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 PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Imperator_DK:

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.

Hrm. Rule Utilitarianism can be applied adequately to many if not all political systems.
I don't mind it, really, I just wish to incorporate more of an Act mindset in it.

Imperator_DK:

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.

Yes, because making something illegal is exactly the same as legally being someone's property and having different rights for different classes. Now excuse me, I have to go and pledge allegiance to the baron.

Imperator_DK:

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.

You... you realise that things have changed in thirty years, right? I think you have a severely warped view of what it's like to actually live here.

Don't get me wrong-- the state is pretty awful in a lot of ways. I and several friends were at a (peaceful) protest just under two years ago, and were prevented from leaving for eight hours by a police wall (during two hours of which, we were kettled). The London Met, and the Government, both share in the responsibility for that.

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.

You can throw out all the examples you want, even ignoring the highly debatable nature of these examples (and I'm being quite charitable there). Libertarians have just as many examples of the same hypocrisies you see in other parties. Your claim that you mean real freedom while other parties are all liars is frankly wrong because just like the other parties you still only mean freedom to live in the way you find acceptable. Or more accurately it would be just as easy to find these hypocrisies if Libertarianism were a distinct ideology or party, which despite what you said in the section I quoted, it isn't.

I'm kind of a libertarian/liberal (if that's even possible.) I think people should be allowed (especially in a so-called free country) to be their own masters without endless involvement and intervention from the government, but at the same time due to rampant corruption and various other reasons the 'little people' (so most everyone in some aspect or another) tend to get trampled, and I feel they should be helped. I think when the Govt. is so pervasive and present in so many aspects of life, it becomes a serious problem. People put too much trust in some over arching federal government and there's always a chance for the systems of power that were meant to help the people, to be flipped and screw them over. It's happened before and there's no reason It can't happen again. There's some in this country that seem to think it is impossible for the US government to become more corrupt that it already is, or God forbid a tyranny. But chances are, if things continue down the path they are, the people will welcome such a government with open arms. Apparently it's not that hard to manipulate the public.

Just answering the OP:
Poll answer:
Other.

Reason: I agree wholly with Skeleon about the underlying comparison to communism as the polar opposite, I also have found that it's just a buffet-style viewpoint (picking and choosing when it applies and to whom), not ideology, held by people with lots of money who do not want to contribute to the communities they profit off of. All charity taken into account, I find even the grunts of the core of actual libertarians in this country, like the Ayn Randian robots like Paul Ryan, completely miss the trees looking at the forest, believing that we can marry their personal beliefs with the established precedents we've developed over the last 330+ years. (example: People that rail against taxes and use huge accounting acrobatics to avoid paying them, and then praising subsidies)

I also believe that there is no singular method or ideology for governance and that there needs to be some sort of balance between ideologies and belief spectrums. The other thing which really strikes me as disingenuous is those that are heavily theocratic when forming their views and then attempting to marry it with some frankenstein version of their political ideology and in turn have something as far from equal, fair or rational. (example: Ron Paul, Rand Paul)

Lastly, I do not believe "greed is good" in any way shape or form and have come to view our worship of worthless money as the cornerstone that will eventually lead to the implosion of the first world. Rather than worshipping deities, we worship consumerism and the pursuit of money, generally without considering the repercussions of our own actions. This is term has created the "got mine, fuck you" mentality which seems to encompass most people I've found that vocally represent this ideology, doing it a great disservice for many of the good points libertarianism does present. (example Paul Ryan's budget)

Realitycrash:
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.

I don't know about you, but I'm not a flock (herd?) animal.
Even were the collective more valuable than the individual to you, does that give you the right to trample the individual for the collective? If so, is that not rather extremist?

Arakasi:

Realitycrash:
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.

I don't know about you, but I'm not a flock (herd?) animal.
Even were the collective more valuable than the individual to you, does that give you the right to trample the individual for the collective? If so, is that not rather extremist?

I'd say that imprisoning a murderer could be considered as trampling on the individual for the sake of the collective.
This is usually done to protect the collective, not to satisfy the individual victims (friends and families who lost a loved one) thirst for revenge.
Therefor, I'd hardly call the concept extremist.

Arakasi:

I don't know about you, but I'm not a flock (herd?) animal.
Even were the collective more valuable than the individual to you, does that give you the right to trample the individual for the collective? If so, is that not rather extremist?

You're not a lone, self-sufficient wolf either. You depend on the collective to some degree. And that's exactly what this comparison of communism vs. libertarianism as polar opposites is about. The former tramples the individual in favor of the collective, and the latter, vice versa.

