Libertarianism - What's the appeal?

[Keevan_Colton]

You do realize that you're just reading off the US constitution there and pretending it's the basis of western law and government...but, quite apart from that I specifically said "inalienable human rights", STUFF is not an inalienable right.

[Rogue 9]

I rattled off the relevant parts of the Bill of Rights because it's conveniently at hand, but the idea is a British one, originating with John Locke. It was adapted by Thomas Jefferson for the Declaration of Independence, used as the basis of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and enshrined in the very bedrock of American law. This is the basis of laws against trespass and nuisance, theft (obviously), arson, vandalism, and any other property crime one can name. Unless you mean to tell me that your average Western European government has the power to arbitrarily search and seize property without due process or compensation and has no property crimes, which I find highly doubtful, the idea is still there whether there's a bill of rights spelling it out or not.

[brianeyci]

Owning property is not a human right Rogue 9. Deal with it.

What's fucking worse with this legalistic appeal to bullshit is you don't even understand what a gift your life is. In fact, it could be argued that no matter how bad things get, you are already reaping benefits beyond that of most human beings. Your 8.63 an hour job? Why the fuck did you bring it up at all, there's people making far less than you in Africa who can barely survive. If some world government decided to redistribute wealth in its entirety and it ended up they seized your assets, it's entirely possible you would lose property. This isn't to mean I find this desirable or even possible, but to show you that what you have now, everything, all of it, is owed to someone else. It's entirely possible that you owe more than you can ever pay. Therefore, libertarianism is against your own interests and you're a fucking moron for believing it. Deal with it.

Pooling resources is more efficient; to a libertarian's mode of thinking, the pooling of resources should be voluntary.

Wrong. Taxes are involuntary. Saying you are a less extreme form of libertarian doesn't dodge the fact that taxes violate libertarianism's basic tenent of pay for what you use. Taxes don't violate a fringe principle of libertarianism or even a sidenote. They violate its fundamental base. Let me ask you a question. Do you or do you not agree that libertarianism's overriding principle is pay for what you use, and that such a principle is cruel?

In any case, no, I don't have much objection to socialized healthcare on principle.

You don't because you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The logical consequence of praising individual worth over collective worth is selfishness and an undesire to pay for healthcare for someone who is sick if you are not sick yourself. Deal with it.

I'm concerned about the execution of it as handled by a government that can't even keep track of multiple billions of dollars of its own finances, but that's completely off the topic.

Then why do you mention it? That's right, you're a weasel and insinuating a government healthcare program would be a waste of money, without having the balls to come out and say it because you know people will call you on the bullshit.

Using the terms large and small government to describe more or less power held by the government is fairly common terminology.

Then why do libertarians want to fire half the fucking government and decry the size of it? Why do libertarians want to fire the entire army (scroll up to Lus's point about firing the army for nukes)? Size is a word defined in the dictionary asshole. Might as well say when I talk about super star destroyer size I'm really talking about its firepower and not its actual, you know, size. It also took you two or three posts to reply with this I really meant power and not size crap so I don't believe you when you say you really meant power. If you really meant power, what the fuck was the point of saying a smaller Japanese government wouldn't have the authority aka power? That's right, you never intended to use size as a synonym for power... until now when you moved your weasel goapost.

[brianeyci]

It's an extremely uncomfortable thought for people like Rogue 9 who have a difficult life that they possibly owe more than they can ever pay back. So they decry taxes and deductions on their payroll stub and believe that libertarianism would let them keep more of their hard earned paycheque. What they don't want to accept or even consider is it's entirely possible that they can never, ever pay back what they owe back to society, and that if libertarianism went its full route, the benefits he currently enjoys or enjoyed would be stripped.

The saddest part is when a person gets tricked into believing something that's against his own interests. Rogue 9 believes libertarianism would help him out, let him keep the small paycheque he already has, but rich fucks are sitting on their ass on leather seats laughing their way to the bank. A more libertarian society would mean rich fucks would keep what they already have, and not participate in wealth redistribution which would help Rogue 9, but he's too stupid or small minded to see how the system really works.

Even if Rogue 9 believes in a less extreme form of libertarianism, the result is undeniable: wealth redistribution from rich fucks to him would help him, and wealth redistribution is the antithesis of libertarianism. Conclusion? Rogue 9 is a retard.

[SirNitram]

I rattled off the relevant parts of the Bill of Rights because it's conveniently at hand, but the idea is a British one, originating with John Locke. It was adapted by Thomas Jefferson for the Declaration of Independence, used as the basis of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and enshrined in the very bedrock of American law. This is the basis of laws against trespass and nuisance, theft (obviously), arson, vandalism, and any other property crime one can name. Unless you mean to tell me that your average Western European government has the power to arbitrarily search and seize property without due process or compensation and has no property crimes, which I find highly doubtful, the idea is still there whether there's a bill of rights spelling it out or not.

You're an idiot. The concept of no arbitrary search and seizure has nothing to do with property rights and everything to do with rights of the accused. Locke? You're gonna quote philosophers? How about realizing you've invoked the one behind the idea of social contract, antithesis of Libertarianism and your 'Right to property' nonsense?

[Rogue 9]

Owning property is not a human right Rogue 9. Deal with it.

So you're saying what, that theft is perfectly moral? Perhaps I should have phrased it better; allow me to amend that to the right to pursue and be secure in one's property, since simply saying that property is a right implies that property should not have to be earned. In any case, I seriously doubt you would be okay with it if someone decided to come take your possessions away on the basis that you have no right to them.

What's fucking worse with this legalistic appeal to bullshit is you don't even understand what a gift your life is. In fact, it could be argued that no matter how bad things get, you are already reaping benefits beyond that of most human beings. Your 8.63 an hour job? Why the fuck did you bring it up at all, there's people making far less than you in Africa who can barely survive.

I brought it up because I was essentially forced to; Illuminatus Primus told a direct (and unintentional) falsehood about my personal situation, so I corrected him. That is as far as that goes. I wasn't trying to garner sympathy, make an argument, or do anything else beyond correct his misperception. Now fucking let it drop.

If some world government decided to redistribute wealth in its entirety and it ended up they seized your assets, it's entirely possible you would lose property. This isn't to mean I find this desirable or even possible, but to show you that what you have now, everything, all of it, is owed to someone else. It's entirely possible that you owe more than you can ever pay. Therefore, libertarianism is against your own interests and you're a fucking moron for believing it. Deal with it.

Well then it's a good thing I'm not a Libertarian, eh? Apart from that, there are reasons beyond pure self-interest to hold to a given political philosophy; I believe what I do on principle, not because it's of most benefit to me. If everything I did was the end result of a cost/benefit analysis geared towards my own profit, then I'd be a hell of a lot better off; I have in the past flatly refused to seek government assistance when I was entitled to it on the basis that I didn't need to be a drain on the system when I could support myself. For me, this is not about me; it's about principle. If you can't conceive of that, then maybe you need to reconsider your assessment of who's selfish here.

Pooling resources is more efficient; to a libertarian's mode of thinking, the pooling of resources should be voluntary.

Wrong. Taxes are involuntary.

Well no fucking shit. That doesn't mean I'm wrong in outlining the Libertarian position on what should be (which is different from my position on what should be), which is entirely different from what is. For the last fucking time, I gladly pay my taxes because I wish to support the functioning of my government, which is ultimately beneficial to all concerned, even though a lot of the time the money could be spent in better ways. I do not have a problem with paying my taxes. Now fuck off and stop insinuating that I do.

Saying you are a less extreme form of libertarian doesn't dodge the fact that taxes violate libertarianism's basic tenent of pay for what you use. Taxes don't violate a fringe principle of libertarianism or even a sidenote. They violate its fundamental base. Let me ask you a question. Do you or do you not agree that libertarianism's overriding principle is pay for what you use, and that such a principle is cruel?

I disagree on both counts. Paying for what one uses is a side effect of pure libertarian philosophies, not the main goal in itself. For those who hold to such an ideal, the answer is charity. And given that the population of the United States is, per capita, the most generous in the world when it comes to giving money to charity (and the Libertarian line goes that with less taxation people would have more and be inclined to give more), this might have some merit to it. I'm not idealistic enough to rely on that, though, which is why I support government-funded healthcare.

In any case, no, I don't have much objection to socialized healthcare on principle.

You don't because you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The logical consequence of praising individual worth over collective worth is selfishness and an undesire to pay for healthcare for someone who is sick if you are not sick yourself. Deal with it.

