If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   "Liberals and conservatives may love people more than do libertarians, but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress"   (reason.com) divider line 617
    More: Sick, Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist, moral dilemmas, religious tolerance, liberty, liberals, Simon Baron-Cohen, rule of law  
•       •       •

1725 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2012 at 1:47 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



617 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-28 08:22:37 AM  
Everyone knows the peak of moral progress is letting poor people starve. Duh....
 
2012-09-28 08:37:10 AM  

johnryan51: Everyone knows the peak of moral progress is letting poor people starve. Duh....


Well it's true. A dead person is more moral than a live one on the dole.
 
2012-09-28 09:00:28 AM  
and furthermore comma

*straightens fedora, adjusts jorts*
 
2012-09-28 09:06:07 AM  
"Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible."

Yeah, those Enlightenment thinkers, they were such total libertarians! John Locke thought we weren't universally collected in any way to make society, we were all just disparate actors working for our own benefits!
 
2012-09-28 09:19:58 AM  

Rincewind53: "Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible."

Yeah, those Enlightenment thinkers, they were such total libertarians! John Locke thought we weren't universally collected in any way to make society, we were all just disparate actors working for our own benefits!


"Every man is an island." - John Derpe
 
2012-09-28 09:52:19 AM  
What did they call J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism? Something like "the bourgeoise providing moral justification for their own selfishness"?

Similar thing applies here.
 
2012-09-28 09:57:13 AM  
Moral progress?
 
2012-09-28 10:00:18 AM  
Apparently the rest of the Fark drones don't really understand libertarianism.

I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)

Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty. Of course, with individual liberty comes personal responsibility. The current bi-partisan system is farked because you have the Democrats that want individual liberty without personal responsibility and the Republicans that want personal responsibility without individual liberty. The best analogy I can give for the 2 parties is that the Democrats are like mommy that always want to take care of you and the Republicans are like daddy that want to tell you how to live your life.

From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.

Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.
 
2012-09-28 10:00:37 AM  
You don't know anything and you should set yourself on fire.
 
2012-09-28 10:13:10 AM  

slayer199: From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.

Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.




Dude. Do go talking sense to these people. They NEED to hate on someone for their plight. It's YOUR fault you selfish bastard!
 
2012-09-28 10:14:13 AM  

slayer199: But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.

Except for the part where this has never actually, you know, worked.

 
2012-09-28 10:14:47 AM  

slayer199:
Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


The primary way we achieved substantive reform in the 20th century that massively lowered poverty rates, raised overall cost of living, improved society, extended life expectancy, and freed people from horribly dangerous working conditions is through government action. As much as you may try to write the Progressive Era and the New Deal out of history, they still happened.

Libertarianism is a movement with some great ideas, and some really terrible blind spots.
 
2012-09-28 10:23:19 AM  
'Allowing' charities and churches to handle the poor and hungry is a good way to ensure a lot of people end up dead. So it's not a bad way to go if you'd rather those people not be around to bother you.

I just think it's funny that paying taxes is considered unjust, but someone dying because of a lack of money doesn't even rate on the justice scale. It's just something that happens sometimes, oh well.
 
2012-09-28 10:24:10 AM  

Rincewind53: The primary way we achieved substantive reform in the 20th century that massively lowered poverty rates, raised overall cost of living, improved society, extended life expectancy, and freed people from horribly dangerous working conditions is through government action. As much as you may try to write the Progressive Era and the New Deal out of history, they still happened.

Libertarianism is a movement with some great ideas, and some really terrible blind spots.


So the Industrial Revolution, growth of GDP, and America's rise as a financial superpower had nothing to do with it?
 
2012-09-28 10:29:31 AM  

slayer199: So the Industrial Revolution, growth of GDP, and America's rise as a financial superpower had nothing to do with it?


Being anti-libertarian isn't the same thing as being anti-capitalism. Don't conflate the two. It doesn't take a Randian to mass produce soemthing and sell it for profit.
 
2012-09-28 10:30:57 AM  
What is "liberty" in this context?
 
2012-09-28 10:31:54 AM  

slayer199: Rincewind53: The primary way we achieved substantive reform in the 20th century that massively lowered poverty rates, raised overall cost of living, improved society, extended life expectancy, and freed people from horribly dangerous working conditions is through government action. As much as you may try to write the Progressive Era and the New Deal out of history, they still happened.

Libertarianism is a movement with some great ideas, and some really terrible blind spots.

So the Industrial Revolution, growth of GDP, and America's rise as a financial superpower had nothing to do with it?


I don't think any of those are in any way mutually exclusive of any of the things I mentioned. The Industrial Revolution brought an entirely new type of oppression into the world that caused massive social upheaval and created a huge amount of problems for the working poor. Children working in factories, women being worked until their hands bled, men dying of black lung in the coal mines, the Triangle Shirt-Waist fire -- all of these were the direct result of private action, aided and abetted by a court system that placed "freedom of contract" over the health and safety of the lower classes. In an era when adulterated sausage filled with pieces of rat were the norm, do you really think massive change could have occurred through private actors? It is unquestionable that private individuals did a lot to alleviate the problems of the era, through philanthropy from people like Andrew Carnegie or lower-level work from social reformers who set up workhouses to protect the poor. But in the end, the only way these excesses and human rights abuses were stopped was through campaigns for government oversight.

You know what happened when individuals tried to stand up to the Robber Barons? They were shot by hired thugs, bribed policemen, and the Pinkertons.
 
2012-09-28 10:33:24 AM  

slayer199: Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty.


Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?
 
2012-09-28 10:33:27 AM  

slayer199: Apparently the rest of the Fark drones don't really understand libertarianism.

I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)

Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty. Of course, with individual liberty comes personal responsibility. The current bi-partisan system is farked because you have the Democrats that want individual liberty without personal responsibility and the Republicans that want personal responsibility without individual liberty. The best analogy I can give for the 2 parties is that the Democrats are like mommy that always want to take care of you and the Republicans are like daddy that want to tell you how to live your life.

From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.

Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


As long as you deny the irrationalities of human beings, the amount of time we depend on our limbic system to make decisions and the fact that we use the full extent of the prefrontal cortex only a small percentage of the time ... as long as you deny all that then libertarianism is a great idea. With actual human beings, not so much.
 
2012-09-28 10:33:50 AM  
it's always interesting watching these threads....Republicans and Democrats alike both show their programmed responses very clearly. damn shame this country has been hard coded to only think in binary terms: left wing, right wing. Republican and Democrat. Conservative and Liberal. Good and Evil. both sides define themselves by their relationship to each other. then along comes a libertarian viewpoint that says 'hey, maybe a little bit of both sides would work out better for everyone' and the binary crowd loses their shiat.

I know i'm not going to change anyone's point of view in this (or any other) 'bash the libertarians' thread. I just thought it worth mentioning that you might benefit from questioning your own inherent bias before jumping on the libertarians. carry on my wayward sons, There'll be peace when you are done.
 
2012-09-28 10:36:03 AM  

kmmontandon: slayer199: But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.

Except for the part where this has never actually, you know, worked.


Read up on poverty in American history. Up until the Great Depression, nearly all aid to the poor was done through private groups. Government aid dating back to the early settlers focused on what they called the "deserving poor," i.e. those who had no real way to function in their societies (the blind, crippled, orphans).
 
2012-09-28 10:38:13 AM  

Weaver95: it's always interesting watching these threads....Republicans and Democrats alike both show their programmed responses very clearly. damn shame this country has been hard coded to only think in binary terms: left wing, right wing. Republican and Democrat. Conservative and Liberal. Good and Evil. both sides define themselves by their relationship to each other. then along comes a libertarian viewpoint that says 'hey, maybe a little bit of both sides would work out better for everyone' and the binary crowd loses their shiat.

I know i'm not going to change anyone's point of view in this (or any other) 'bash the libertarians' thread. I just thought it worth mentioning that you might benefit from questioning your own inherent bias before jumping on the libertarians. carry on my wayward sons, There'll be peace when you are done.