"Individualism vs. collectivism" is also a false dichotomy, as, well, pretty much every country on the planet shows, they all have some degree of both. And even paying others directly, out of their own pocket for services (that is, paying a doctor for a physical, paying an attorney for a legal matter) is a degree of collectivism, as you're throwing your resources in with theirs. If you pay a lawyer to represent you in court, you've ceded control over a part of your life to them.

Silvanus:

You... you realise that things have changed in thirty years, right? I think you have a severely warped view of what it's like to actually live here.

Don't rise to the bait. He's got the hump against the British because several British users here have forcefully disagreed with some of his statements, and he exacts revenge by making the UK out to be a tyrannical hellhole.

Arakasi:
I don't know about you, but I'm not a flock (herd?) animal. Even were the collective more valuable than the individual to you, does that give you the right to trample the individual for the collective? If so, is that not rather extremist?

Humans are "flock animals", in the sense it is intended. This does not discount us also exerting and expressing considerable individuality as well.

The individual can and should very much be trampled by the collective if what he/she doing is sufficiently problematic. Even your average libertarian accepts that to some degree, they just have the level at which it is justifiable further in favour of the individual than others.

Arakasi:

I don't know about you, but I'm not a flock (herd?) animal.
Even were the collective more valuable than the individual to you, does that give you the right to trample the individual for the collective? If so, is that not rather extremist?

But isn't that what social rules/norms/morals are for? To protect the collective from individuals? Don't we put criminals in jail partly to prevent them from further harming others? What determines whether or not you're an extremist is much individuality you're willing to sacrifice for the sake of the collective. For instance in the US the majority of people seem to be ok with sacrificing their privacy for the collective safety, is that too far?

Agema:

Silvanus:

You... you realise that things have changed in thirty years, right? I think you have a severely warped view of what it's like to actually live here.

Don't rise to the bait. He's got the hump against the British because several British users here have forcefully disagreed with some of his statements, and he exacts revenge by making the UK out to be a tyrannical hellhole.

Arakasi:
I don't know about you, but I'm not a flock (herd?) animal. Even were the collective more valuable than the individual to you, does that give you the right to trample the individual for the collective? If so, is that not rather extremist?

Humans are "flock animals", in the sense it is intended. This does not discount us also exerting and expressing considerable individuality as well.

The individual can and should very much be trampled by the collective if what he/she doing is sufficiently problematic. Even your average libertarian accepts that to some degree, they just have the level at which it is justifiable further in favour of the individual than others.

Under my personal libertarianism, and as someone stated it's not a very well defined ideology, the individual is at the end of the day the basic building block of society. Individuals come together to form families, then communities, villages, towns, cities, states, nations. But it always goes back to the basic individual being the fundamental building block of all society.

So the way I see it, if we can try to make sure the maximum amount of individuals are doing well and enjoying life then the overall health of society is increased. And I believe the best route to happiness is the freedom to do what one will with ones life without being told what they can and cannot do, again within reason. But the freedom to do what one will is tempered by consequence. We can soften the blow of consequence but to remove it completely actively hurts us as a species. That's why even though I'm a libertarian I'm perfectly fine with taxes and a basic social security net. We need these in place to secure the individuals prime state, which is as a productive member of society. Or at the very least a non damaging one.

Bentusi16:

So the way I see it, if we can try to make sure the maximum amount of individuals are doing well and enjoying life then the overall health of society is increased. And I believe the best route to happiness is the freedom to do what one will with ones life without being told what they can and cannot do, again within reason. But the freedom to do what one will is tempered by consequence. We can soften the blow of consequence but to remove it completely actively hurts us as a species. That's why even though I'm a libertarian I'm perfectly fine with taxes and a basic social security net. We need these in place to secure the individuals prime state, which is as a productive member of society. Or at the very least a non damaging one.

I do not always use this gif, but when I do, I use it to show my appreciation to someone I consider understands how the world works.

image

Bentusi16:

So the way I see it, if we can try to make sure the maximum amount of individuals are doing well and enjoying life then the overall health of society is increased. And I believe the best route to happiness is the freedom to do what one will with ones life without being told what they can and cannot do, again within reason. But the freedom to do what one will is tempered by consequence.

Problem is, the above could accurately describe almost any democratic model. The conservatives, the liberals, the democratic socialists, they all agree with all of that-- the only difference being where they place the bar for "within reason", as applied to individuals and businesses differently.