I love how you magically know my motives better than I do. Perhaps you could give me some insight into how you garner your wisdom, oh great one?

I'm concerned about the execution of it as handled by a government that can't even keep track of multiple billions of dollars of its own finances, but that's completely off the topic.

Then why do you mention it? That's right, you're a weasel and insinuating a government healthcare program would be a waste of money, without having the balls to come out and say it because you know people will call you on the bullshit.

I'm mentioning it because otherwise you'll keep going on about it, and it seems you'll keep going on about it anyway. So in case I wasn't clear enough the first time, my reservations are entirely due to a well-founded concern that the United States government would bungle the program like it does so many other high-cost programs including *gasp* its current primary healthcare program. I want it done, but I want it done right.

Using the terms large and small government to describe more or less power held by the government is fairly common terminology.

Then why do libertarians want to fire half the fucking government and decry the size of it? Why do libertarians want to fire the entire army (scroll up to Lus's point about firing the army for nukes)? Size is a word defined in the dictionary asshole. Might as well say when I talk about super star destroyer size I'm really talking about its firepower and not its actual, you know, size. It also took you two or three posts to reply with this I really meant power and not size crap so I don't believe you when you say you really meant power. If you really meant power, what the fuck was the point of saying a smaller Japanese government wouldn't have the authority aka power? That's right, you never intended to use size as a synonym for power... until now when you moved your weasel goapost.

Fuck you, I've been using it as a synonym for power for the entire thread. Big government and small government are common terms for powerful and weak governments, and I was using them in that sense. If you're too fucking stupid to realize that, then that's hardly my problem. Besides, your own example proves I was using the terms in that way: If I meant that a Japanese government with lower membership wouldn't have the authority to force revisionism in education, the response would rightly be "Huh?" The context of that very example clearly demonstrates that I meant power.

As for the second post you made while I was typing the above, you can just fuck off. I don't want to take other peoples' money. I fully realize that a total wealth redistribution program would ultimately be to my financial benefit (until the fact that nobody would have enough money to maintain business operations began to set in, which would crash the economy practically overnight), but such an act would be totally unjust, and I would have no part in it.

[The Yosemite Bear]

hey mike I've written to the Govenator, as well as my congressman, Senator, and #1 & #2. of which Ahhhnuld, Boxer, and Feinstine actually bother to send responses even if it's only an intern answering the Email.

as for my congressman...
giving a tour of the area's of private land surrounding the Park. Ok this is owned by the Radovich family, this is the hotel that used to employ Stayner (the Serial Killer) and it's owned by the radovichs, This Hotel, all the other Hotels, the Hostel, Both Pharmacies, the Grocery Store, This was a cool store but it got closed when the Radovich's raised the rent...

wait what's not owned by the Congressman's family.

Me: you remember those old westerns where one guy owns everything in the town except for that little farm.

Yeah.

John Wayne never made it to Mariposia California

[Adrian Laguna]

The following post is not really an answer to the quoted post, it's barely related. He's asking why Americans mindlessly worship things, and I'm saying why two of those things are worthy of respect. However, I really wanted to say this, since I feel it contributes to the discussion, and I can't think of how else to join in.

Why are Americans so fond of worshipping things? If it's not the Bible, it's your Constitution, or your Founding Fathers, or some kind of absolutist political doctrine like "the free market is always superior". It's as if you careen from one philosophical obsession to another.

The Constitution and Declaration of Independence get a lot of respect by people outside the United States. I, for one, was a big fan of them before I even moved here. They made a big impression on the French Revolutionaries. Ho Chi Min wrote a declaration of independence for Vietnam based of he American one. Granted I've never thought it was perfect, nothing really is, but I think it is a great role model on how to run a democratic government.

The case of the Founding Fathers is hardly unique, every country lionizes the people who lead them to independence. In Turkey it's The Great Turk, in Argentina it's San Martin, in Colombia it's Bolivar. As for the Framers (who I suspect you also referred to), I find them great visionaries who managed to, through a mixture of systems that'd been proven to work and some idealism, create a government system that's stood for 200 years. The trick, I think, is both extensive flexibility in the document and their focus on means rather than ends. "This is how the government will run," they said, "and through this government, the people shall build whatever society they desire." A big problem in the United States is that people lose sight of that. The Constitution becomes the ends rather than the means. The most egregious example is prohibition, what does that have to do with how government runs? Absolutely nothing. And yet there it is, enshrined in the Constitution forever, along with the correction of said mistake three amendments down.

[brianeyci]

Owning property is not a human right Rogue 9. Deal with it.

So you're saying what, that theft is perfectly moral? Perhaps I should have phrased it better; allow me to amend that to the right to pursue and be secure in one's property, since simply saying that property is a right implies that property should not have to be earned. In any case, I seriously doubt you would be okay with it if someone decided to come take your possessions away on the basis that you have no right to them.

Of course not. But at the same time I don't consider playing Bioshock to be a human right or the "right to drive" to be a human right. Grow a fucking brain.

I brought it up because I was essentially forced to; Illuminatus Primus told a direct (and unintentional) falsehood about my personal situation, so I corrected him. That is as far as that goes. I wasn't trying to garner sympathy, make an argument, or do anything else beyond correct his misperception. Now fucking let it drop.

What? I didn't see fucking shit, and if he put in one throwaway line about the parents taking away computer that deserves one line back. You seemed to take it personal for some fucking reason. You even mentioned you work just like that other libertarian douche in the other thread who kept mentioning he was busy.

Well then it's a good thing I'm not a Libertarian, eh? Apart from that, there are reasons beyond pure self-interest to hold to a given political philosophy; I believe what I do on principle, not because it's of most benefit to me. If everything I did was the end result of a cost/benefit analysis geared towards my own profit, then I'd be a hell of a lot better off; I have in the past flatly refused to seek government assistance when I was entitled to it on the basis that I didn't need to be a drain on the system when I could support myself. For me, this is not about me; it's about principle. If you can't conceive of that, then maybe you need to reconsider your assessment of who's selfish here.

You're pretty fucking dumb. There's rich fat fucks who don't do anything all day laughing their way to the bank. Just because you're on government assistance or refused it doesn't make you any better than the rest. Ever think you could take that money and spend your time better than at a shit job and go to a two year technical school or get a trade? But no, you let the right wing propaganda about welfare bums get in your way. I feel sorry for you.

Well no fucking shit. That doesn't mean I'm wrong in outlining the Libertarian position on what should be (which is different from my position on what should be), which is entirely different from what is. For the last fucking time, I gladly pay my taxes because I wish to support the functioning of my government, which is ultimately beneficial to all concerned, even though a lot of the time the money could be spent in better ways. I do not have a problem with paying my taxes. Now fuck off and stop insinuating that I do.

It's not an insinuation. If you're defending the libertarian premise then you must have a problem with taxes, either high taxes or taxes entirely. If you are not, then what the fuck are you defending in the first place? This isn't a personal attack, it's pointing out a flaw in your logic. If you are defending libertarian premises then you don't like taxes and if you like taxes and are somewhat libertarian then you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I disagree on both counts. Paying for what one uses is a side effect of pure libertarian philosophies, not the main goal in itself. For those who hold to such an ideal, the answer is charity. And given that the population of the United States is, per capita, the most generous in the world when it comes to giving money to charity (and the Libertarian line goes that with less taxation people would have more and be inclined to give more), this might have some merit to it. I'm not idealistic enough to rely on that, though, which is why I support government-funded healthcare.

Oh no, the charity principle. People are selfish fucks and we need a system in place to force them to help the weak. Even unintentionally, they can be selfish fucks. The US being the most generous in the world is meaningless given it has one of the highest income per capita in the world, so they have more they can donate more. Bill Gates doesn't live in Africa.

You don't because you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The logical consequence of praising individual worth over collective worth is selfishness and an undesire to pay for healthcare for someone who is sick if you are not sick yourself. Deal with it.

I love how you magically know my motives better than I do. Perhaps you could give me some insight into how you garner your wisdom, oh great one?

It's not a personal attack: it's a logical consequence of libertarianism. Many libertarians don't support healthcare (using the word socialized in America is a perjorative did you know that?) and it's because they're more logically consistent than you, fence sitter. If you're too stupid to see the logic then that's your fault. You can't just handwave your illogic away by saying you're not a libertarian when you believe in libertarian principles.

I'm mentioning it because otherwise you'll keep going on about it, and it seems you'll keep going on about it anyway. So in case I wasn't clear enough the first time, my reservations are entirely due to a well-founded concern that the United States government would bungle the program like it does so many other high-cost programs including *gasp* its current primary healthcare program. I want it done, but I want it done right.

So where is the logic behind your belief that the government will bungle healthcare as much as other programs? In Canada there was a corruption scandal that brought down the government a couple years back. Does that mean Canada's government can't run healthcare? Have you even looked at Medicaid and how much it would fucking cost, rather than your anti-government anti-bureaucracy crap? Well founded my ass. Vague and completely misunderstanding how government works more like it.

Fuck you, I've been using it as a synonym for power for the entire thread. Big government and small government are common terms for powerful and weak governments, and I was using them in that sense. If you're too fucking stupid to realize that, then that's hardly my problem. Besides, your own example proves I was using the terms in that way: If I meant that a Japanese government with lower membership wouldn't have the authority to force revisionism in education, the response would rightly be "Huh?" The context of that very example clearly demonstrates that I meant power.

No, you really believe that less people in government would make for less power like other libertarian dumbasses. This is entirely besides the point. If you want less powerful government, what is the criteria for less powerful government? Why use the words small or large at all? To hint at overwhelming red tape, bureaucracy and so on. Stats countered immediately with the example of half the economy of certain nations and you kept harping on size and other bullcrap.

As for the second post you made while I was typing the above, you can just fuck off. I don't want to take other peoples' money. I fully realize that a total wealth redistribution program would ultimately be to my financial benefit (until the fact that nobody would have enough money to maintain business operations began to set in, which would crash the economy practically overnight), but such an act would be totally unjust, and I would have no part in it.

You don't want to "take" other people's money because you've been had. You've been tricked into believing this "fruits of my labor" bullshit, into believing that fatasses smoking cubans and driving SUV's has any benefit for the greater good. You would benefit from wealth redistribution, and indeed, so would most people in your position, and corporate fat cats can afford to pay ten bucks an hour and still not go broke. But you've been too stupid to see it. You don't need total wealth redistribution: you only need to support some, which is directly counter to the libertarian philosophy. How many times do I have to mention that libertarianism isn't in your best interests or the best interests of mankind before it sinks in your head you've been grifted?

Face it you've been had you dumb shit, from believing that going on welfare is something to be ashamed of rather than taking advantage of it to retrain yourself, to believing forcing corporate fat cats to pay more of their share to society is somehow bad for you. Deal with it.

[K. A. Pital]

As for the Framers (who I suspect you also referred to), I find them great visionaries who managed to, through a mixture of systems that'd been proven to work and some idealism, create a government system that's stood for 200 years.

Holy fuck! 200 years! Any 1000-year Empire would laugh at that argument - not that I suggest an Empire as a superior social structure - but argument from length of existence isn't flying. A better example would be "a government system superior to the existing at the time". Nothing more, nothing less.

[K. A. Pital]

And to all charity fuckers - how many of your corporate fat-asses would have given a single penny to the poor, were charity donations not used to get tax breaks? I'm not exactly familiar with the US system, but here, charity donations get massive tax breaks, which inclines the fatcat to pursue them for their own profit.

It's, essentially, another form of tax, but less effective than the tax itself, since the fatcat obviously has less expense to pay charity than to pay his tax without it, achieving a profit that stimulates his "charity".

If the US system is different, that still doesn't really help. Voluntary "charity" can't provide for millions of disenfranchised. Capitalists don't even want to pay for worker re-education if there is available labour in some other place/factory/city, why do you think they would pay for totally disenfranchised who can't work? That's right, they would not. They would gradually cut down expenditures as means of cutting costs, until the elderly finally find themselves without pensions and the sick without healthcare.

[Adrian Laguna]

Holy fuck! 200 years! Any 1000-year Empire would laugh at that argument - not that I suggest an Empire as a superior social structure - but argument from length of existence isn't flying. A better example would be "a government system superior to the existing at the time". Nothing more, nothing less.

It's an indicator of stability, and more than that, ability to deal with adverse circumstances.

[K. A. Pital]

It's an indicator of stability, and more than that, ability to deal with adverse circumstances.

Once again, empires existed for thousands of years. 200 years is not a high record for continous governments, even for those still around (British, eh?), in fact, that's about the least about which democratic mechanism could boast. It's strength is technical superiority of political process, not a longer history of existence.