Look, you're a cool guy and all, but I think you're over-reacting to a perceived hatred for libertarians. As I stated in the first thing I said, I actually think Libertarians have some really great ideas, many of which are perfectly in line with my own thoughts on the subject. I just think they also have very large blind spots towards areas where government has helped, and can continue to help.
 
2012-09-28 10:38:38 AM  

ArkAngel: Read up on poverty in American history. Up until the Great Depression, nearly all aid to the poor was done through private groups.


Yeah, and it didn't work. Are you unaware of the crippling poverty most people lived in until the very recent past?
 
2012-09-28 10:41:16 AM  

ArkAngel: Read up on poverty in American history. Up until the Great Depression, nearly all aid to the poor was done through private groups. Government aid dating back to the early settlers focused on what they called the "deserving poor," i.e. those who had no real way to function in their societies (the blind, crippled, orphans).


No one is contesting that it was done. The question is: how many people still starved?

If a government program to feed people let 25% of people starve, it would be called an unmitigated failure. Why should there be a double standard between the success of a government and private entities?
 
2012-09-28 10:41:41 AM  

Weaver95: it's always interesting watching these threads....Republicans and Democrats alike both show their programmed responses very clearly. damn shame this country has been hard coded to only think in binary terms: left wing, right wing. Republican and Democrat. Conservative and Liberal. Good and Evil. both sides define themselves by their relationship to each other. then along comes a libertarian viewpoint that says 'hey, maybe a little bit of both sides would work out better for everyone' and the binary crowd loses their shiat.

I know i'm not going to change anyone's point of view in this (or any other) 'bash the libertarians' thread. I just thought it worth mentioning that you might benefit from questioning your own inherent bias before jumping on the libertarians. carry on my wayward sons, There'll be peace when you are done.


It's a little generous to assume that libertarian = centrist or that it fits nicely in between left-wing and right-wing. I like a lot of libertarian ideals but closing down entire federal departments and going back to the gold standard is not centrist.
 
2012-09-28 10:46:08 AM  
I'll start respecting these supposed libertarians when they get as outraged over something like warrantless wiretapping as they do about being unable to dump raw sewage into a public aquifer.
 
2012-09-28 10:47:07 AM  

Lumpmoose:

It's a little generous to assume that libertarian = centrist or that it fits nicely in between left-wing and right-wing. I like a lot of libertarian ideals but closing down entire federal departments and going back to the gold standard is not centrist.


that's also not what all libertarians belief.

trying to say that 'all libertarians believe XYZ' is like saying 'all democrats are atheist abortion addicts'. ask 3 libertarians to define their beliefs and you'll get 5 answers.

all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us. maybe the libertarians aren't the answer either...but I think we should try something - try ANYTHING different than the binary course of action we've been locked into all this time.
 
2012-09-28 10:51:56 AM  

Weaver95: Lumpmoose:

It's a little generous to assume that libertarian = centrist or that it fits nicely in between left-wing and right-wing. I like a lot of libertarian ideals but closing down entire federal departments and going back to the gold standard is not centrist.

that's also not what all libertarians belief.

trying to say that 'all libertarians believe XYZ' is like saying 'all democrats are atheist abortion addicts'. ask 3 libertarians to define their beliefs and you'll get 5 answers.

all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us. maybe the libertarians aren't the answer either...but I think we should try something - try ANYTHING different than the binary course of action we've been locked into all this time.


I don't think we are completely locked into a binary course. Both Democrats and Republicans have been evolving since the beginning of the parties. The ideologies change so that it's not always the same ideologies in locked opposition.
 
2012-09-28 10:53:36 AM  

Weaver95: all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us. maybe the libertarians aren't the answer either...but I think we should try something - try ANYTHING different than the binary course of action we've been locked into all this time.


By and large, the libertarians (at least the self described ones here) favor economic policy that is virtually indistinguishable from the most extreme policy coming out of the tea party

Slashing any and all regulations, slashing the entire social safety net, slashing anything resembling worker protection, and slashing every tax on those at the top while eliminating the breaks and credits those in the middle and lower classes take advantage of. .
 
2012-09-28 10:53:47 AM  
For the last time, "objectivist" does not necessarily mean "libertarian".
 
2012-09-28 10:55:50 AM  
Libertarianism is full of great ideas that fall apart as soon as you introduce human nature to the equation.
I support individual liberties exactly up until the point such liberties adversely affect someone else's.
Personal responsibility should be encouraged and rewarded, but a strong safety net benefits society in ways that well outpace the costs.
 
2012-09-28 10:57:52 AM  

Weaver95: all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us.


Things aren't perfect right now. Does that mean we're in a bad way? I'm grateful every day that I was fortunate enough to be born in this day and age, in this country, where I enjoy more rights and protections and the benefits of technological advances than almost anyone else who has ever been alive on this planet ever saw. Oh, but the economy isn't absolutely buff. There's some foreign trouble going on. People still suffer from the terrible fate of mortality. This makes things bad?
 
2012-09-28 10:58:56 AM  

Aarontology: Weaver95: all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us. maybe the libertarians aren't the answer either...but I think we should try something - try ANYTHING different than the binary course of action we've been locked into all this time.

By and large, the libertarians (at least the self described ones here) favor economic policy that is virtually indistinguishable from the most extreme policy coming out of the tea party

Slashing any and all regulations, slashing the entire social safety net, slashing anything resembling worker protection, and slashing every tax on those at the top while eliminating the breaks and credits those in the middle and lower classes take advantage of. .


you dodged my point - we've tried Republicans, we've tried Democrats....and look where it's gotten us. here we are, just as we've always been. And we're going to keep right on electing Republicans and Democrats and dancing to the same music until it all comes crashing down around us. I'm suggesting we've got other options.
 
2012-09-28 10:59:13 AM  

Weaver95: Lumpmoose:

It's a little generous to assume that libertarian = centrist or that it fits nicely in between left-wing and right-wing. I like a lot of libertarian ideals but closing down entire federal departments and going back to the gold standard is not centrist.

that's also not what all libertarians belief.

trying to say that 'all libertarians believe XYZ' is like saying 'all democrats are atheist abortion addicts'. ask 3 libertarians to define their beliefs and you'll get 5 answers.

all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us. maybe the libertarians aren't the answer either...but I think we should try something - try ANYTHING different than the binary course of action we've been locked into all this time.


What's with "we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way"? Eisenhower was a president of his time. Reagan was a president of his time. Clinton was a president of his time. There's no "democrats way" or "republicans way". Each decade brings a huge difference in conditions and challenges and both parties have changed dramatically over that time. 

Simpson-Bowles is a moderate, centrist solution. There's no reason both parties can't get behind it so Republicans are going to have to be willing to compromise and allow for responsible revenue increases.

Right there is the approximate status quo helping to solve the debt problem over the long term. It involves moderation and both parties compromising. What are libertarians offering that's different and not radical in comparison?
 
2012-09-28 11:01:34 AM  

The Bestest: Libertarianism is full of great ideas that fall apart as soon as you introduce human nature to the equation.


Exactly. The instincts we involved living in small hunter gatherer bands of around 30-50 people don't necessarily make sense in a global society of billions. Our cultural evolution (essentially the technology that we've built to allow us to expand as far as we have) has far outpaced our biological evolution (our instincts and limited use of our logical abilities).
 
2012-09-28 11:08:24 AM  

DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?


Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.

If you choose to do hookers and blow every night, that's your choice. The consequences of that could be STDs, overdose, having no money...consequences YOU have to live with.
 
2012-09-28 11:09:02 AM  

Weaver95: Aarontology: Weaver95: all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us. maybe the libertarians aren't the answer either...but I think we should try something - try ANYTHING different than the binary course of action we've been locked into all this time.

By and large, the libertarians (at least the self described ones here) favor economic policy that is virtually indistinguishable from the most extreme policy coming out of the tea party

Slashing any and all regulations, slashing the entire social safety net, slashing anything resembling worker protection, and slashing every tax on those at the top while eliminating the breaks and credits those in the middle and lower classes take advantage of. .

you dodged my point - we've tried Republicans, we've tried Democrats....and look where it's gotten us. here we are, just as we've always been. And we're going to keep right on electing Republicans and Democrats and dancing to the same music until it all comes crashing down around us. I'm suggesting we've got other options.