Bentusi16:
[quote="Agema" post="528.410416.19715535"][quote="Silvanus" post="528.410416.19099473"]
So the way I see it, if we can try to make sure the maximum amount of individuals are doing well and enjoying life then the overall health of society is increased. And I believe the best route to happiness is the freedom to do what one will with ones life without being told what they can and cannot do, again within reason. But the freedom to do what one will is tempered by consequence. We can soften the blow of consequence but to remove it completely actively hurts us as a species. That's why even though I'm a libertarian I'm perfectly fine with taxes and a basic social security net. We need these in place to secure the individuals prime state, which is as a productive member of society. Or at the very least a non damaging one.

Freedom to build, to create, to strive for happiness, to manifest ourselves without being under the oak of someone which dictates what we are to do, this is indeed worthy qualities of a human life, because, as you describe, it will lead to happy people, and happy people are more productive people, which again leads to a better society overall.
But Freedom, as you yourself put it, isn't the only 'good' there is in life. We can have total Freedom, but then we might not have many people being able to build, create, strive for happiness and manifest themselves in a way they chose. I am an utilitarian, and I respect these qualities too, because I know they will lead to a greater common good. To put the collective over the individual is not to repress the individual, it's to realize that an individual is worse off alone than with a strong collective.
To give up some freedoms in order to ensure more basic values that we cherish - Like creativity, happiness, knowledge, equality - should not be abhorrent to those who cherish 'Freedom' overall.
Afterall, like I have said before, if you want complete Freedom, take a look at Somalia. There's your freedom. Every man for himself. There's not even a state powerful enough to protect its citizens. Yet it's free. Oh so free.
So you make a valid point.

Bentusi16:

Under my personal libertarianism, and as someone stated it's not a very well defined ideology, the individual is at the end of the day the basic building block of society. Individuals come together to form families, then communities, villages, towns, cities, states, nations. But it always goes back to the basic individual being the fundamental building block of all society.

So the way I see it, if we can try to make sure the maximum amount of individuals are doing well and enjoying life then the overall health of society is increased. And I believe the best route to happiness is the freedom to do what one will with ones life without being told what they can and cannot do, again within reason. But the freedom to do what one will is tempered by consequence. We can soften the blow of consequence but to remove it completely actively hurts us as a species. That's why even though I'm a libertarian I'm perfectly fine with taxes and a basic social security net. We need these in place to secure the individuals prime state, which is as a productive member of society. Or at the very least a non damaging one.

Yes, I agree: you have just explained basics of liberal philosophy, and I am certainly a liberal. On the other hand, I suspect I have a rather higher belief in and tolerance for socialised systems and support than you do.

Like Bentusi I'd say that I find very little contradiction between Libertarianism and having a strong safety net, which I would argue should be as large as the national economy can feasibly support. I suppose I am quite strongly opposed to much of the pie in the sky idealism and meaningless hatred of the state that often shows up among Libertarians, though it is hard to argue that I am never guilty of the same. Most importantly, I am staunchly opposed to the Objectivist branches of Libertarianism. You should work for the benefit of others. It is incredibly moral to do so. I just don't agree with enforcing said morals at the end of a gun or through the law.

In the end, I'll admit that the primary motive for my political beliefs is a general suspicion of the powerful. I don't think that enforcing any kind of communistic society will actually lead to one. I don't think that the government investing in businesses winds up leading to benefits for the consumer all that often. I think we have to look at such things closely and look for where the powerful are trying to simply gain more power for themselves at the cost of our freedom and our livelihoods. A limited state, not a useless, dysfunctional, or weak state, simply a limited state carefully watched by it's citizens is what people need in order to ensure that the state serves as a check on the power of others rather than as a power all it's own.

As a libertarian I obviously agree with libertarianism in general. The problems I have come from the specific groups because libertarianism is a very wide ranging view point.

Unfortunately many people disagree with libertarianism without understanding our viewpoints. One of the major libertarian schools (and one that I hold to) holds that any form of government can exist within a Federal system if by consent of the people involved. This can be done by splitting the duties reserved by space and all other duties. The duties reserved by space (road building, basic laws, transportation rules, etc.) can be handled by the overarching federal system. All other duties not reserved by space (the welfare state, taxes, etc.) can be handled by other entities. For example, there is no reason why tax revenue and disbursement cannot be handled online. Therefore, taxes and how they are used need not be bounded by space. So they can be literally anywhere. That means that different government can exist within individual households spread across the entire country. Now, this would inevitably see the fall of things like the drug war since it is unenforceable in this system but at the same time people can more easily choose how their money and resources are used because since the majority of those factors are controlled by a government that is not bounded by space. Therefore, you can just switch you government (within certain limits).

