"Freedom" thread or something

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Lets see if America's attention spans a sufficient amount of time to actually hold the President accountable for something and to care about the brutal treatment and rape of Snowden that's about to occur.

Doubt it

http://obamaischeckingyouremail.tumblr.com/

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The coverage of this story infuriates me. It's become a character piece on Snowden and a discussion of what the government needs to do to prevent future intelligence leaks. Nobody wants to even consider the fact that the government may be doing something detrimental.

 

Muah ha ha ha!
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/grow_up_libertarians/

dtguitarfan wrote: Muah ha ha ha! http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/grow_up_libertarians/

For someone who seemed pretty big on soul searching, ( which is always important) I see you still are content picking a "side" just to spite your old Republican self eh?
In a way I did the same. When I went from socialist to libertarian I went ALL the way...mainly to prove to myself "yeah I mean this" but I've really moderated since. I beg you keep an open heart and mind and keep researching. And remember, the truth can be painful sometimes, esp when it shakes what we used to believe.

BTW you really overreacted all that time ago, you came here to bash Republicans far as it seemed, but many of us already did that so when we also called out Democrats (BTW really look into Obama's record, he is literally Wubya #2 and has been sucking big business cock) you flipped out. Anyway I  have a sincere, not trying to be mean question for you:

What do you like about the Democrats? Why do you support them? If you give me your sincere answers I'll respond nicely


Anyway, there is a need for welfare. I'd like it more efficiently done but yes, welfare is needed. I think it one of the legitimate needs of government.

dtguitarfan wrote: Muah ha ha ha! http://www.salon.com/2013/06/13/grow_up_libertarians/

I guess the author of that article forgot to read this

manofmystery wrote: Tom Woods answers the "unanswerable" gotcha question always asked of libertarians

That answers one of his points.  I will answer some others:

Mike tries to dismiss libertarian philosophy by pointing out several specific things he's heard libertarians say (creating corporate commune/countries and dividing the US into several separate countries, for instance).  He points out these things as if they were things common to libertarians (which isn't true), thereby committing the logical fallacy of composition.  Furthermore, he presents libertarian opinions in a very simplistic way, which is understandable in a short article like this; what is not understandable is that he seems to think libertarian ideas stop at these crude generalizations; which is another blatant untruth, most libertarians have much more nuanced and complex views than these; on the "flat tax" thing for example (which the author explains poorly), I have heard Rob explain that a flat sales tax system could avoid becoming regressive by exempting life necessities such as food and clothing from the tax, thus actually helping the poor, who would pay very few taxes.

Oh, and then he goes on to say that libertarians who dissent from the "party line" will get "expelled from the cult [a loaded word fallacy, by the way] as a 'statist' heretic [another loaded word]".  Sorry to be crude about it, but this is really dumb.  Simply following the libertarian thread on here would yield entirely different results:  JJ advocates a progressive income tax, Teo talks about a possible need for universal healthcare, and a bunch of the guys on here were just talking about sending checks to poor people a few weeks ago.  Mike fails miserably to acknowledge the diversity in libertarian opinion (thereby committing the fallacy of division, the opposite of the fallacy of composition, which he committed earlier).

Finally, Mike makes one of my points for me.  Of course libertarianism is not pragmatic.  It is based upon an ideal.  It is based upon principles.  This is the main thing that makes libertarianism so different and so superior to mainstream political philosophies; those philosophies preach principles but end up purely pragmatic; conservatives and liberals don't really want to change much of anything, just to make tweaks to the same old system again and again in order to get it to work better; and of course they disagree about what tweaks we should make and thus we get all the political firestorms that dominate our news and TV and radio 24/7.  What none of them have bothered to consider is that the entire system is broken, that what is needed is not tweaks to the system ("reforms," as they like to call them) but a revamping of the system entirely, a return to the principles upon which this country was founded, which for hundreds of years have been overlooked as politicians have built a creaky patchwork monstrosity of pragmatism to found their policies on instead.  And all the while they continue their patchwork job at fixing leaks in the monstrosity while failing to notice that the foundation is built on sand, and that someday, "the rains will come down and the floods will come out, and the house on the sand will go splat" (to paraphrase the children's Sunday School song).

Libertarianism, on the other hand, advocates a new system (or rather, the return of an old system) of government that sticks to its proper function of protection of people and their property while respecting the freedom of individuals, families, schools, churches, businesses, and charities to govern their own affairs as they see fit, as long as they do not intrude upon the rights and liberties of others.  Libertarians seek to abolish the monstrosity, the centralized system of life, the universe, and everything, the system that tries to control our consciences, our pocketbooks, our vocations, and yes, even our minds.  Libertarians are not pragmatic because we're through with trying the "practical" solutions that have built this mess and are ready to do what's right instead.  And if we're ready to leave behind what "works" (but really doesn't) and to try and progress towards what's true and good and right, we might just find out that truth and goodness "work" better than what we thought "worked."

Thus endeth the rant.

Quoting the opening paragraph from his original article, he says this:

If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

This proves that Lind has no awareness of what Libertarians actually believe.  Unlike socialists and dictators, we do not claim that we understand how "best to organize modern society."  That's the beauty of Libertarianism.  We do not claim to know how to fix everything.  And that doesn't change the ideal at all.  Unlike other political systems, we believe in freedom, not coercion.

I would spin this around: If no country has ever been fully Libertarian, how do you know Libertarianism doesn't work?

The problem with libertarianism as I see it is that it assumes that people are inherently good, and unfortunately that's not the case. There are evil people, and for some strange reason, power sometimes tends to switch the evil side of people on.

Edited by Gerinski - June 17 2013 at 06:56

dtguitarfan wrote: This is a sensible answer.  I choose not to even address the others - sorry dudes, it's just too tiring to go back and forth and back and forth with no progress, and that's what always seems to happen.  It's especially tiring when facts are not accepted as facts and you have to argue their merits.

No need to apologize, "dude." 

dtguitarfan wrote: You show me a country where your ideas are actually working and I'll think about your ideas.

Libertarianism is not a "system" or something that is designed to "work."  Libertarianism is an ideal that those who hold it believe to be morally right.  We are not pursuers of Utopia.  There is no "end picture" we are striving towards.  For example, we believe stealing is wrong when an individual does it, so we also believe stealing is wrong when a group does it and calls it something else.

But since you wish to judge Libertarianism according to what "works," then could you please provide the standards by which this vague objective is met?  Why do you think what you believe in works?  For instance:

In a nation that has a system that "works," how much violent crime is acceptable?
How much poverty is acceptable, and therefore, how do you define poverty?
How much debt is acceptable?
What level of education should everyone be required to attain?
What personal decisions can be prohibited or restricted?
What's the lowest acceptable minimum wage?
What should be the prison sentence for tax evasion?
How do you enforce your laws?

You said:

dtguitarfan wrote: I simply do not see the sense in abolishing [...] the department of education,

This implies that you think the department of education is "working."  I'd like to know how this is so.

Just claiming something won't "work," and then brushing off what other people have to say, won't...erm...work. 

dtguitarfan wrote: Libertarians have this idea of 0 government that you can't find anywhere.  Unless you go back to the age of the barbarians...yeah, like I'd want to live in a society where we go back to clubbing women over the head and dragging them back to our caves.....

So the only thing stopping men from beating up women is government?  Damn, I didn't know it was that simple! 

Oh wait.

Every 9 seconds in the US a woman is assaulted or beaten.

Gerinski, could you provide a specific example of a right or liberty that needs to be regulated?