society's needs.

But there you are with your anti-society fetish, making ahistorical claims that literally make no sense.

I'm sorry it's so hard for you to make sense of what I have said. I don't know how to say it any simpler for you.

Why you would call this analysis "hate" is bizarre in itself,

Um, well, I didn't. I might call it stupid though?