In other words, one of the principle schools of libertarianism holds that communists can have their government, the social democrats can have their government, the libertarians can have their government, and the anarchists can have their government, all within the confines of the same country. Everybody can have their chosen system. The problem is that many people would prefer to force me and everyone else to support their system rather than just letting people choose.

farson135:

Unfortunately many people disagree with libertarianism without understanding our viewpoints. One of the major libertarian schools (and one that I hold to) holds that any form of government can exist within a Federal system if by consent of the people involved. This can be done by splitting the duties reserved by space and all other duties. The duties reserved by space (road building, basic laws, transportation rules, etc.) can be handled by the overarching federal system. All other duties not reserved by space (the welfare state, taxes, etc.) can be handled by other entities. For example, there is no reason why tax revenue and disbursement cannot be handled online. Therefore, taxes and how they are used need not be bounded by space. So they can be literally anywhere. That means that different government can exist within individual households spread across the entire country. Now, this would inevitably see the fall of things like the drug war since it is unenforceable in this system but at the same time people can more easily choose how their money and resources are used because since the majority of those factors are controlled by a government that is not bounded by space. Therefore, you can just switch you government (within certain limits).

I am confused by this scenario. Would the federal government be able to collect taxes for road building, policing and courts, transportation management, etc.? What about local governments that handle local roads, policing, fire departments, zoning, etc?

Well, I belive that the three things a government should establish and maintain are, from highest priority to lowest, Security, Prosperity and Liberty.

Yes, I put liberty at the bottom. There's a certain pithy Benjamin Franklin quote that makes me want to dig up his corpse and strangle it every time I hear it.

That said, of course, sacrificing some of one for some of another must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Curtailing certain freedoms in the name of public safety is fair enough, but there are times when it goes too far (and by that time it would probably be ineffective anyway; I direct you to the NSA's inability to stop the boston bombing)

That's my ideological reason for disagreeing with libertarianism. I have economic reasons as well, but they're secondary.

Nielas:
I am confused by this scenario. Would the federal government be able to collect taxes for road building, policing and courts, transportation management, etc.? What about local governments that handle local roads, policing, fire departments, zoning, etc?

Once again it kind of depends on who you ask and this whole thing could be done in different ways. Here are the answers I will give but understand that there are other answers.

The Federal Government can collect taxes in the form of licenses that are guaranteed to be accepted throughout the country, toll roads, etc. Basically, usage fees. Others say that the "governments without space" would pay a mandatory tax and other arguments.

In terms of the local government there are basically three schools. One, is a three tiered system (Federal Government, Local Government, and "Government without Space") where basically each tier has its own duties. The second school sticks to the two tier system but gives the Federal Government more power (that is, the Feds take over full control of ALL duties that are set in space). The third school sticks to the two tier system but gives the "governments without space" the power to set up agreements and form jurisdictions. This one is a little more complicated and it requires a lot more contractual obligations.

farson135:

Nielas:
I am confused by this scenario. Would the federal government be able to collect taxes for road building, policing and courts, transportation management, etc.? What about local governments that handle local roads, policing, fire departments, zoning, etc?

Once again it kind of depends on who you ask and this whole thing could be done in different ways. Here are the answers I will give but understand that there are other answers.

The Federal Government can collect taxes in the form of licenses that are guaranteed to be accepted throughout the country, toll roads, etc. Basically, usage fees. Others say that the "governments without space" would pay a mandatory tax and other arguments.

In terms of the local government there are basically three schools. One, is a three tiered system (Federal Government, Local Government, and "Government without Space") where basically each tier has its own duties. The second school sticks to the two tier system but gives the Federal Government more power (that is, the Feds take over full control of ALL duties that are set in space). The third school sticks to the two tier system but gives the "governments without space" the power to set up agreements and form jurisdictions. This one is a little more complicated and it requires a lot more contractual obligations.

This did not make it much clearer:)

The idea of "government without space" seems extremely vague since it seems to me that the "government with space" would still have most of the power and power over all the things that really matter. eg if they control roads and can decide how they are to be used then it gives them massive power over the economy and the livelihood of individuals. It just does not seem that a "government without space" could practically have jurisdiction over any institutions of value.

