Why do you disagree with libertarianism?
I believe they are all crazy
3.6% (9)
3.6% (9)
I believe their economic ideas are wrong
35.5% (89)
35.5% (89)
I believe their social ideas are wrong
6.8% (17)
6.8% (17)
I believe their economic and social ideas are wrong
25.5% (64)
25.5% (64)
I am a libertarian
17.5% (44)
17.5% (44)
Other
10.4% (26)
10.4% (26)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Why do you disagree with libertarianism?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Just an FYI, this is concerning the definition of the libertarian in the United States. Other I know that some other countries do use the term as well, but I don't know if they mean the same thing as what we consider libertarianism in the US.

Anyhow, the basic question is pretty simple, but if you want here is a little elaboration on everything, just so everyone is on the same page.

Libertarianism is:
1) Not liberalism! They are very different!

2) Is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end (Wikipedia).

The general consensus around libertarians is that, so long as nobody is hurt that is not a consenting adult, pretty much everything should be legal. This means things like gay marriage, marijuana (but, for most cases, not hard drugs like meth and what not, as people tend to be a danger to society if they are high or addicted to those things), gun possession (and no, the act of owning a gun does not harm anyone. The act of using it irresponsibly or violently does), prostitution, etc. They also believe that the government shouldn't be able to spy on citizens without a warrant (looking at you, NSA. Any by the way, go fuck yourselves and stop looking up what I masturbate to. That's my business, not yours) and that the government should stop policies that let them kill US citizens outside the country and lets them hold prisoners without trial.

On the economic side, the believe in a system of little government interference. This is something that can vary a lot between party members but what is universally accepted is that there is way to much government interference in the economy and that the less the government does the better off the economy should be, however very few believe in a laissez faire style where there is NO government interaction. They also believe in lowing taxes and reducing government spending.

Their are also some topics that the party is divided on, abortion being one (some people say it is the woman's right to chose, others say it violates the right of the unborn child to live). Another is war (but libertarians pretty much all agree that we shouldn't intervene with wars we have no business being in), and a few other things.

This of course is a very brief little summary, there is a LOT more about the party that I really don't have the patients to go into, but if I where to summarize the party's belief in one sentence it would be this: It is the only political party that exists in the United States that actually believes in freedom rather than just says it does.

Also, just as a side note, something that is thrown into my face a lot when talking about libertarianism is the 'think of the children' argument. This would be a good case if it wasn't a load of bull. Pretty much any libertarian will tell you that smoking weed should be legal, smoking it around a child should not be or that if a dad brings home his prostitute to meet his kids that might make them be taken away by CPS and all that stuff. I just want to get it out of the way so I don't have to put up with kids being thrown into it as if people in the party don't care about them, it just doesn't make any sense.

I pretty much believe that, if I hadn't found it later in life (and wasn't raised in a recession caused mostly by right-wing economic policies) I probably would've become a libertarian.

As it stands, I'm a Social Democrat currently. I think the Gilded Age is a testament to what the market, when left to it's own devices, can do to harm the working class. While I appreciate many of their social policies, I personally believe that society, and the nation as a whole, does best with a slightly stronger presence of Government in the market, and a large amount of public welfare (things such as universal healthcare, etc.)

It's naive in my view. It's the right-wing verison of Communism, pretty much, in that it doesn't actually work without causing massive amounts of suffering and injustice. And at that point - while such a system could be stable for a while - I don't consider it to be "working" anymore. There are bits and pieces of it that I agree with (usually on social issues and civil liberties), but economically it leads to a widening of the gap between rich and poor, a lack of equality of opportunity and the solidification of classes. People don't actually succeed based on their merit in that kind of system but based on their connections, their parents' standing and access to education and business opportunities. Individuals breaking out of their class through a lucky shot or a new invention are incredibly rare compared to the many whose hard work never pays off. I'm a firm believer in the social contract and my country's success has been due to measures regarding public insurance, workers on corporate boards, strong unions, consumer protections and safety standards etc.. I don't want that dismantled and our chances for success hampered by unworkable ideologies, regardless whether they come from the far right or the far left.

Skeleon, I got to say you do make a decent argument. I respectfully disagree, but then again I still think that there should be some government regulation keeping the rich from becoming to rich by oppressing the poor, as most libertarians seem to do. Then again if you don't think those measures would work than you pretty much have, in my opinion, a solid argument. Still wouldn't agree, but I would respectfully disagree.

