Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

Yah?????

Conservative libertarianism is kind of incoherent. A conservative would like to conserve the status quo, hence, a world ruled by the state. I don't agree with such a view.

Pat, how would de-regulation had helped in the mortgage crisis? People were irresponsible by askig loans they couldn't pay and offering them to people they knew couldn't pay. How would deregulation have helped matters?

I'll talk more tomorrow. I have some minor questions and just a couple philophical issues here, though research has shown a way to solve one of them...

The T wrote: Conservative libertarianism is kind of incoherent. A conservative would like to conserve the status quo, hence, a world ruled by the state. I don't agree with such a view. Pat, how would de-regulation had helped in the mortgage crisis? People were irresponsible by askig loans they couldn't pay and offering them to people they knew couldn't pay. How would deregulation have helped matters? I'll talk more tomorrow. I have some minor questions and just a couple philophical issues here, though research has shown a way to solve one of them...

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I think it's a contradiction for a libertarian to be a constitutionalist. How could a libertarian defend a document which grants the right of eminent domain?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I'm not saying you did. I'm just pointing out that strict constitutionalist and libertarians are very different.  I agree that reversion to the Constitution would be a great thing, although I would still be very unsatisfied.

The T wrote: Conservative libertarianism is kind of incoherent. A conservative would like to conserve the status quo, hence, a world ruled by the state. I don't agree with such a view.

That's not exactly what Conservative (big C if you like) means in this context.  If it did, that would mean conservatives would (by their label) accept whatever the current laws and situations in the US are, and that wouldn't be conservatism- it'd be a "go along, get along" foolishness (which is incidentally what a lot of people exhibit anyway).  If you want to say conservativism means "conserve the status quo," that's fine too, as long as you view the status quo as preserving the Constitution and its intent of severely restricting the powers of the federal government.

I use the term Conservative to conveniently denote my views on a number of issues, particularly social ones, like abortion, gay marriage (please don't tell me a Libertarian must be in favor of either of these, because as I've shown before, that isn't the case at all), the right to bear arms, the resistance of governmental social engineering, and more.

Essentially, my Libertarianism comes also from my respect for the Constitution- the government should have no authority to tell you what you can and cannot do when the given activities do not do harm to another person, his property, or his rights (or place any of these things in significant jeopardy).  That said, much of my Libertarianism is fiscal as well- that the government has no right to increase its own powers and authority by essentially robbing the people and invading their privacy (which is what income tax does).

Yes, "Conservative Libertarian" isn't a particularly helpful label, but that's the nature of labels, and we have to explain what we mean by them anyway.

Epignosis wrote: gay marriage (please don't tell me a Libertarian must be in favor of either of these, because as I've shown before, that isn't the case at all)

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Conservative libertarianism is kind of incoherent. A conservative would like to conserve the status quo, hence, a world ruled by the state. I don't agree with such a view. That's not exactly what Conservative (big C if you like) means in this context.  If it did, that would mean conservatives would (by their label) accept whatever the current laws and situations in the US are, and that wouldn't be conservatism- it'd be a "go along, get along" foolishness (which is incidentally what a lot of people exhibit anyway).  If you want to say conservativism means "conserve the status quo," that's fine too, as long as you view the status quo as preserving the Constitution and its intent of severely restricting the powers of the federal government. I use the term Conservative to conveniently denote my views on a number of issues, particularly social ones, like abortion, gay marriage (please don't tell me a Libertarian must be in favor of either of these, because as I've shown before, that isn't the case at all), the right to bear arms, the resistance of governmental social engineering, and more.Essentially, my Libertarianism comes also from my respect for the Constitution- the government should have no authority to tell you what you can and cannot do when the given activities do not do harm to another person, his property, or his rights (or place any of these things in significant jeopardy).  That said, much of my Libertarianism is fiscal as well- that the government has no right to increase its own powers and authority by essentially robbing the people and invading their privacy (which is what income tax does).Yes, "Conservative Libertarian" isn't a particularly helpful label, but that's the nature of labels, and we have to explain what we mean by them anyway.

I agree withyour view of conservatism. The problem is, just as with the word "liberal" (which in its original meaning would be very close to libertarian) has been changed in its social meaning here in the US, so has the other word. Nowadays conservatism seems to be a label for those defending less spending and less taxes but keeping the goverment in your life through social regulations, and a big push to mame religion an integral part of the political experience. By any mean, I think libertarianism is quite radical as it intends to provoke an entire shift of power from a central body to the individual. Is more radical and more "progressive" than any so-called-"progressive" movement, as it takes man beyond the collective into its own individual self, its own potential.

Nobody but a drunk Pat ever commented on my intellectual rights/inheritance question

Another question. Public land. There are large amounts of land that are nobody's. They belong to all os us? As the collective is really an absurd notion here, how can they be privatized? Who would get to own them? If I move to one and start making it produce, is mine? Why would I have to buy it from the government?

And, related, we all agree some land acquisition has been done rather suspiciously, fraudulentally in the past. That people who acquired the land by force or fraud (thus violating liberty and property rights) inherited the land to their heirs generations ago and now these heirs are benefiting from that, while other people have to, in a way, start from zero. Isn't that an unjust start for a society where property would have quite a great value? It's just a concern, I no longer advocate any confiscation or land redistribution. But we can tie to to the previous question. How does free land get acquired then?

Most philosophical issues have always been in my head. I never wanted control of any kind. I see now how it's pure psychology that keeps one bound to the idea of the big god/nanny/mommy/state that takes some responsibility off your shoulders in exchange for most every decision making that might actually improve your(and your loved ones, and in consequence everybody related inone way or another) life...

Just to clarify on my previous post addressing Rob's "conservativsm" comment. I agree with the view of the term. I don't agree with what you believe that makes you call yourself that way though (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)

Edited by The T - January 16 2011 at 12:53

What is not owned privately comes under the bureau of land management