Nielas:
The idea of "government without space" seems extremely vague since it seems to me that the "government with space" would still have most of the power and power over all the things that really matter. eg if they control roads and can decide how they are to be used then it gives them massive power over the economy and the livelihood of individuals.

Roads are a part of "space" (I mentioned that in my first post). The governments would have as much or as little power over the economy of their people as it is dictated by the contract. It would be their people's choice whether or not to allow a specific level of control. Governments without Space are not bounded by territory (aside from the overall territory of the Federal Government) and therefore their control is based upon contractual agreements (upheld by the Federal Government) and not upon force like in our current system.

It just does not seem that a "government without space" could practically have jurisdiction over any institutions of value.

Why not?

farson135:

Nielas:
The idea of "government without space" seems extremely vague since it seems to me that the "government with space" would still have most of the power and power over all the things that really matter. eg if they control roads and can decide how they are to be used then it gives them massive power over the economy and the livelihood of individuals.

Roads are a part of "space" (I mentioned that in my first post). The governments would have as much or as little power over the economy of their people as it is dictated by the contract. It would be their people's choice whether or not to allow a specific level of control. Governments without Space are not bounded by territory (aside from the overall territory of the Federal Government) and therefore their control is based upon contractual agreements (upheld by the Federal Government) and not upon force like in our current system.

It just does not seem that a "government without space" could practically have jurisdiction over any institutions of value.

Why not?

Control over roads would give the "government with space" tremendous control over the overall economy. For one it would allow it to make rules that govern how the long haul trucking industry operates. Right now there is a controversy over government regulations on how many hours truckers are allowed to operate their vehicles per week. The government wants to lower the limit to 70 hours per week which means that the trucking companies would need to hire more drivers. Truck inspections increase the delivery times and cost truckers time and money. At the same time truckers who fall asleep at the wheel are a serious threat on the roads and unsafe trucks can cause massive accidents.

All infrastructure is "space" so the main federal government would have control over the essential aspects of most industries. I just do not see how "government without space" can be given jurisdiction over anything that really matter since it is all "space" related or can easily become "space" related.

Right now it sounds very much like the equivalent of a high school student council. No matter what the council wants to do, the real decisions still belong to the school administration.

Maybe you could provide me with examples of what the "governments without space" would actually be responsible for.

Skeleon:
It's naive in my view.

You and others have said this and I find it interesting that we can have basically the same opinion but from different sides. Speaking as a former libertarian, I found it to be an incredibly cynical ideology. It sees government as a source of inefficiency, greed, corruption, waste, and any other number of synonyms to "bad". I don't disagree with this sentiment, either. Where I began to part ways with libertarianism is when I started looking around at the governments of other countries and realized "Hey, my privilege is showing! Just because America has a borderline dysfunctional government[1] doesn't mean that is the natural state of government." But libertarianism doesn't want to fix government. It wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. That's just the theory of it too. In practice, particularly when government actions are taken one at a time rather than lumped into a nebulous whole that is easily scoffed at[2], I've found few libertarians that are able to name more than a handful of high profile problematic government programs or don't outright betray their ideology when a program or law that benefits them is put on the chopping block.

OP: The dragonite avatar is awesome. Just sayin'.

[1] Which, in hindsight, is fairly hyperbolic.
[2] I've found "Everything the government touches turns to crap" or some equally trite variant thereof is one of the greatest indicators that someone has not even bothered to do their due diligence in researching their own ideology and instead bases their political decision making on emotion and sensationalist news stories.

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.

See that's a another problem conservatism in that it thinks your work not being able to take away your freedom to purchase what you want with your earned benefits (and if you think they're not earned, try collecting them after quitting your job) somehow restricts THEIR religious freedom.

The contract is basically "In lieu of additional monetary compensation for your labors we're giving you a discount on healthcare costs" then when women spend THEIR benefit money on birth control they're like "Whaa can I offer you instead bum Chuck-E-Cheeses fun money that only buys things I personally like" then claim a woman spending HER legally ensured benifits is violating THEIR religious freedom? Apparently the woman's religious freedom counts for nothing because in conservatism freedom is for employers, not employees.

What a load of garbage.

If a woman uses her health benefits she earns from her job to buy shit her employer doesn't like tough shit. They try to frame it like "they're using their employer's money to", but it's not their employer's money because you fucking work for it as part of your job. Your paycheck isn't your employer's problem and if they have a problem with your legal medical use they can fuck themselves.

These religious cheapskate fuckwads claiming their freedoms to dictate what your religion is are the worst.

When you earn a health benefit from doing your job its no different than earning cash or a salary, ethically or legally.

So no, religious employers have never spent a dime of their money on contraceptives because the minute you work for it, it isn't their money it's yours.

Even in taxes because taxes are the rent you pay to do business in a country that isn't a shithole like Somalia, and the minute my landlord gets my rent due its not my money so if he wants to buy a bunch of bibles its not my legal right to hitch either.

Conservatives love to claim money equals freedom and free speech up until somebody "says" something secular with their cash. Bah.

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.

The problem with saying "We Libertarians think there should be regulation keeping the rich from staying rich by oppressing the poor" is that Libertarians won't or can't recognize any actual method the rich use to do just that.

To make a slightly hyperbolic analogy it'd be like saying you're for laws against murder but having a department of justice that prosecutes no murder cases because it refuses to see any sign of injury as anything but natural causes saying "Well we found him tied up in a fetal position covered in lacerations, but I'm pretty sure that's just what happens naturally so case closed."

The right's invisible and intangible "regulations" are scant comfort to an oppressed person the right can't even (or won't even) see.

LetalisK:

Skeleon:
It's naive in my view.

You and others have said this and I find it interesting that we can have basically the same opinion but from different sides. Speaking as a former libertarian, I found it to be an incredibly cynical ideology. It sees government as a source of inefficiency, greed, corruption, waste, and any other number of synonyms to "bad". I don't disagree with this sentiment, either. Where I began to part ways with libertarianism is when I started looking around at the governments of other countries and realized "Hey, my privilege is showing! Just because America has a borderline dysfunctional government[1] doesn't mean that is the natural state of government." But libertarianism doesn't want to fix government. It wants to throw the baby out with the bath water. That's just the theory of it too. In practice, particularly when government actions are taken one at a time rather than lumped into a nebulous whole that is easily scoffed at[2], I've found few libertarians that are able to name more than a handful of high profile problematic government programs or don't outright betray their ideology when a program or law that benefits them is put on the chopping block.

OP: The dragonite avatar is awesome. Just sayin'.

My problem has always been that I don't see warlords, tyrants, kings, polictical priests, and CEOs as any fundamentally different. Saying "I hate government" then handing all its power to a non elected plutocratic government who do the same shit is a terrible fix.

"Maximum freedom to the powerful" still means they're free to fuck the people. A corporate "government" that refuses to name itself so is still, realistically a government. At least my current government is mostly a democracy even if its fucked. That's still preferable to a corporate oligarchy.

That's why arguments that try to phrase the situation as government vs. freedom or small government vs. big are stupid to me. It's not "do you like big government vs. small" to me it's "do you like democracy vs. plutocracy" and the anwser is pretty clear.

[1] Which, in hindsight, is fairly hyperbolic.
[2] I've found "Everything the government touches turns to crap" or some equally trite variant thereof is one of the greatest indicators that someone has not even bothered to do their due diligence in researching their own ideology and instead bases their political decision making on emotion and sensationalist news stories.

Nielas:
Control over roads would give the "government with space" tremendous control over the overall economy. For one it would allow it to make rules that govern how the long haul trucking industry operates. Right now there is a controversy over government regulations on how many hours truckers are allowed to operate their vehicles per week. The government wants to lower the limit to 70 hours per week which means that the trucking companies would need to hire more drivers. Truck inspections increase the delivery times and cost truckers time and money. At the same time truckers who fall asleep at the wheel are a serious threat on the roads and unsafe trucks can cause massive accidents.

All infrastructure is "space" so the main federal government would have control over the essential aspects of most industries. I just do not see how "government without space" can be given jurisdiction over anything that really matter since it is all "space" related or can easily become "space" related.

However, the issues you described would be controlled by the "government without space". The roads themselves are handled by the Federal Government and some basic rules can be applied but the 70 hour per week limit would be handled by the "government without space". (more below).

Maybe you could provide me with examples of what the "governments without space" would actually be responsible for.

I provided several (welfare state, taxes, etc.) but here are a few more that it could be responsible for (I am proceeding under the assumption that we are using a two or three tiered system balanced away from the "governments without space")-
Building codes
"Ethics codes"
Corporate framework and regulations (within certain limits)
Subsidies
Property rights (to an extent)
Moral/political/cultural/etc. duties (if applicable)
Land/wealth redistribution (if applicable)
Education guidelines (to an extent)
Relations between the other "governments without space" (to an extent)

And of course there are all kinds of internal systems that can be done in different ways. A communist system will run elections differently from a parliamentary system, and on.
In general, the "governments without space" will provide a more specific legal framework (as opposed to the general legal framework set up by the federal government) and they will have the right to deal with monetary issues (if applicable).

