Libertarianism=Anarchy.


BitWhys
#31
sole owner?

get off the internet then. it would have never happened without the public nickel that would have never been spent under a libertarian regime.

and read my initial post in the thread and respond to it before you accuse me of using generalizations.
 
Niflmir
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysView Post

sole owner?

Yes sole owner, and using that argument, I can easily make a case for taxes, just not income tax. For instance, gasoline needs to be taxed since its use is violent against the environment which causes harm to all people, without their consent. Cigarettes need to be taxed for the same reason.

You have no right to force smog into my body. Using gasoline, you do this against my will, the violence is small so the fine is small, but if the tax was not there you would be more liable to use gasoline.

The case for the internet and all sorts of other inventions is quite similar.
 
BitWhys
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Yes sole owner, and using that argument, I can easily make a case for taxes, just not income tax. For instance, gasoline needs to be taxed since its use is violent against the environment which causes harm to all people, without their consent. Cigarettes need to be taxed for the same reason.

You have no right to force smog into my body. Using gasoline, you do this against my will, the violence is small so the fine is small, but if the tax was not there you would be more liable to use gasoline.

The case for the internet and all sorts of other inventions is quite similar.

and this justifies the uncompromised libertarian position somehow?
 
Niflmir
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysView Post

and this justifies the uncompromised libertarian position somehow?

I really don't know what point you are trying to further. What is the uncompromised libertarian position? I thought this thread was supposed to be an explication about libertarian views, especially distinguishment from anarchism. I am pretty sure the one thing all libertarians would agree on is that each individual is the sole owner of their own life. I half absolutely no idea what views, position, or beliefs you are attributing to me.
 
BitWhys
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

...I am pretty sure the one thing all libertarians would agree on is that each individual is the sole owner of their own life...

that is not a uniquely libertarian attribute.
 
snfu73
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1View Post

Libertarians don't take personal responsiblity for their actions? Lack of accountability is what tears down society, not deciding to smoke cigarettes.

Huh?
 
snfu73
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by AvroView Post

Libertarians are selfish, greedy and anti social.

I wouldn't call them anarchists.

Well, I think in the end, the result is anarchy...the impression I get is that little government interference in peoples lives is what is demanded...the strong survive...and all that crap. So, that is where I get the anarchy from. If a libertarian society were to form, I see it being complete anarchy.
 
L Gilbert
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysView Post

Political-economic libertarians have a quaint way of not squaring ideology with reality in the political arena. Any minarchist worth his or her salt relies on the artifice of externalities to maintain the veneer of responsibility and expects a piece of paper to maintain the balance of power.

Minarchism is closer to classical liberalism than anything else although people call it a form of libertarianism.

I think that classical liberlism is what the US was founded on. (external - login to view) Perhaps they should have stuck with it. Canada, too, I think could have been better off with it than this modern liberalism.

www.politicalinformation.net/...Minarchism.htm (external - login to view)

Um, Switzerland is quite minarchist. The gov't there is only as big as the public lets it be. Been working for a few years now (since about 1850).
Last edited by L Gilbert; Mar 7th, 2007 at 02:35 AM..
 
L Gilbert
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

-qft

qft? queasy feeling in tummy? quaffing fine things?
 
L Gilbert
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Oh? >raises eyebrow< I think you know what I meant, but just in case, check out the dictionary (external - login to view). True, I probably used an incorrect article...

As for economic standings of libertarianism, I think that a lot of previous people had some real pie in the sky ideas about how much government involvement is necessary. Corporate deviancy is a fact, and an economic form of violence that the government needs to protect citizens from. The idea isn't "smallest government possible", that would be no government at all. The idea is "smallest government necessary", which amounts to saying that there are areas that the government doesn't need to be involved, like the bedroom.

Exactly.
 
L Gilbert
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysView Post

sole owner?
get off the internet then. it would have never happened without the public nickel that would have never been spent under a libertarian regime.
and read my initial post in the thread and respond to it before you accuse me of using generalizations.

I suppose you could prove we wouldn't have an internet without gov't money? You don't suppose someone or some people would have figured out how to link libraries, schools, businesses, etc. together eventually without the gov't sticking its nose in? Did governments start newspapers journals and magazines? Did they start telephones and radios?
 
L Gilbert
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

I really don't know what point you are trying to further. What is the uncompromised libertarian position? I thought this thread was supposed to be an explication about libertarian views, especially distinguishment from anarchism. I am pretty sure the one thing all libertarians would agree on is that each individual is the sole owner of their own life. I half absolutely no idea what views, position, or beliefs you are attributing to me.

I think Bitwhy wants gov't to be big enough to be able to wipe his a$$ for him instead of having to take responsibility for wiping his own a%%. It's called "nannyism". Gov't should take care of everyone like babies.
Either that or he doesn't have any idealism in him and is just critical of everything he doesn't like without recognizing the good aspects.
 
Niflmir
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I think Bitwhy wants gov't to be big enough to be able to wipe his a$$ for him instead of having to take responsibility for wiping his own a%%. It's called "nannyism". Gov't should take care of everyone like babies.
Either that or he doesn't have any idealism in him and is just critical of everything he doesn't like without recognizing the good aspects.

It does seem that any time your political philosophy can be summed up nicely in a sentence or so, there a thousand "realists" around to tell you that a better way of life isn't possible, as if we shouldn't even try.

But as for the sole ownership idea, Bitwhys, there are no other political philosophies that embrace that concept. Communism believes in utilitarianism, so nobody owns their own life really, if it isn't good for the whole. Conservatives as they stand now, are generally supportive of criminalizing classically stigmatized victimless crime. Liberals often have a bad view on taxes, such as taxing rich productive people more than unproductive people. Dictatorships of all forms believe that the dictator has ownership of the population. Democracy only says that all people should have a say in who governs them.

Any other bald assertions for me to defend against?
 
Niflmir
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by snfu73View Post

Well, I think in the end, the result is anarchy...the impression I get is that little government interference in peoples lives is what is demanded...the strong survive...and all that crap. So, that is where I get the anarchy from. If a libertarian society were to form, I see it being complete anarchy.

No, quite the opposite. The weak are strengthened because they are protected from undue influence. The government still exists, since it is necessary to deal with deviants who insist on unnecessary violence against their fellow man. If deviancy were not a fact, then you could use libertarian philosophy to suggest an anarchy and it would work in that case because there would be no violence amongst people. But our world is different.
 
Tonington
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

No, quite the opposite. The weak are strengthened because they are protected from undue influence. The government still exists, since it is necessary to deal with deviants who insist on unnecessary violence against their fellow man. If deviancy were not a fact, then you could use libertarian philosophy to suggest an anarchy and it would work in that case because there would be no violence amongst people. But our world is different.

Well said. Government essentially is control. I think that's the line between anarchism and libertarianism. An anarchist doesn't believe the government should have it and libertarians believe the government should have less.
 
Niflmir
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Well said. Government essentially is control. I think that's the line between anarchism and libertarianism. An anarchist doesn't believe the government should have it and libertarians believe the government should have less.

Thank you. I believe that libertarianism is a realistic philosophy that most people believe in anyways. Its just some nutjobs drew some wrong conclusions and now "a few bad apples spoiled the whole bunch." Laws are slowly coming around towards this view regardless.
 
Tonington
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by NiflmirView Post

Thank you. I believe that libertarianism is a realistic philosophy that most people believe in anyways. Its just some nutjobs drew some wrong conclusions and now "a few bad apples spoiled the whole bunch." Laws are slowly coming around towards this view regardless.

I agree for the most part. There probably are some people who want the government to have more control, but I'm tempted to assert that they'd probably be a minority of the population.

The prostitution laws are a good example. People want to work, but which jobs should be allowed as a profession by the government? Sex is legal so long as certain conditions are followed, apparently it's wrong to pay for it ( I personally never would, I mean I'll buy the drinks but....). So laws like paedophilia obviously need to be on the books, but classing sex trade workers as a deviant... I don't think so. Some people think sex=love, I say BS.
 
