• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The essence of Libertarianism is...

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"LEAVE ME ALONE."

Therefore, libertarianism is the antithesis of zealotry.
 
The expectation that people are far more moral than they actually are.
 
The essence is really "I have got mine, screw you. Oops, I screwed up, help me now." There are no Libertarians in a crisis. They're often the first ones who cry "where's the gubberment" when the sh*t hits the fan. Only, there is no gubberment anymore, because they killed it. Oops.

Libertarians have a very optimistic, naive understanding of how the world works and human nature.
 
Last edited:
That's a rather overly-simplistic view.

I wasn't going for complicated. Why complicate life? Our lifespan is merely a spark in this universe. Why waste it on nonsensical, politicized analysis?
 
The expectation that people are far more moral than they actually are.

Moralism is a code of ethics of one particular group. It is meaningless in this debate. What libertarians do believe is that human individuals, left to their own devices, are far more intelligent and productive than most people realize. "Moral" and "ethics" are extremely vague and subjective terms for defining human qualities. But human individuals are intelligent, without a shadow of a doubt, and they are productive. And that's all you need to know to understand that we are better at planning our own lives than the humans who control us at the upper echelon of society.
 
The essence is really "I have got mine, screw you. Oops, I screwed up, help me now." There are no Libertarians in a crisis. They're often the first ones who cry "where's the gubberment" when the sh*t hits the fan. Only, there is no gubberment anymore, because they killed it. Oops.

Libertarians have a very optimistic, naive understanding of how the world works and human nature.

That's insulting hyperbole. And it's far from accurate.
 
All humans are happy sunshine good people and they would never try to f*** me over or break any moral rules or standards.
 
Moralism is a code of ethics of one particular group. It is meaningless in this debate. What libertarians do believe is that human individuals, left to their own devices, are far more intelligent and productive than most people realize. "Moral" and "ethics" are extremely vague and subjective terms for defining human qualities. But human individuals are intelligent, without a shadow of a doubt, and they are productive. And that's all you need to know to understand that we are better at planning our own lives than the humans who control us at the upper echelon of society.

I was referring to the two major immoralities that a libertarian system would recognize. Fraud and Theft. People are not capable of abstaining from either (some are, but in general we are not) and since society would be so open, it would rely on a government that was robotic in the sense that it would effectively punish this type of activity in the courts with a very high success rate and without bias (which is not possible). Such a system is doomed to failure because it relies on the expectation that people are capable of far more than they actually are (again, in a moral sense that libertarians deign to recognize)
 
I was referring to the two major immoralities that a libertarian system would recognize. Fraud and Theft. People are not capable of abstaining from either (some are, but in general we are not) and since society would be so open, it would rely on a government that was robotic in the sense that it would effectively punish this type of activity in the courts with a very high success rate and without bias (which is not possible). Such a system is doomed to failure because it relies on the expectation that people are capable of far more than they actually are (again, in a moral sense that libertarians deign to recognize)

That's not true.

It expects people to act like people.
Some are self serving bastards, while others are self interested in the long term.

Libertarians expect that people will fail and that preventing or easing that failure, is part of the problem and not the solution.
 
Last edited:
That's not true.

It expects people to act like people.
Some are self serving bastards, while others are self interested in the long term.

Libertarians expect that people will fail and that preventing or easing that failure, is part of the problem and not the solution.

I was not speaking economically. But in the governing sense. You have to have perfect morality and outcome for a system to handle all fraud and abuse (without having regulation to negate some of it before hand). If fraud and abuse are already happening, than that throws the idea of completely moral people out the window (I don't expect judiciary to be any better than people in any other faction of society). The alternative is that fraud and abuse will occur without punishment and evil will prevail (and I think it would be at a much greater rate than current problems because there is only one mechanism (the judiciary) instead of multiple mechanisms.)
 
Last edited:
Libertarianism, kinda like Communism, would work really well if not for human nature.
 
I wasn't going for complicated. Why complicate life? Our lifespan is merely a spark in this universe. Why waste it on nonsensical, politicized analysis?
Because life IS complicated.

If you dont want analysis, why are you here?
 
All humans are happy sunshine good people and they would never try to f*** me over or break any moral rules or standards.

Yea ok. And liberals are pinko commies.

Now, let's have an intelligent discussion.
 
I was referring to the two major immoralities that a libertarian system would recognize. Fraud and Theft. People are not capable of abstaining from either (some are, but in general we are not) and since society would be so open, it would rely on a government that was robotic in the sense that it would effectively punish this type of activity in the courts with a very high success rate and without bias (which is not possible). Such a system is doomed to failure because it relies on the expectation that people are capable of far more than they actually are (again, in a moral sense that libertarians deign to recognize)

Do you have a point?
 
Libertarianism, kinda like Communism, would work really well if not for human nature.

I think libertarians recognize human nature better than any other ideal system.
 
Because life IS complicated.

If you dont want analysis, why are you here?

This is entertainment. If you think this discussion board is analysis-material, then I suppose you rely on Comedy Central for your news, as well.
 
The problem with "big L" Libertarianism is that is aspires an impossibility, namely a free market system that defies the second law of thermodynamics. A truly "free" market is a chimera, that only exists in the writings of Adam Smith.

Maybe a truly and absolutely "free" market would work. We'll never know. Because when you peel away the layers of government like an onion, one at a time, you still have some government left over. What you have left just distorts the unfree market in unpredictable ways. So-called "small" government can distort the market just as wildly as big government can. For instance, in the USA, corporations function as liability shields, protecting the actual owners of a business from debts of the business, by way of a government supported legal fiction that the corporation itself be treated as a person (and thereby encourage socially irresponsible business practice, because the owners don't have to put any of their personal assets on the line thanks to the tort shield). How libertarian is that?
 
I think libertarians recognize human nature better than any other ideal system.

The free market can and will kill you to make that extra dollar. That's why we have an FDA/EPA/OSHA/etc. It wasn't the government just deciding it wanted to regulate things, the people demanded some intervention on their behalf because they were literally dying in the name of profit, both on the worker and consumer side.

A more realistic person would realize that the free market works great for 90% of cases. That other 10% exists because the usual market forces do not apply properly to all industries and because there will always be a few jackasses in the bunch to spoil things for everybody. That 10% is why we have a government at all.
 
I think libertarians recognize human nature better than any other ideal system.

No. I consider myself libertarian but I would never make this claim. Neuroscience has taught us quite a bit about human nature. One thing that libertarian philosophy argues is that humans are rational decision makers. The fact is that we are neurologically built to make decisions based on emotions. Our rational oversight is simply a mechanism by which we can weigh pros and cons in order to sway our emotions. However, it is still our emotions, not our rationality, that make decisions. While libertarians have probably the most optimistic view of human nature, it is just as naive as any other. Humans are animals, not intrinsically good or bad, but also not entirely rational. We are pretty much all using the same brain we had 50,000 years ago as cavemen in a modern world. While socially and conceptually advanced compared to other animals, we are still driven by the same mechanisms that kept us alive for hundreds of thousands of years.
 
Last edited:
This is entertainment. If you think this discussion board is analysis-material, then I suppose you rely on Comedy Central for your news, as well.
Discussion is a valid method of exploring and working through material. I agree that this is not an academic setting but I see no reason to consider it a valid medium for learning if one is careful.
 
The essence is really "I have got mine, screw you. Oops, I screwed up, help me now." There are no Libertarians in a crisis. They're often the first ones who cry "where's the gubberment" when the sh*t hits the fan. Only, there is no gubberment anymore, because they killed it. Oops.

Libertarians have a very optimistic, naive understanding of how the world works and human nature.

Fleas whine when the dog says

STOP BITING ME-its My blood not yours
 
Why is fake-libertarian economic philosophy at odds with the practice, e.g. why is intra-firm central planning preferred to contractual specialization?
 
Fleas whine when the dog says

STOP BITING ME-its My blood not yours

You're just demonstrating Technocratic's point that Libertarians have a naive understanding of the way the world works and human nature, because that analogy makes no sense. Is the dog supposed to be the wealthy people that the "fleas" are just sponging off of? If you really understood how to world worked, you'd realize that the rich people in your above analogy aren't the dog, they're just especially fat fleas who like to keep all the blood to themselves.
 
Why is fake-libertarian economic philosophy at odds with the practice, e.g. why is intra-firm central planning preferred to contractual specialization?

socialist redistribution of wealth is not a valid concept of libertarianism nor is "freedom" that requires others to fund it
 
Back
Top Bottom