To put it simply, the "governments without space" can have a "space" but the point is that the government is not bounded by territory (other than the overarching Federal Territory). The advantage comes from the basic fact that anyone can choose to be a part of a system that they choose (within reason). That means that the conflict that occurs over many socio-economic political issues will stop. There will still be some conflict over the Federal System but that can be changed over time as well.

farson135:

Nielas:
Control over roads would give the "government with space" tremendous control over the overall economy. For one it would allow it to make rules that govern how the long haul trucking industry operates. Right now there is a controversy over government regulations on how many hours truckers are allowed to operate their vehicles per week. The government wants to lower the limit to 70 hours per week which means that the trucking companies would need to hire more drivers. Truck inspections increase the delivery times and cost truckers time and money. At the same time truckers who fall asleep at the wheel are a serious threat on the roads and unsafe trucks can cause massive accidents.

All infrastructure is "space" so the main federal government would have control over the essential aspects of most industries. I just do not see how "government without space" can be given jurisdiction over anything that really matter since it is all "space" related or can easily become "space" related.

However, the issues you described would be controlled by the "government without space". The roads themselves are handled by the Federal Government and some basic rules can be applied but the 70 hour per week limit would be handled by the "government without space". (more below).

Maybe you could provide me with examples of what the "governments without space" would actually be responsible for.

I provided several (welfare state, taxes, etc.) but here are a few more that it could be responsible for (I am proceeding under the assumption that we are using a two or three tiered system balanced away from the "governments without space")-
Building codes
"Ethics codes"
Corporate framework and regulations (within certain limits)
Subsidies
Property rights (to an extent)
Moral/political/cultural/etc. duties (if applicable)
Land/wealth redistribution (if applicable)
Education guidelines (to an extent)
Relations between the other "governments without space" (to an extent)

And of course there are all kinds of internal systems that can be done in different ways. A communist system will run elections differently from a parliamentary system, and on.
In general, the "governments without space" will provide a more specific legal framework (as opposed to the general legal framework set up by the federal government) and they will have the right to deal with monetary issues (if applicable).

To put it simply, the "governments without space" can have a "space" but the point is that the government is not bounded by territory (other than the overarching Federal Territory). The advantage comes from the basic fact that anyone can choose to be a part of a system that they choose (within reason). That means that the conflict that occurs over many socio-economic political issues will stop. There will still be some conflict over the Federal System but that can be changed over time as well.

I am seeing some serious issues with the system. How do the "governments without space" decide which roads their laws apply to? One could decide that the limit on truck driving would be 80 hours and another could decide that it should only be 60 hours. Would a trucker from an 80 hour area be breaking the law if he drove into a 60 hour area and was already at 61 hours?

Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by "government without space". I read your description as meaning that I could be following one government but my neighbor could be following another.

Ahh, Libertarianism. I want to love it, I really do. The thing is, I just don't see it really working all that well. Lets go down the list,

Social Policy: This is the one area I tend to agree with Libertarians on. I'm pro-gay marriage, pro-gun, pro-marijuana(I wouldn't use it, but thats my personal stance), and generally against the government getting all in my personal shit. So, I sympathize with Libertarians a lot here.

Economics: Libertarian economic ideology never really clicked with me. It seems that many of the biggest fuck ups in US economic history have come from economic bubbles formed by people trying to get lots of quick money, or from people living beyond their means with the support of banks and loans. The market should be regulated to prevent unsustainable growth as it tends to lead to a really bad hang over economically. That being said, I am also against the government artificially propping things up that aren't essential for security just because they can't stand on their own. Some would jump to the auto-bail out, but that seems to have payed off for the Government and those companies are doing well again if I recall. So again, there are aspects I like, but others I would not implement.

Foreign Policy: I am generally of the opinion that the US should have an active part in the world for two reasons. First is the secure resources necessary for the US to prosper economically. By this I mean making the areas where they are found stable, not colonies; just to clarify. Secondly, to preserve some level of peace in the world. We cannot stop all wars, or even most of them. However, we can try and prevent big wars from happening, and dangerous countries from having the opportunity to attack neighbors(see Korea and Gulf War).

Nielas:
I am seeing some serious issues with the system. How do the "governments without space" decide which roads their laws apply to? One could decide that the limit on truck driving would be 80 hours and another could decide that it should only be 60 hours. Would a trucker from an 80 hour area be breaking the law if he drove into a 60 hour area and was already at 61 hours?

Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by "government without space". I read your description as meaning that I could be following one government but my neighbor could be following another.

You are misunderstanding the basics of it. Think about it this way, YOU are the embodiment of the "government without space". The "government without space" has no real territory (although its citizens can give property to it). That means that the laws of your "government without space" apply anywhere you go within the country. So imagine the jurisdiction of the "government without space" as being the space you happen to be occupying at any point. This idea of a roving jurisdiction is a part of our idea of a "government without space". YOU can be anywhere and so can your government. Obviously, there are some basic rules that the Federal Government ensures (murder is illegal no matter what your government without space says).

As for the speed limit scenario you posed, that would be one of the basic rules handled by the Federal or Local government.

The only real issue is coming up with whose laws apply when two people meet on neutral ground (a fistfight might be handled by different jurisdictions in different ways). However, generally speaking the answer to that question is that if the Feds do not cover it, the two parties are on neutral ground, and the principle actors are within the laws of their respective systems then nothing can be done (barring injury or similar).

Years ago, i was debating with some libertarians over the net.
And eventually we ended up into a situation where one of the libertarians i was debating just ended up stating that, yes, libertarianism would not work, but we should still do it because it's "right" way to do things.

It was very mind boggling, and i have never been able to take any libertarians truly seriously ever since.

farson135:
The roads themselves are handled by the Federal Government and some basic rules can be applied but the 70 hour per week limit would be handled by the "government without space". (more below).

farson135:

As for the speed limit scenario you posed, that would be one of the basic rules handled by the Federal or Local government.

You just contradicted yourself.

I simply do not see how most of the laws of the "government without space" would not be superseded by laws made by the Federal or Local government. You already said that murder would not be allowed no matter what the rules of the respective "governments without space" say. I would assume that would also include things like starting a fire that will spread to someone else's space. How about dumping toxic waste into your well, knowing that it will poison the water for all your neighbors? There is countless possible interactions between individuals and those will lead to jurisdiction clashes.

If a "government without space" can decide on property laws then it will quickly clash with another "government without space" about conflicting rules. The larger government will have to adjudicate these disputes and force the participants to follow its rulings. After a while, we will be exactly back where we started.

Nielas:
After a while, we will be exactly back where we started.

This is basically my main argument (apart from it being horrible and not working) against libertarian societies.

Governments came to be for a reason, and in a vacuum, new one would be formed almost automatically (only question being, how large it would be, how long it would be, and how much it would suck to everyone until it became functional enough to keep peace, as well as how many false starts there would be in the interim).

Nielas:

farson135:
The roads themselves are handled by the Federal Government and some basic rules can be applied but the 70 hour per week limit would be handled by the "government without space". (more below).

farson135:

As for the speed limit scenario you posed, that would be one of the basic rules handled by the Federal or Local government.

You just contradicted yourself.

That is not a contradiction. Speed limits are different from telling a person how long they are allowed to drive.

I simply do not see how most of the laws of the "government without space" would not be superseded by laws made by the Federal or Local government. You already said that murder would not be allowed no matter what the rules of the respective "governments without space" say. I would assume that would also include things like starting a fire that will spread to someone else's space. How about dumping toxic waste into your well, knowing that it will poison the water for all your neighbors? There is countless possible interactions between individuals and those will lead to jurisdiction clashes.

Tell me something, is there a jurisdictional crisis every time there is a murder here in the US? Occasionally yes but that is usually a debate between city and county jurisdiction and not between federal and state.

The handful of laws that are handled by the Federal Government would not be able to contradict the laws of the "government without space" since the laws the Feds deal with and the laws the "government without space" deal with are mutually exclusive.

If a "government without space" can decide on property laws then it will quickly clash with another "government without space" about conflicting rules.

Why? It is not their jurisdiction.

Imagine if the two of us had a business on the edge of the city of Austin. You would be subject to the laws of the city and I would be subject to the laws of the county. You have a business in the city of Austin. I have a business right next door but in Travis County instead of Austin. YOU are subject to the bag ban (that is, you are not allowed to use plastic grocery bags) while I am not because it is a city law not a county law. Now in my example we have overlapping jurisdictions but you get the idea. Austin's laws do not apply outside of Austin. The laws of a "government without space" do not apply anywhere aside from the people under its jurisdiction.

The larger government will have to adjudicate these disputes and force the participants to follow its rulings. After a while, we will be exactly back where we started.

What dispute are you seeing?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked