Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

Hanyou wrote: What, was The T not sympathetic to libertarianism at one point? This I have to see.

 

Oh I was quite the contradiction a while ago. Ultra-liberal (in the old sense of the word, not the US one) on social issues, but semi-Stalinist in economic ones. Finally I had to un-dumb myself and see things how they should be seen. We all can change. All it takes is effort and some level of curiosity for the real truth, not the one passed down as such from top to bottom...

Nowadays I reject left-libertarianism, libertarian-socialism, and conservative-libertarianism as contradictions in themselves. I'm leaning slowly towards hardcore libertarianism close to minarchism though I still see undesirable private roads, laws or police. I don't believe that would lead to chaotic anarchy, though (free market anarchy is quite a probable outcome) but I see several ways in that such an extreme disappearance of some kind of harmless government might lead to a serious problem of order and live-ability among people.

Wow T, you've become almost worryingly zealous  

Edited by LinusW - February 04 2011 at 00:19

Well damn!
So you say you're trending towards Mincarchism?

I believe that's the philosophy that government should be reduced to simply the courts and military?
Though I know you said there's still some discomfort with a private police force for example.

Just like music genres, these terms are silly. I suppose that's just a more extreme form of libertarianism. Limited government to the core.
Of course Pat does not even want a military funded by taxes so I have no clue what that makes him

Teo you feel the same about state/local governments as well? Should it ALL be eliminated and left with the bare minimal federal government?


Edited by JJLehto - February 04 2011 at 00:38

So real limited government?
Courts and Military.
Maybe local police?

And of course law.

I have heard that. That libertarianism is the ultimate form of human society. Eventually, once everything else has progressed that would be the final form.

The T wrote: One can't be libertarian, I think, and believe in any kind of superior control whose source is a common master. Neither religion or supposedly generalized morals (like conservatives) nor, obviously, the common good (another way of saying "what 100 rich guys think and prefer to be the common good"). That's why I'm leaning towards the outer edges, though, I insist, with severe discrepancies with anarcho-capitalism which would require private everything, quite desirable but even from a socio-psychological point of view still a problem. Police and roads and law has to be the same for everybody to guarantee actual real freedom, that where people decide what to do and how to do it and know before hand consequences and cost of their actions. Uncertainty would be too much of an issue in an anarcho-capitalist world. Though eventually real libertarianism, after achieving success and show its obvious advantages, would probably inevitably end as the stage in absolue freedom.

Ah. Utopia.

The T wrote: State governments have the same authority to imprison you and prohibit you to do things that harm nobody, so yes, all forms of government have to be reduced to the minimum optimum level. Because, see, if federal government is reduced to ashes but state governments remain uber-powerful, they would soon resemble the nation-wide one. After all, is the same: a group of rich guys "representing" everybody and deciding things for everybody, with coercive power and lawmakers in their side. One can't hate the big boy and love the little ones.

Well I am glad to hear that.
As you guys know I hate when people say things like "SCREW THE GUVMENT" but are all for states rights.
You just pointed out the obvious fact that I've always said to them "So you're ok with big government, just in small pieces?"

Also I usually take such comments as a sign of someone vomiting whatever they hear and not really thinking about it




Edited by JJLehto - February 04 2011 at 00:49

The T wrote: Police, law, courts, military (undesirable but the whole world isn't going to turn libertarian at once so we better keep an army just in case), roads, and some things here and there. Maybe fire, and sanitation.

Well, glad you have some sanity left!
I was afraid you'd go into Pat and Llama territory of total free market in every aspect!

And I agree about the military. I really would like to see a total lack of it, but that is extremely unrealistic of course.
As yall know I do support a drastic reduction though, all around.
Leave all our wars, remove a good amount of the bases around the world, and an overall reduction in military size.
Besides cutting the defense budget, maybe trim some fat as well? I don't know if it's true but I've heard stories about the hammer that costs $400 and junk like that

I am glad to say that. Military is one thing no one wants to touch. I would like to see a Rep (besides the Pauls) even mention it and even most Dems I know would think me a bit nuts. Nice to say it without people thinking I'm a whack job!

I can't believe I couldn't see this before and now I can't even understand not seeing it. To reach power in this country (and most countries) you have to be either famous or rich or have powerful contacts. Fame and wealth usually go together since famous people sell and they get paid a lot; rich people can't put themselves in every little person's shoes; powerful people have connections and other people who facilitated their coming to power. They have to think on them first. The fools that vote for them come last. Is such a lie that libertarianism is the ideology of white rich people (that would be neoconservatism), when it's the ONLY ideology that is actually color and class-blind since it treats EVERYBODY the same way.

So, if government and senate are institutions used by the powerful to get even more powerful, what's the answer? A proletariat dictatorship or any other lesser kind of new group that will eentually degenerate into exactly the same thing, a system that feeds on itself and working people?

No. You just don't eliminate the player. You have to eliminate the game.

Now I'm off to sleep. I'd suggest doing the same since no system will work with energy-less people