And, magically, the foreign policy of Paulbots isn't an option. That's where Paulbots lose me. They're just cribbing the maniac that is Noam Chomsky anyway.

I disagree with Libertarianism economically entirely.

I can't think of a social stance I don't share with them that is totally separate from economics.

Big_Willie_Styles:
foreign policy of Paulbots isn't an option.

I can only assume you mean Ron Paul, and I figures people would just associate that as part of the social option and I had to ommit it because there wasn't enough room to add because Forgien policy, foreign policy and economic policy, foreign policy and social policy and foreign policy, social policy and economic policy options to the poll. Also, I prefer Gary Johnson to Ron Paul so while I'm not trying to sound like a dick your argument kind of doesn't work here (at least if your accusing me of creating a poll that omits foreign policy because I supposedly worship Ron Paul).

afroebob:

Big_Willie_Styles:
foreign policy of Paulbots isn't an option.

I can only assume you mean Ron Paul, and I figures people would just associate that as part of the social option and I had to ommit it because there wasn't enough room to add because Forgien policy, foreign policy and economic policy, foreign policy and social policy and foreign policy, social policy and economic policy options to the poll. Also, I prefer Gary Johnson to Ron Paul so while I'm not trying to sound like a dick your argument kind of doesn't work here (at least if your accusing me of creating a poll that omits foreign policy because I supposedly worship Ron Paul).

It is impossible to separate Ron Paul and libertarianism right now. I call myself a "fiscal libertarian" because I don't want to call myself a libertarian solely because of all the bad things associated with it due to Ron Paul and his ilk (Rothbard being one of those people, Lee Rockwell another.)

Libertarianism sounds great, until you realize that there's a distinct possibility that you will not escape your lower class at all.
It's fun to have servants, but face it, most of us would be the servants.

afroebob:

The general consensus around libertarians is that, so long as nobody is hurt that is not a consenting adult, pretty much everything should be legal. This means things like gay marriage, marijuana (but, for most cases, not hard drugs like meth and what not, as people tend to be a danger to society if they are high or addicted to those things), gun possession (and no, the act of owning a gun does not harm anyone. The act of using it irresponsibly or violently does), prostitution, etc. They also believe that the government shouldn't be able to spy on citizens without a warrant (looking at you, NSA. Any by the way, go fuck yourselves and stop looking up what I masturbate to. That's my business, not yours) and that the government should stop policies that let them kill US citizens outside the country and lets them hold prisoners without trial.

So hard drugs are not ok because it can result in people causing harm but guns are ok because they can be used to harm people?

On the economic side, the believe in a system of little government interference. This is something that can vary a lot between party members but what is universally accepted is that there is way to much government interference in the economy and that the less the government does the better off the economy should be, however very few believe in a laissez faire style where there is NO government interaction. They also believe in lowing taxes and reducing government spending.

That's extremely vague but I disagree. The government needs to step in often to ensure the economy isn't acting against the country's best interest (and yes that happens very often).

I vote for "they are all crazy"
I don't think they are all crazy, it's just that, anyone who actually sits down, thinks things through, understands what the libertarian policies would bring, and then goes "that's a good idea", well, i have no other word i could use for them.

Libertarians, in my experience, tend to come in 3 different flavors
Ignorant, who don't actually understand what would happen if libertarianism was actually followed.
Insane, who do understand, and either don't care, or like it.
Liars, who are actually republicans, but ashamed to admit it, or try to get some "independent" cred by claiming not to be.

Of course, if you think we should regulate the financial sector, force businesses pay equal wage for equal work for women and minorities, not allow people be fired or otherwise discriminated against for being gay/black/muslim/whatever, and are willing to enforce that through law.
You are not a libertarian.

I believe their social and economical policies are wrong. I believe 'I got mine' and 'the individual is key' to be utterly absurd theories which counter-act everything there is to be human (Hey, guess what? We are flock-animals).
I believe that overall the collective is worth more than the individual.

afroebob:

The general consensus around libertarians is that, so long as nobody is hurt that is not a consenting adult, pretty much everything should be legal. This means things like gay marriage, marijuana (but, for most cases, not hard drugs like meth and what not, as people tend to be a danger to society if they are high or addicted to those things), gun possession (and no, the act of owning a gun does not harm anyone. The act of using it irresponsibly or violently does), prostitution, etc. They also believe that the government shouldn't be able to spy on citizens without a warrant (looking at you, NSA. Any by the way, go fuck yourselves and stop looking up what I masturbate to. That's my business, not yours) and that the government should stop policies that let them kill US citizens outside the country and lets them hold prisoners without trial.

On the economic side, the believe in a system of little government interference. This is something that can vary a lot between party members but what is universally accepted is that there is way to much government interference in the economy and that the less the government does the better off the economy should be, however very few believe in a laissez faire style where there is NO government interaction. They also believe in lowing taxes and reducing government spending.

This is also my problem, which we covered in the Ayn Rand thread; Why? Why should the individual be more worth than the collective? Why should people suffer from lack of taxes or protection in the form of government intervention? Now, some say that I am wrong, that it will somehow be 'better' for everyone (which I find laughable, but alright), but that isn't the argument used.
I argue that collectivism is better because it helps people overall. Libertarians tend to argue that it is wrong because it violates some vague notion of 'rights' and 'freedoms' and 'liberty'.
Basically, they appeal to God-given-rights, which are nonsense on stilts.

afroebob:
It is the only political party that exists in the United States that actually believes in freedom rather than just says it does.

We can tell they do because they say so!

I'm sorry but you don't get to claim that you really like freedom and that all those other guys are just lying, (never mind that what you've described in the OP is in no way a political party). You certainly don't get to when you're idea of freedom is as insipid and simplistic as the one libertarians display.

I agree with the social side of their policies but not the economic. I'm not a great fan of government interference but I recognise that the free market cares about precisely one thing only: profit. That can be very beneficial if harnessed carefully but legal restrictions are required so employees and customers aren't grossly exploited and so healthy competition is maintained. Certain services, e.g. healthcare, trains, utilities etc work better under government control too rather than the market.

Financial libertarianism leads to China - a country where workers are treated like crap and factories can do whatever they want; dump waste in the water supply, pump millions of tonnes of chemicals into the atmosphere, etc. If we give companies free reign to do what they want with no government rules why would they be nice to employees? We wouldn't end up with a great society where businesses can make untold profits and the general public somehow reaps the benefits, we'd end up going back to the 19th/early 20th century where business owners made a fortune and the workers were treated like interchangeable psuedo-slaves.

Following government regulations like minimum wage, fair treatment, dismissal rights and environmental protection are ridiculously expensive for companies, if we said they didn't have to follow them any more why would they?

As for the social issues; while on the surface it's hard to argue with the idea that people should be free to do what you want if you look deeper you see the problem. Take gun ownership for example; it sounds fair that you should be free to own a gun as merely owning a gun is not an issue, misusing it is. However you cant misuse something if you cant get your hands on it can you?

If you say 'everyone can have guns' then people who will misuse them can get them and you'll have to clean up the mess. Gun regulation is not 'nobody can have guns ever' but 'if you want a gun you have to prove you can be responsible before we let you have one'.

Libertarianism assumes that everyone is equally well behaved and won't abuse their right to a firearm. It's similar to how Communists believe all people will play fair and equally share the burden of labour and its fruits. In the real world people are selfish, lazy bastards who would try to take more than their fair share for less work and if we have universal access to something (e.g. guns) people will misuse it and society will have to deal with the consequences.

Because it is effectively the right wing equivalent of Communism, except even the most basic examination of the consequences of such policies would effectively make life worse for 99.99% of everyone under the system. It is effectively like giving people in free-fall more freedom by not at least providing a parachute. Then there's the odd singular metric by which they measure freedom.

At least with communism, there was attempt to try and improve the lives of the worst off, even if it failed.

afroebob:
Skeleon, I got to say you do make a decent argument. I respectfully disagree, but then again I still think that there should be some government regulation keeping the rich from becoming to rich by oppressing the poor, as most libertarians seem to do. Then again if you don't think those measures would work than you pretty much have, in my opinion, a solid argument. Still wouldn't agree, but I would respectfully disagree.

But then how does one define "oppression?" A person with a minimum wage paying job isn't being "oppressed" by the classic definition of it. They have a job that they voluntarily signed up for, they are free to quit at any time...they aren't being "oppressed" in any way, shape, or form. Unless you change the definition to mean not having the ability to move vertically in their social standing, or not technically having a choice to quit because that job is their only option for income, then not even the Industrial age saw much of what is technically called oppression. In the industrial revolution, people weren't being oppressed in their factory jobs, they simply had no other choice as far as income. Their suffering was merely a side effect of poor labor regulation and a lack of a welfare system to fall back on. The companies weren't actively trying to keep them down for the sake of keeping them down.