Niflmir
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

I agree for the most part. There probably are some people who want the government to have more control, but I'm tempted to assert that they'd probably be a minority of the population.

The prostitution laws are a good example. People want to work, but which jobs should be allowed as a profession by the government? Sex is legal so long as certain conditions are followed, apparently it's wrong to pay for it ( I personally never would, I mean I'll buy the drinks but....). So laws like paedophilia obviously need to be on the books, but classing sex trade workers as a deviant... I don't think so. Some people think sex=love, I say BS.

Haha, if you think about it like that, in the classical sense of dating (man pays), it amounts to basically the same thing as prostitution, only far more harmful for the woman. The woman has to provide relationship, and sexual services in order to get food, clothing, etc.

One of my friends likes to say of prostitutes: "You don't pay a prostitute for sex, you pay her to leave." Which basically means you see a prostitute when you don't want a long relationship, or complicated feelings.

Then there is the classic, I don't pay for water, air or sex. Of course, I think everyone pays for water in cities. You pay to have a well dug in the country. You pay taxes to enforce clean air bills. And it costs money to go on dates to meet people to have sex with.

Of course... that is completely off topic. Except perhaps as further justification for the morally neutral position of consensual prostitution.
 
BitWhys
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

...Um, Switzerland is quite minarchist...

Switzerland and Canada have nearly identical Tax-to-GDP ratios.
 
LittleRunningGag
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Minarchism is closer to classical liberalism than anything else although people call it a form of libertarianism.

I think that classical liberlism is what the US was founded on. (external - login to view) Perhaps they should have stuck with it. Canada, too, I think could have been better off with it than this modern liberalism.

www.politicalinformation.net/...Minarchism.htm (external - login to view)

Um, Switzerland is quite minarchist. The gov't there is only as big as the public lets it be. Been working for a few years now (since about 1850).

I always assumed that libertarianism was 'invented' in the US because the term liberal was corrupted by McArthyists into how it is used by the masses. Good to see that I was correct.
 
BitWhys
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysView Post

Switzerland and Canada have nearly identical Tax-to-GDP ratios.

so

what DO minarchists spend their money on, anyways? that's a swack of cash.
 
L Gilbert
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysView Post

Switzerland and Canada have nearly identical Tax-to-GDP ratios.

Switzerland has about a third of the crime Canada does per capita. There's more democracy practised in Switzerland than in Canada and Switzerland isn't even a democracy whereas Canada claims to be. Canada has more unemployment than Switzerland (especially youth unemployment). Canada has more strikes than Switzerland (workers there must be pretty happy). Switzerland doesn't have the illegal alien problems that Canada has. The Swiss have a waaaaaaay better healthcare system.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Mar 7th, 2007 at 05:18 PM..
 
L Gilbert
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysView Post

so

what DO minarchists spend their money on, anyways? that's a swack of cash.

This one spends it on treating the wife & kids, food, too many taxes, taxes on taxes, just got a snowblower for the tractor, rare woods sometimes, etc.
 
BitWhys
#54
speaking of unemployment, I'd hardly call mandatory military service a libertarian policy, nor minarchistic. you say you pay too much in taxes but the country you hold up as a model takes just as much of a cut from its citizenry. in some circles that's referred to as a double standard.
 
Said1
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Switzerland has about a third of the crime Canada does per capita. There's more democracy practised in Switzerland than in Canada and Switzerland isn't even a democracy whereas Canada claims to be. Canada has more unemployment than Switzerland (especially youth unemployment). Canada has more strikes than Switzerland (workers there must be pretty happy). Switzerland doesn't have the illegal alien problems that Canada has. The Swiss have a waaaaaaay better healthcare system.

Way smaller population, per capita incomes are compairable, though. It's easier to support smaller populations - crime rates tend to be lower in most cases too.
 
L Gilbert
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhysView Post

speaking of unemployment, I'd hardly call mandatory military service a libertarian policy, nor minarchistic. you say you pay too much in taxes but the country you hold up as a model takes just as much of a cut from its citizenry. in some circles that's referred to as a double standard.

Perhaps. But at least in Switzerland things are a bit more efficient for the buck. IOW, big gov't means big waste.
Um, wouldn't your population have to be relatively healthy to be militarily worthy? I would hardly consider Switzerland to be a threat to any other country nor would I think any other country would threaten it. So there must be a different motive behind having all the citizens do a couple weeks a year in the military, huh? Besides, it is only compulsory for males to be conscripted and the Swiss are pretty lax at that because in 1996 they began to allow the critters to do civilian service. And indeed there have been a couple referendums about whether to eliminate the military altogether or not.
 
Said1
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Perhaps. But at least in Switzerland things are a bit more efficient for the buck. IOW, big gov't means big waste.
Um, wouldn't your population have to be relatively healthy to be militarily worthy? I would hardly consider Switzerland to be a threat to any other country nor would I think any other country would threaten it. So there must be a different motive behind having all the citizens do a couple weeks a year in the military, huh? Besides, it is only compulsory for males to be conscripted and the Swiss are pretty lax at that because in 1996 they began to allow the critters to do civilian service. And indeed there have been a couple referendums about whether to eliminate the military altogether or not.

A large portion of Euro countries have mandatory conscription.
  • 2 Countries with mandatory military service (external - login to view)
    • 2.1 Austria (external - login to view)
    • 2.2 Belarus (external - login to view)
    • 2.3 Bermuda (external - login to view)
    • 2.4 Brazil (external - login to view)
    • 2.5 Bulgaria (external - login to view)
    • 2.6 Chile (external - login to view)
    • 2.7 China (PRC) (external - login to view)
    • 2.8 Croatia (external - login to view)
    • 2.9 Cyprus (external - login to view)
    • 2.10 Denmark (external - login to view)
    • 2.11 Egypt (external - login to view)
    • 2.12 Eritrea (external - login to view)
    • 2.13 Finland (external - login to view)
    • 2.14 Germany (external - login to view)
    • 2.15 Greece (external - login to view)
    • 2.16 Iran (external - login to view)
    • 2.17 Israel (external - login to view)
    • 2.18 Korea, South (external - login to view)
    • 2.19 Malaysia (external - login to view)
    • 2.20 Mexico (external - login to view)
    • 2.21 Norway (external - login to view)
    • 2.22 Poland (external - login to view)
    • 2.23 Russia (external - login to view)
    • 2.24 Serbia (external - login to view)
    • 2.25 Singapore (external - login to view)
    • 2.26 Sweden (external - login to view)
    • 2.27 Switzerland (external - login to view)
    • 2.28 Taiwan (ROC) (external - login to view)
    • 2.29 Turkey (external - login to view)
    • 2.30 Ukraine (external - login to view)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service
 
L Gilbert
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1View Post

Way smaller population, per capita incomes are compairable, though. It's easier to support smaller populations - crime rates tend to be lower in most cases too.

The crime stats I had in mind were per capita. Dominica has a lotta crime, it's smaller than both Canada and Switzerland. Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, etc. are smaller than Switzerland yet have more crime. If one wants to talk about dictatorships, dictators don't usually like crime unless it's they who are doing it, in which case, it isn't really considered crme.
 
L Gilbert
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1View Post

A large portion of Euro countries have mandatory conscription.

Yeah. So? This says Switzerland isn't efficient for a country with small gov't? Or it means that big gov't is the way to go?
 
L Gilbert
#60
Funny. Looks like people that argue so much against small gov't don't mind gov't encroaching on their freedoms and liberties.
 

Similar Threads

1
Where History Happened: The Anarchy
by Blackleaf | Feb 21st, 2010
34
Spiritual Anarchy
by Cliffy | Jan 25th, 2009
15
Peace, Love and Anarchy
by Haggis McBagpipe | Nov 12th, 2004
no new posts