How are we the same as we've ever been? Sure, politics are still nasty, but in dozens of large ways and hundreds and thousands of small ways, government and society today is fundamentally different than government and society was 25 years ago, or 50 years ago. Some problems have stuck with us, some problems are brand new, some problems have been solved, then cropped back up again in a new way, and some problems have been outright solved.
 
2012-09-28 11:10:19 AM  

Rincewind53: slayer199: Rincewind53: The primary way we achieved substantive reform in the 20th century that massively lowered poverty rates, raised overall cost of living, improved society, extended life expectancy, and freed people from horribly dangerous working conditions is through government action. As much as you may try to write the Progressive Era and the New Deal out of history, they still happened.

Libertarianism is a movement with some great ideas, and some really terrible blind spots.

So the Industrial Revolution, growth of GDP, and America's rise as a financial superpower had nothing to do with it?

I don't think any of those are in any way mutually exclusive of any of the things I mentioned. The Industrial Revolution brought an entirely new type of oppression into the world that caused massive social upheaval and created a huge amount of problems for the working poor. Children working in factories, women being worked until their hands bled, men dying of black lung in the coal mines, the Triangle Shirt-Waist fire -- all of these were the direct result of private action, aided and abetted by a court system that placed "freedom of contract" over the health and safety of the lower classes. In an era when adulterated sausage filled with pieces of rat were the norm, do you really think massive change could have occurred through private actors? It is unquestionable that private individuals did a lot to alleviate the problems of the era, through philanthropy from people like Andrew Carnegie or lower-level work from social reformers who set up workhouses to protect the poor. But in the end, the only way these excesses and human rights abuses were stopped was through campaigns for government oversight.

You know what happened when individuals tried to stand up to the Robber Barons? They were shot by hired thugs, bribed policemen, and the Pinkertons.


farking seriously.

Not to mention that the wealthy philanthropists, while they did good work, still picked and chose those they thought were "deserving" of charity, and those like Cadbury and Rowntree created semi-feudal workers' estates where everyone had to abide by the owner's beliefs, like zero alcohol and attending church.

How is that advancing liberty? I suspect they mean only the liberty of the donors, not the recipients.
 
2012-09-28 11:10:30 AM  

slayer199: DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?

Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.

If you choose to do hookers and blow every night, that's your choice. The consequences of that could be STDs, overdose, having no money...consequences YOU have to live with.


Okay. What if you choose to be born into a family that's been in poverty for three generations and go to a school in an area with high crime and low support structures? Do you have to just live with that, or are you supposed to just throw off your upbringing and the circumstances of your birth and emerge new, like a phoenix?
 
2012-09-28 11:10:40 AM  

slayer199: DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?

Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.

If you choose to do hookers and blow every night, that's your choice. The consequences of that could be STDs, overdose, having no money...consequences YOU have to live with.


Who's going to pay to clean out the corpse?
 
2012-09-28 11:12:42 AM  
Obligatory
www.leftycartoons.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-28 11:12:51 AM  

The Bestest: Libertarianism is full of great ideas that fall apart as soon as you introduce human nature to the equation.
I support individual liberties exactly up until the point such liberties adversely affect someone else's.
Personal responsibility should be encouraged and rewarded, but a strong safety net benefits society in ways that well outpace the costs.


When you think about it, most limits on personal freedom are there to protect the personal freedom of other people. For instance anti-pollution laws protect me from having your pollution literally forced down my throat.
 
2012-09-28 11:13:07 AM  

Weaver95: you dodged my point - we've tried Republicans, we've tried Democrats....and look where it's gotten us. here we are, just as we've always been. And we're going to keep right on electing Republicans and Democrats and dancing to the same music until it all comes crashing down around us. I'm suggesting we've got other options.


I first would need to be convinced that libertarian economic policy is substantively different than the economic policy coming out of the GOP before we say that we've never tried it. But anyway, that was my rebuttal to your point. We want to act like the libertarians would somehow behave or govern better, but their ideas have been tried and they've been unsuccessful.

The Crash of 08 is a perfect example. The lack of regulations (or the freedom to engage in, depending on how you want to describe it) on credit default swaps and the subsequent collapse of the entire scheme is the direct result of the failure of industry to police itself and the lack of government oversight. Not to say the government isn't at fault to some degree as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but lot of libertarian economic policy and philosophy is based upon the idea that markets will be self correcting, self policing and won't engage in nefarious activities because of the enlightened self interest. Which fails miserably once you add people and their greed and lack of empathy for others into the equation.

I do have sympathy for a lot of libertarian ideas, but their economic policy is simply as unrealistic and utopian as marxism in that it denies human nature. Marxism assumes that everyone will work solely for the collective without consideration for their own wants, needs, and so on. Libertarianism also assumes that people will put aside the worst aspects of greed, ambition, and competition to ensure the system will survive and everyone benefits. But that's also unrealistic. Look at the CEOs and bank executives. They knew the default swap was unsustainable. They didn't care about the aftermath of the collapse because they got theirs.

Libertarian social policy and policy on things like the drug war, the security state, etc. however, would be a very nice change of pace
 
2012-09-28 11:13:30 AM  

slayer199: DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?

Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.


How does this work in the real world? Let's take a really simply thing, like medicine. There's a vile of insulin on the table. I have diabetes. I walk over to the table and pick the the medicine to use it. Someone else comes along and says "Hey! You can't do that! That's mine!"

How do we decide who gets the medicine? Libertarianism doesn't seem to have any objective answer to that question. Based on the assumptions you put into the model, you get wildly different answers.

Patient: I have the freedom to ingest medicines that I need.

Hospital: But you're not infringing on my property rights.

Patient: My liberty to live is more important than your property rights.

Libertarian: The hospital is right.

Patient: Why?

Libertarian: Liberty and stuff.

I'm unconvinced.
 
2012-09-28 11:14:59 AM  
libertarians couldn't even raise chairty money for Ron Paul's own campaign managers healthcare bills, on what farking planet do they live on where chairty would work as a subsitite for social services because it certianly and this farking one. And every farking time without a farking doubt some clown comes in an acts like that is a viable soultion and some other clonws "this" his comment between the other hundreds of posts proving it wrong. And then guess what will happen next time we get a similar article from the tards at reason.com... the same farking thing.
 
2012-09-28 11:35:41 AM  

slayer199: DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?

Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.

If you choose to do hookers and blow every night, that's your choice. The consequences of that could be STDs, overdose, having no money...consequences YOU have to live with.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but the consequences of that could also be impaired judgment that leads you to cause harm to another.
 
2012-09-28 11:55:58 AM  

slayer199: Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?).


The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document with standing over the United States.

It was written to appeal to its audience: King George.
 
2012-09-28 12:07:19 PM  

slayer199: Apparently the rest of the Fark drones don't really understand libertarianism.

I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)

Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty. Of course, with individual liberty comes personal responsibility. The current bi-partisan system is farked because you have the Democrats that want individual liberty without personal responsibility and the Republicans that want personal responsibility without individual liberty. The best analogy I can give for the 2 parties is that the Democrats are like mommy that always want to take care of you and the Republicans are like daddy that want to tell you how to live your life.

From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.

Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


I like how this touchy-feely caveat is inserted, as if it makes up for the fact that the rest of the text as written implies the exact opposite.

/leaving aside the other parts where it is assumed that individual actions occur in a vacuum
//like the standard bearer of "war on drugs" being included, though
 
2012-09-28 12:34:05 PM  

slayer199: But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government


The government has a DUTY to care for the well-being of its citizens. A central tenet of every single western democracy on Earth.

So, like you knew you were going to hear, move to Somalia, because they won't do f*ck all for you or anyone. How wonderful that will be.
 
2012-09-28 12:49:51 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I like how this touchy-feely caveat is inserted, as if it makes up for the fact that the rest of the text as written implies the exact opposite.


Exactly. Libertarians might not want people to die, but they're perfectly willing to let it happen in order to better adhere to an ideology.
 
Displayed 50 of 617 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report