Also, it doesn't take a rich person to take advantage of the poor or laborers. Mom & Pop stores are just as capable of having manipulative and self-serving methods of dealing with their employees. And it's for the exact same reason--if the store is the employee's only source if income, then they're afraid to speak out because they don't know where their meals are coming from without that job. This is why labor unions came about.

Lilani:

But then how does one define "oppression?" A person with a minimum wage paying job isn't being "oppressed" by the classic definition of it. They have a job that they voluntarily signed up for, they are free to quit at any time...they aren't being "oppressed" in any way, shape, or form. Unless you change the definition to mean not having the ability to move vertically in their social standing, or not technically having a choice to quit because that job is their only option for income, then not even the Industrial age saw much of what is technically called oppression. In the industrial revolution, people weren't being oppressed in their factory jobs, they simply had no other choice as far as income. Their suffering was merely a side effect of poor labor regulation and a lack of a welfare system to fall back on. The companies weren't actively trying to keep them down for the sake of keeping them down.

What do you mean they don't have a choice, of course they have a choice. It's their own fault they're poor, they chould have just tossed honesty aside and instead stolen, cheated and blackmailed their way to riches, but they didn't want it bad enough!

Which brings me to the actual point I want to make, in a libertarian country (that is, 100% libertarian, no other social philosophies mixed in), who makes sure people don't steal, cheat and blackmail their way to riches? Will the people self-police themselves?

afroebob:

The general consensus around libertarians is that, so long as nobody is hurt that is not a consenting adult, pretty much everything should be legal

Well, first of all then, just how do libertarians define "hurt"? Or rather, apart from the obvious violent crime, what would remain illegal in a libertarian society by virtue of "hurting" its members? For example, if someone sneaks into my house and steals an old thing I forgot I even had three years ago, I'm not hurt in the slightest, but it's still theft.

I dislike it because it strikes me as a naive luxury ideology.

It is obsessed with de jure equality with little or no account taken for the de facto effects.

Except it seems to be open-ended. Communism has a clear end-goal, but Libertarianism is just "More Freedom" all the fucking time regardless of what effects that will actually have. It's terribly dull and doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Plus the primacy of an incredibly narrow definition of freedom in what appears to be a strict deontological sense leads to stupid ideas like flat tax rates which are "fair" in application but not "fair" in results.

Moreover, it doesn't really seem to account for change. Every instance libertarian thinking has been applied from the outset in order to promote economic development it has failed spectacularly and disastrously.

Finally, how did the current cache of rich countries get rich? How is China getting rich? It's not through Libertarianist economic policy, I can tell you that.

It is natural for people to form hierarchies. As any libertarian will tell you, without an adequate form of external control the pursuit of happiness by those with power fucks over everyone else.

Basically I think it's head-in-the-clouds claptrap, and there's good reason it only really exists in the ivory towers of the United States.

A libertarian wants only rational markets to build the country, rather than politics.

He of course made the popular misconception that markets are devoid of their own politics, and possessed of any superior rationality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You know what the irony is?

The only situation I can see it working in is a communist post-scarcity scenario.

I'm going to link this documentary again separately, because it's funny how these things go in cycles, isn't it? http://vimeo.com/57157436

"Out of these kind of ideas, came what was called the Californian ideology. It was an odd fusion of radical individualism and utopian theories about computer systems. And an international priesthood rose up to promote it. What united them was a vision that the world was now an interconnected system, that nation-states were irrelevant, that politicians shouldn't control the system- they should let it free to create a new kind of democracy."

Vegosiux:

Lilani:

But then how does one define "oppression?" A person with a minimum wage paying job isn't being "oppressed" by the classic definition of it. They have a job that they voluntarily signed up for, they are free to quit at any time...they aren't being "oppressed" in any way, shape, or form. Unless you change the definition to mean not having the ability to move vertically in their social standing, or not technically having a choice to quit because that job is their only option for income, then not even the Industrial age saw much of what is technically called oppression. In the industrial revolution, people weren't being oppressed in their factory jobs, they simply had no other choice as far as income. Their suffering was merely a side effect of poor labor regulation and a lack of a welfare system to fall back on. The companies weren't actively trying to keep them down for the sake of keeping them down.

What do you mean they don't have a choice, of course they have a choice. It's their own fault they're poor, they chould have just tossed honesty aside and instead stolen, cheated and blackmailed their way to riches, but they didn't want it bad enough!

It's their own fault they are poor, God didn't gift them with the proper spirit and abilities from birth.

On a more serious note, the reasoning is often very similar: It's their own fault, because they didn't 'work hard enough', which is ignoring that not everyone is born with the same set of abilities, not everyone is born with the right circumstances, and not everyone is born into the right family. The playing-field is never fair, and adopting an 'everything goes'-stance will just make it even more unfair in a few generations as the rich and un regulated companies leave their wealth to their sons and daughters, and the poor have limited ways of starting their own business or advancing socially because they have limited access to education (compared to the rich, which can afford far better), social capital (meeting 'the right people', etc), healthy food, health-care, etc.

I generally find those ideologies that push the free market concept the most as a large point have a rather naive idea of how things work. I mean really, it seems like they think the market will just make everything work out fine, which is insane in my mind. The market has no concern for people's welfare, and its long term vision is not exactly the best. To rely on a market sorting itself out is to rely on people's greed. And I really don't want to put faith in their greed when it comes to exploitation and long term goals in regards to the wellbeing of society on matters such as pollution. I don't just trust that the market just so happens to be perfect for sorting such things out with no design whatsoever.

Now that's more towards total laissez faire, but I certainly don't see why just mostly hands off would be a good thing. There is bad interference, but that doesn't mean that interference itself is bad. A criticism of a particular way of interfering is not a criticism of interfering anymore than a bad solution to a problem is a criticism of trying to solve it instead of just leaving it be.

The economic part just doesn't work. A free market needs a framework to work within/from to remain free.

I'm a social libertarian though, in that I strongly promote the concept of individual civil rights and the plurality this entail, as opposed to some communitarian "common greater good".

None of the people who claim to be libertarian seem to care much about the freedoms of people who aren't them. Or about the whole 'don't harm other people' bit. Health and Safety, Environmental and Employment regulations aren't there so 'the man' can oppress you. They are there to stop harm being done.

Furthermore, they also seem to forget that governments aren't the only bodies that can restrict peoples freedoms. Yeah, technically you don't have to work at any given place, so you can argue that any contract is voluntary, but it's kinda bullshit. And technically, I give out information to Google and Facebook voluntarily, except that really I don't. Just like how I don't give the Royal Mail permission to read my letters. 'Libertarians' only seem to get concerned when that information is passed to governments, when it is just as bad in corporate hands.

But my main concern is that it doesn't look hard enough into the implications of what 'doing harm' means. If I go to a buffet and eat everything leaving nothing for other guests I have quite clearly indirectly harmed them. I have certainly removed their freedom to choose what they eat. The organisers would be well within their rights to demand I put back most of the plates of food I've taken. But this sort of harm, this sort of selfish myopic behaviour is not seen as a problem by Libertarians, and attempts to reduce this harm via 'redistribution' are seen as a terrible affront to liberty.

The results of this is that people think they are free to indulge in behaviour that results in 'food mountains' of waste, whilst millions starve elsewhere.

I believe in civil liberties, we shouldn't fear our governments or have to worry about our privacy, but there is a balance to be struck and modern libertarianism gets it very wrong.

Axolotl:

afroebob:
It is the only political party that exists in the United States that actually believes in freedom rather than just says it does.

We can tell they do because they say so!

I'm sorry but you don't get to claim that you really like freedom and that all those other guys are just lying, (never mind that what you've described in the OP is in no way a political party). You certainly don't get to when you're idea of freedom is as insipid and simplistic as the one libertarians display.

Well, just as an example of something from both sides republicans believe in taking away social rights (gay marriage, drug problems, anti trial by jury (although many democrats now believe that too, at least the ones in office), racial profiling, etc.), while democrats believe in taking away rights such as freedom of religion (I'm not one of those people saying they want to strip people of their religion, but making people provide birth control to employees goes against when it goes against their faith, is IMO, taking away a freedom as sex is a luxury, not a right), limiting the right to bear arms (and in extreme cases completely banning it), freedom to chose healthcare, etc.

Imperator_DK:
The economic part just doesn't work. A free market needs a framework to work within/from to remain free. Competition/Consumer law exist for a reason.

I'm a social libertarian though, in that I strongly promote the concept of individual civil rights and the plurality this entail, as opposed to some communitarian "common greater good".

Haven't you called yourself Utilitarian on more than one occasion? Or do you believe that Rule Utilitarianism, with Libertarian rules, will bring about the most common good?

afroebob:

Axolotl:

afroebob:
It is the only political party that exists in the United States that actually believes in freedom rather than just says it does.

We can tell they do because they say so!

I'm sorry but you don't get to claim that you really like freedom and that all those other guys are just lying, (never mind that what you've described in the OP is in no way a political party). You certainly don't get to when you're idea of freedom is as insipid and simplistic as the one libertarians display.

Well, just as an example of something from both sides republicans believe in taking away social rights (gay marriage, drug problems, anti trial by jury (although many democrats now believe that too, at least the ones in office), racial profiling, etc.), while democrats believe in taking away rights such as freedom of religion (I'm not one of those people saying they want to strip people of their religion, but making people provide birth control to employees goes against when it goes against their faith, is IMO, taking away a freedom as sex is a luxury, not a right), limiting the right to bear arms (and in extreme cases completely banning it), freedom to chose healthcare, etc.

Yes, but guess what; 'Freedom' isn't necessarily a good thing. Too much Freedom can lead to pretty insane consequences, like say Anarchy. (and not Social Anarchy were everyone respects each-other and everything works on sunshine and good intentions. No, Anarchy as in a lawless society run by criminals).
Why is 'Freedom' good if it doesn't lead to a greater common good?
The highest form of 'Freedom' seems to be the freedom to do whatever I want, so why should I bother with this 'Respect the freedoms of others'? Seems like fascism to me.

afroebob:
while democrats believe in taking away rights such as freedom of religion (I'm not one of those people saying they want to strip people of their religion, but making people provide birth control to employees goes against when it goes against their faith, is IMO, taking away a freedom as sex is a luxury, not a right)

It doesn't matter what your religion is, that doesn't mean you get to dictate to your employees how they live their own lives. Don't believe in birth control? Then don't use it. But don't pretend that your objection to birth control means a damn thing to your employees.

freedom to chose healthcare, etc.

No one would "choose" not to have health care. They might not have it because they cannot afford it, but taking the money situation off of the table, everyone would choose to have health care. The idea that the Democrats want to take away your choice" is only relevant in that the rich don't want to contribute to the betterment of society as a whole. Which goes back to the Libertarian "I've got mine" mentality that many people call you out on.

Realitycrash:
...
Haven't you called yourself Utilitarian on more than one occasion? Or do you believe that Rule Utilitarianism, with Libertarian rules, will bring about the most common good?

Yes.

That which afford each individual the maximum amount of ability to customize its life to its own taste, is going to bring about the most happiness for each individual. Indirectly bringing about the greatest "common good", even if the exact thing making it so is that there's little "common" about it.

Imperator_DK:

Realitycrash:
...
Haven't you called yourself Utilitarian on more than one occasion? Or do you believe that Rule Utilitarianism, with Libertarian rules, will bring about the most common good?

Yes.

That which afford each individual the maximum amount of ability to customize its life to its own taste, is going to bring about the most happiness for each individual. Indirectly bringing about the greatest "common good", even if the exact thing making it so is that there's little "common" about it.

That seems hard to actually work in principle in a Libertarian society, as Freedom does not necessarily bring about happiness.

afroebob:
making people provide birth control to employees goes against when it goes against their faith, is IMO, taking away a freedom as sex is a luxury, not a right)

Who's being forced to provide birth control to employees, exactly?

afroebob:
freedom to chose healthcare, etc.

Again, how, exactly? The Democrats have extended healthcare insurance-- surely that's extending a freedom previously denied (to the poor)?

Realitycrash:
...
That seems hard to actually work in principle in a Libertarian society, as Freedom does not necessarily bring about happiness.

Not necessarily, but it stands a considerably better chance of doing so than serfdom.

Imperator_DK:

Not necessarily, but it stands a considerably better chance of doing so than serfdom.

Good thing serfdom hasn't been around for about five centuries, then.

Imperator_DK:

Realitycrash:
...
That seems hard to actually work in principle in a Libertarian society, as Freedom does not necessarily bring about happiness.

Not necessarily, but it stands a considerably better chance of doing so than serfdom.

Are you referring to the common objection that Utilitarianism will turn into Brave New World?

Because, you know, there are nuances.

Realitycrash:
...
Are you referring to the common objection that Utilitarianism will turn into Brave New World?

Because, you know, there are nuances.

I'm referring to it resting on the mistaken idea that anyone but the individual can decide on what constitutes "happiness" for the individual. Something rule utilitarianism can account for, provided it aims at leaving autonomy and opportunity in the hands of the individual.

Silvanus:
...
Good thing serfdom hasn't been around for about five centuries, then.

Not by that name, anyway. You hardly rule your own life to any significant degree if stepping outside the boundaries of majority morality though, least of all in Britain.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked