• 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!

Why are so many libertarians hedonists and libertines?

Lord of Planar said:
Absolutely. I would say more than other parties do. The fringe elements though... Wow...
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't agree with the opinion of the OP at all.

As much as I like most the people that make up the party, I never have liked most of the candidates. Like all other politicians, they try to appease too many people rather than be leaders.
Click to expand...

Well they ARE politicians, after all. :)
 
Guy Incognito said:
So why does it seem like libertarians are only dregs and junkies? Why doesnt libertarianism attract more decent, self-disciplined people?
Click to expand...

The pro-drug lobbies are big inside the cult of libertarians. They were the one of the first groups of people who were attracted to the philosophy. Then came your free market crazies and constitutionalists. These are all fringers on the left and right who have come together to form an even more hypocritical philosophy than the normal political parties. Yet somehow their egos leads them to believe that they are better than the two party system. Honestly half the population doesn't even care...
 
ModerateGOP said:
The pro-drug lobbies are big inside the cult of libertarians. They were the one of the first groups of people who were attracted to the philosophy. Then came your free market crazies and constitutionalists. These are all fringers on the left and right who have come together to form an even more hypocritical philosophy than the normal political parties. Yet somehow their egos leads them to believe that they are better than the two party system. Honestly half the population doesn't even care...
Click to expand...

You have such disdain for those who oppose the initiation of aggression. I take it you are in favor of the initiation of aggression?
 
Federalist said:
You have such disdain for those who oppose the initiation of aggression. I take it you are in favor of the initiation of aggression?
Click to expand...

what does that have anything to do with what I said? You do realize that that's not the ONLY thing libertarians stand for. And Honestly, libertarians need to work on their opposition of aggression, because I can point out many examples where it's not even being practiced. Just talking about how bad drugs are for you for instance within a group of libertarians will lead to punches being thrown
 
I consider myself an upstanding gentleman. I absolutely would legalize drugs if I could, along with a dozen other vices, but not because I do them. It goes further than just the straight libertarian mindset of letting people do what they want as long as they don't hurt others; most laws that force "morality" on others, cause much more pain for everyone involved. Anti-drug laws CAUSE drug addiction, just as other vice laws more than likely increase the problems with their respective vices.

But, to take a lesson from the other parties, we need the votes! I'll take every drug-user and every hedonist of all kinds, because they are votes. So, I say that it doesn't matter WHY they are attracted to libertarianism, it just matters that they vote and vote our way. A lot of libertarians seem to hold a little bit of a high-horse, elitist mind set about their party; I say they are the biggest hurdle to re-establishing libertarianism as a viable alternative to the other parties. If we went to every crack-den, every whorehouse, every rehab clinic, every sex club, and every other place where vice is found; and we told every one we found about voting libertarian, we'd be in the whitehouse in 2016.
 
ModerateGOP said:
what does that have anything to do with what I said?
Click to expand...

What does it have to do with what you said? You called libertarians crazies with a hypocritical philosophy. You displayed your disdain for the philosophy, and one of the two foundations of the philosophy is the non-aggression principal. Thus, I have to assume that you oppose the non-aggression principal, which would mean that you are in favor of the initiation of aggression.

You do realize that that's not the ONLY thing libertarians stand for.
Click to expand...

The non-aggression principal is one of the two major tenets of libertarianism. (The other is its system for determining ownership of resources.) So I'd say it's pretty important to the philosophy.

And Honestly, libertarians need to work on their opposition of aggression, because I can point out many examples where it's not even being practiced. Just talking about how bad drugs are for you for instance within a group of libertarians will lead to punches being thrown
Click to expand...

Everyone needs to work on their opposition to aggression, in my opinion.
 
Federalist said:
1.You called libertarians crazies with a hypocritical philosophy.
2. You displayed your disdain for the philosophy, and one of the two foundations of the philosophy is the non-aggression principal.
3. Thus, I have to assume that you oppose the non-aggression principal, which would mean that you are in favor of the initiation of aggression.
Click to expand...

1. They are.
2. I didn't mention the NAP. You did. I don't hear most libertarians talking about the NAP. Just you and a few others. I usually hear them talking about free markets, freedom to use drugs, and equal rights. These do not all fall under the NAP.
3. Haha in reality that makes no sense. you have to define aggression and the circumstances of each situation. I already had this conversation with you and I am not about to derail this thread to discuss it with you again.
 
ModerateGOP said:
1. They are.
Click to expand...

Hence my observation of your disdain for libertarianism.

2. I didn't mention the NAP. You did. I don't hear most libertarians talking about the NAP. Just you and a few others. I usually hear them talking about free markets, freedom to use drugs, and equal rights. These do not all fall under the NAP.
Click to expand...

Yes, all of those do fall under the NAP. Libertarians support the market because any alternative to the market involves an initiation of aggression. Libertarians support the freedom to use drugs because limiting that freedom would require the initiation of aggression. Libertarians support equal rights because violating someone's rights requires an initiation of aggression. All of these policies flow from the NAP.

3. Haha in reality that makes no sense. you have to define aggression and the circumstances of each situation. I already had this conversation with you and I am not about to derail this thread to discuss it with you again.
Click to expand...

From the Wikipedia article on the NAP:
Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.
Click to expand...
 
Federalist said:
Hence my observation of your disdain for libertarianism.
Click to expand...

My disdain for libertarians have nothing to do with the NAP. It has more to do with the crazies in their party. Just like I do not like the Tea Party. While I love their stance on fiscal responsibility the racist and religious nut jobs push me away. Though I think the NAP is hypocritical. As a libertarian you should realize that I have the freedom to believe that!
 
Federalist said:
Agreed. I don't agree with the opinion of the OP at all.
Click to expand...

I think you havent been looking around, then. I was involved in a thread recently where a half a dozen libertarians were criticizing Rand Paul for saying that smoking marijuana was bad. That's about as true as saying the sky is blue, but these guys were going nuts. So it's obvious that there is a very prevalent, very vocal element of drug aficionados in the libertarian party. I am not a fan of these guys.
 
I didn't get that message from Jesus.

If I offered you a job for a million dollars a year and you turned it down and had to go on welfare because your other plans didn't work out, would you blame me?

RabidAlpaca said:
I don't know what else to call someone that says "Do exactly what I tell you to or I'll torture you for all of eternity." I can think of no better way to describe a tyrant.
Click to expand...
 
JC Callender said:
I didn't get that message from Jesus.

If I offered you a job for a million dollars a year and you turned it down and had to go on welfare because your other plans didn't work out, would you blame me?
Click to expand...

No, because you did not put me in welfare. For god to be god, he is omnipotent, or all powerful. He created the universe and can change whatever he wants. He designed the system specifically, so that the punishment for not obeying is cast into eternal hellfire.

A more appropriate analogy would be me setting a bomb, but only telling 1 person about the bomb. The other people in the building that I didn't tell about the bomb will be blown to smithereens. And no matter how you rationalize it, I am the one who put the bomb there in the first place.

Does me telling that one person mean I'm not guilty? What if I told everyone and they didn't believe me so they decided to stay? I guess then it's their fault, right?
 
God is omnipotent, but can he make a stone that's too big for him to move? In other words, if he made everything perfect, we wouldn't know it as such because there would be no standard of good and bad to go off of. So he gave us free will, which I think is the best system, unless you can think of something better?

As far as not putting you on welfare, you're right, I didn't....you did. Just like you would choose with your free will to turn away from God.

Sorry, I don't understand your bomb analogy.

RabidAlpaca said:
No, because you did not put me in welfare. For god to be god, he is omnipotent, or all powerful. He created the universe and can change whatever he wants. He designed the system specifically, so that the punishment for not obeying is cast into eternal hellfire.

A more appropriate analogy would be me setting a bomb, but only telling 1 person about the bomb. The other people in the building that I didn't tell about the bomb will be blown to smithereens. And no matter how you rationalize it, I am the one who put the bomb there in the first place.

Does me telling that one person mean I'm not guilty? What if I told everyone and they didn't believe me so they decided to stay? I guess then it's their fault, right?
Click to expand...
 
JC Callender said:
God is omnipotent, but can he make a stone that's too big for him to move? In other words, if he made everything perfect, we wouldn't know it as such because there would be no standard of good and bad to go off of. So he gave us free will, which I think is the best system, unless you can think of something better?

As far as not putting you on welfare, you're right, I didn't....you did. Just like you would choose with your free will to turn away from God.

Sorry, I don't understand your bomb analogy.
Click to expand...

How can you not understand the analogy? I created a danger, then half-assed warned people of the danger. Those that then got hurt from ignoring my warnings have only themselves to blame right?

Free will does not mean the punishment should be eternal torture. He could've just as easily made the punishment a swift kick in the nuts, or 100 years of torture. Instead he chose to make it eternity.

By your logic, every tyrannical government in history wasn't tyrannical. People could always do what they wanted, free will, but they would have to suffer the extreme consequences imposed by their leaders.

Me looking at you and saying "If you don't do what I say, I'm going to shoot you in the face" is not free will on your part. It's me using my coercive power to manipulate you.
 
I think hell is probably meant for those who have been given a clear opportunity to understand God and have turned their back on him completely. If God is love, well then the alternative would obviously be something along the lines of hell.

The punishments in the Old Testament were temporary and severe and didn't do much good.

I don't see Jesus as a cruel and oppressive ruler. Love thy neighbor is a great rule to build a happy and peaceful society off of. I didn't see Hitler or Stalin offering anything like that up.

Gotta go, will catch up later if you reply. Good talk. :)



RabidAlpaca said:
How can you not understand the analogy? I created a danger, then half-assed warned people of the danger. Those that then got hurt from ignoring my warnings have only themselves to blame right?

Free will does not mean the punishment should be eternal torture. He could've just as easily made the punishment a swift kick in the nuts, or 100 years of torture. Instead he chose to make it eternity.

By your logic, every tyrannical government in history wasn't tyrannical. People could always do what they wanted, free will, but they would have to suffer the extreme consequences imposed by their leaders.

Me looking at you and saying "If you don't do what I say, I'm going to shoot you in the face" is not free will on your part. It's me using my coercive power to manipulate you.
Click to expand...
 
JC Callender said:
I think hell is probably meant for those who have been given a clear opportunity to understand God and have turned their back on him completely. If God is love, well then the alternative would obviously be something along the lines of hell.

The punishments in the Old Testament were temporary and severe and didn't do much good.

I don't see Jesus as a cruel and oppressive ruler. Love thy neighbor is a great rule to build a happy and peaceful society off of. I didn't see Hitler or Stalin offering anything like that up.

Gotta go, will catch up later if you reply. Good talk. :)
Click to expand...

1) Hell is meant for those who simply weren't christians and died. That is the only difference. It has nothing to do with denying god, or having opportunities. Can you prove, with evidence, that christianity is true and islam is false? How can you make the decision if you can't prove one over the other?

2) Do you believe god has the power to destroy hell? If so, why doesn't he? Why does he choose to pick the most sadistic punishment imaginable? I'm sorry, but that's NOT love.

3) Loving thy neighbor and being peaceful won't get you into heaven. You could be the nicest person on the planet, but if you weren't a christian, you'll be burning in hell right along side the child rapists.

There's nothing free-will about having a gun to your head.
 
Henrin said:
....

:no:
Click to expand...

Yes, freedom entails personal responsibility.

The fact that there are so many so-called libertarians who don't understand this fundamental concept is troublesome.
 
CriticalThought said:
Personal freedom does not inherently mean personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the mantra of self-indulgent Americans right now. It's all about the freedom to make their choice without understanding the consequences. That's why we are a nation of fatties who teach our kids that humans rode around on dinosaurs five thousand years ago. That's why gun nuts march into grocery stores with their loaded weapons and wonder why everyone is freaked out. Americans are enamored with their own freedom, but don't care very much for when they trample on others'. That's why people are actually arguing that legal SSM infringes on their religious liberty. Or why they think that their religious squeamishness is grounds to keep prostitution or drug use criminal.

We are a nation that loves freedom but despises responsibility.

Federalist said:
Libertarianism does attract decent, self-disciplined people.
Click to expand...

A few. And then a lot of selfish pricks.

Federalist said:
You have such disdain for those who oppose the initiation of aggression. I take it you are in favor of the initiation of aggression?
Click to expand...

And yet libertarianism is never willing to oppose all initiation of aggression. Just the aggression that is against the interests of the libertarians. Aggression against everybody else is just fine. It is an inherently selfish philosophy, and it goes hand in hand with the American desire for boundless liberty with no responsibility.

Guy Incognito said:
Yes, freedom entails personal responsibility.

The fact that there are so many so-called libertarians who don't understand this fundamental concept is troublesome.
Click to expand...

It is indeed. And that lack of understanding is what bends what could be a legitimate political point into a selfish tantrum. All freedom all the time and no responsibility to one's neighbors.
 
Paschendale said:
And yet libertarianism is never willing to oppose all initiation of aggression. Just the aggression that is against the interests of the libertarians. Aggression against everybody else is just fine.
Click to expand...

I don't agree, but feel free to provide examples of initiations of aggression that are supported by libertarians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom