Why Libertarianism is Better Than That Other Crap

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ECUBiBoy, Oct 23, 2010.

  1. ECUBiBoy

    ECUBiBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    104
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Greenville, NC
  2. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    not the soundest exposition, but in the right direction

    we applaud the questioning and exploration of alternatives
     
  3. slurper_la

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    5,378
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    726
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Los Angeles (CA, US)
    pure dribble
     
  4. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    No political affiliation is better than the other if the faces representing it do nothing but spout ideological nonsense while imposing a bigoted, discriminative or oppressive social agenda. And no, basing your loyalties on who has the most money doesn't cut it.
     
  5. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    lolol


    Interesting ethos; Every man is an island expected to live by a code of honor and mutual trust and respect... Well, except corporatists. They can do whatever they damn well please to control the lives of millions, and it's a-ok.


    Reminds me of an old adage I heard somewhere along the way... Simple minds can only understand simple solutions.
     
    #5 B_talltpaguy, Oct 23, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2010
  6. D_Myer_Dogasflees

    D_Myer_Dogasflees New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    3
    well read Ayn Rand's books, virtue of selfishness for one, people usually associate her movement with Libetarianism. Makes sense, probably the only one which does. It's to the point, no cultural/right-wing/left-wing bird-brains. read Virtue of Selfishness. great book!
     
  7. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    I'd rather associate people as individuals first. Alas, we've all grown dependent on these divisive labels & titles because treating people on a solitary basis would be getting too personal and we can't do that. :rolleyes: :wink:
     
  8. ECUBiBoy

    ECUBiBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    104
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Greenville, NC
    I think it's simple minds who go along with our current system. It's the sheeple who think government interference is the right way to do things as opposed to cooperation and rule of law (rule of law, not rule of people/tyrants).
     
  9. ECUBiBoy

    ECUBiBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    104
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Greenville, NC
    ^^Agreed. This should be done ethically, socially, and epistemologically. The Austrian school covers the latter by asserting the individual as the only worthwhile unit of analysis. The collectivists out there (Keynesians, Marxists) want you to think of everything in terms of "class" or "aggregate demand." That's "pure dribble."
     
  10. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,390
    Likes Received:
    2,130
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    And that's been the conservative rocket fuel since Ronald Reagan. There are no complex issues. There are simple brute force answers to every problem.

    In it's purest form dribble.

    Libertarian Paradise
     
    #10 sargon20, Oct 23, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2010
  11. ECUBiBoy

    ECUBiBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    104
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Greenville, NC
    I'm not a Randian, so I'm not sure why there is so much emphasis on refuting her claims. My views are more in line with Murray Rothbard, who was far more critical of the state than Rand. As a matter of fact, Rothbard made a brief play, poking fun at objectivism. It's called Mozart was a Red.

    Some of these attacks on libertarianism are pretty lame. Nobody's talking about over-night revolutions or anything like that. We should recnognize that the state is a group of self-satisfying crooks and that our only chance and recovering our economy is by minimizing the damage inflcting by these crooks. Why in the world would anyone still trust the nonsense (much of it, very mindlessly utopian) that comes from the Republicans, Democrats, and Palinite Tea-Partiers? They're all charlatans. They all believe the same things.
     
  12. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    And the Libertarians you'd rather see in Congress are also politicians who can't be thoroughly trusted. The key word here is politician, and they are that FIRST regardless of any adjective one uses to reflect a social ideology you adapt to. As for other political ideologies being "mindlessly Utopian"... while it's easy to ridicule anyone's ideal way of life as being unachievable, what makes you think a completely Libertarian paradise would be anymore obtainable knowing that you still have to put your trust towards power hungry politicians, whose main objective is to look out for themselves and their buddies, to make it happen?
     
    #13 B_VinylBoy, Oct 23, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2010
  13. D_Myer_Dogasflees

    D_Myer_Dogasflees New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    3
    " "The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens. Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment. Whether his neighbors’ intentions are good or bad, whether their judgment is rational or irrational, whether they are motivated by a sense of justice or by ignorance or by prejudice or by malice-the use of force against one man cannot be left to the arbitrary decision of another.
    Visualize, for example, what would happen if a man missed his wallet, concluded that he had been robbed, broke into every house in the neighborhood to search it, and shot the first man who gave him a dirty look, taking the look to be a proof of guilt.
    The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas.
    If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
    " -Ayn Rand
    The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: "The Nature of Government", by Ayn Rand
     
    #14 D_Myer_Dogasflees, Oct 23, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2010
  14. ECUBiBoy

    ECUBiBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    104
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Greenville, NC
    ^^I don't think utopian paradises are obtainable (at least not any time soon). I believe that anarcho-capitalism is the greatest ideal, but I hardly think we have to have it tomorrow. My focus is on reducing the size and scope of the state, not pursuing ideals. It's akin to a football coach focusing on one game at a time.

    As far as politicians are concerned, I don't trust any of them either. There are plenty of beltway libertarians who are traitors to their cause. Because of this, I don't worry about elections all that much. I emphasize discussion and getting the right ideas out there. Personally, I don't think libertarians are likely to be successful by playing within the system. With the exception of Ron Paul, this has not worked at all. We should breakdown the system and show people what a sham this mob rule setup really is.
     
  15. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    WTF kind of sociopath are you?

    What's 2nd place on your list? Genocidal fascism?
     
  16. bananaclubcock

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    197
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    14
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Eastern U.S.
    I agreed with about 20% of the video, mostly the parts that highlight very particular flaws in our current system. But much of it was utopian and idealistic. I can never shake the sense that Libertarians, like Communists or other radicals, imagine that there narrow philosophy is "the one true faith". Again, I think pointing to very particular flaws is very helpful. But I always roll my eyes when a movement invokes it's sacred texts.

    One think I'd like from a bunch of Rothbard-followers is acknowledgement that they had a big falling out with the Koch's and much of what know passes as 'Libertarian' isn't the quasi-anarchic ideas of yore, but rather simple corporatism.

    ECUBiBoy, if you really are in Goldsboro, do you like Scott's Barbecue? As to their sauce, I think "it's the best ye' ever tasted".
     
  17. D_Myer_Dogasflees

    D_Myer_Dogasflees New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    3
    just believe that it's better to believe in whats proven and logical, even if the system is a bit ruckus for a while, they argue it out, find and isolate the errors, this is the only and best way solve problems and this is the only way we could learn, and gain new footing too,. the other two 'right-wing' and 'left-wing', have more to do with how society groups themselves (they can't and won't develop), rather than a true philosophy, both have good opinons and both have bad ones, it's those opinions that are relavant. the libertarians are the only ones who get to the point rather than market either left or right.
    What was Jefferson?

    build up votes for libertarians
     
    #18 D_Myer_Dogasflees, Oct 23, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2010
  18. wallyj84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,751
    Likes Received:
    689
    That video was stupid.
     
  19. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    "...The Founders, the most progressive of them included, did believe in limited government. The question for us today: Why? http://www.toomuchonline.org/art_2010/securing.jpgToday’s conservatives don’t bother with that question. For good reason, as historian James Huston explained over a decade ago in his still timely epic, Securing the Fruits of Labor: The American Concept of Wealth Distribution 1765-1900. The Founders believed in “limited government” because they wanted to limit what today’s conservatives celebrate: the concentration of wealth.
    America’s revolutionaries had read their history. Every previous attempt to establish republican rule, they knew from that history, had failed. Athens. Rome. Venice. Florence. The cause of that failure, as the Founders came to see it: a deep and divisive maldistribution of wealth...."

    Did the Founders Want Government Small? | OurFuture.org

    Besides the Founding Fathers, Emerson also recognized that the concentration of wealth was inimical to democracy.

    Just consider what the high profile lib leader (Obama), and the Obama Supreme Court, aided and abetted by the ACLU, is attempting to do, by strengthening the power and position of large international corporations, and expanding the power, control, and influence of this corporate, big government complex over the life of every individual, to the point of domination, and the case for the Tea Party movement and libertarianism becomes ever so compelling.
     
    #20 B_Nick4444, Oct 23, 2010
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2010
Draft saved Draft deleted