Libertarianism=Anarchy.
- Thread starter snfu73
- Start date
Oh? >raises eyebrow< I think you know what I meant, but just in case, check out the dictionary. 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.
Certainly, we could use a little bit of Libertarian think in Canada. We are smothered by regulation. I'm not sure what can be done to lift the weight. Every year new bylaws come into effect locally and new legislative initiatives appear in parliament. We are not the democracy many hoped we might become. Government is far too big a player in our lives. But how do you subdue the beast?
Any attempt to exercise fiscal prudence and government restraint advised from a libertarian point of view is bound to be off-target since the underlying assumptions of that particular school of thought are inherently flawed. The good news is that contrary to many a libertarian sentiment they don't hold the monopoly in those disciplines.
There are plenty of libertarians in the US do exactly that. Seeing the Constitution as a sort of 'social contract', they wish to limit the government to the very basics of what is listed therein. Unfortunately, Canadian libertarians don't have that luxury. On the other hand, many American libertarians also view taxation as a form of violent theft disputing the validity of that particular ammendment.
Why? Because they advocate that people take responsibilty for their actions? Libertarians wan't people to give to charities to lighten the load on the impoverished. They want to help others. They just don't like being forced (read: with the threat of publicly supported violence) into it.
All libertarians want is to be allowed to make their own decisions, not forced into them because a politician figures they could win votes by doing it.
Unfortunately the left, while advocating social freedom, is the same group that advocates for hate speech laws, and the ballooning of government services. And the right, while advocating fiscal freedom, is the same group that uses religion, and 'national security' to justify taking away those same social freedoms.
And both groups justify their violent oppression by saying that this is what people voted for. Publicly endorced violent enforcement of unneccessary laws and social programs. Nice.
To attack a whole political spectrum like that with a blanket generalization is simply absurd. Replace libertarian in your sentences with left or right, democratic or dictatorial or whatever you like and the absurdity of the statement may be a bit more obvious.
The real good news is that the libertarian core view leads to a plethora of possibilities based on the interpretation of the principle of a person being the sole owner of their own life. That underlying assumption is self proving. What that fact leads you to conclude is another matter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Perhaps they should have stuck with it. Canada, too, I think could have been better off with it than this modern liberalism.
http://www.politicalinformation.net/encyclopedia/Minarchism.htm
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: