Libertarianism 101

[The_Q]

It's my philosophy in flash format. Doesn't belong in Chit Chat so here it is.

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Q

[Verruckter]

RE: Libertarianism 101

This is so true. I've seen it before and honestly, I totally agree with it too. If only the whole world knew that.

[eyespewgreekfire]

RE: Libertarianism 101

The whole thing makes perfect sense except for two problems: people are not always rational and do not always follow the pricipal of no force or fraud. The mutually consented exchange of goods can hurt people, and people can act in manners not in their self interest. Because of this, a poor class is created, who are weaker than all others. Because of this, the need for a government to step in is needed, if people do not wish for mass famine amongst the poor. People who use force and fraud, in a libertarian system, have no strong opposition. The government is needed here becuase they are a collective force of society to stop these problems. Without law enforcement, there surely would be much more murder, slavery, and theft.

[esupin]

RE: Libertarianism 101

I agree. I believe the government is here to protect people from themselves.

[The_Q]

RE: Libertarianism 101

Government, although not entirely necessary, is a good thing. In general this runs into a fix. People can elect to give their own money to the government in a but not another's if they follow a libertarian system. Every time taxes are raised it breaks the system. Basically, the only methods of government funding that is entirely libertarian is donation-funded or creating a firm out of it that is available only to those who subscribe.

Here's something about the poor. Do they want to not be poor. Of course! But how did they get there. Through force or fraud, probably, but even more probable is that they were either born into their class or spent their money in an unwise fashion. In either case, it is their responsibility to help themselves. Having the government redistribute money from the wealthy to the poor without the consent of the wealthy is not fair or within the government's rights. Generally, I don't care about the poor having problems until I myself am poor or I decide to give to the poor (and even then the poor must actually want me to give things to them. You never know, some people have excessive pride).

I personally believe that it is our job to elect officials who will aid us in keeping our life, liberty, and property to ourselves. That is my idea of government. The downside: that only works on an individual level. Basically, we'd hire individual security companies to get the same effect.

SUPER downside: Justice in this system would be impossible. The government or any other people have no right to punish the fraud or felon because the only forms of punishment involve taking away from the wrongdoer. Either their liberty or their property would be removed against their will. So the system is not perfect.

Q

[jewpinthethird]

Re: RE: Libertarianism 101

SUPER downside: Justice in this system would be impossible. The government or any other people have no right to punish the fraud or felon because the only forms of punishment involve taking away from the wrongdoer. Either their liberty or their property would be removed against their will. So the system is not perfect.

Although cant it be viewed as one who intentially practices slavery, murder, or theft, as one who is willingly giving up their own right to their life, liberty and property? An eye for an eye. I know Gandhi, one of the people I respect the most, said "an eye for and eye leaves everyone blind" but I believe that it is in a persons nature to be selfish and evil, and those who cant control it and act civilized should be punished.

I think Libertarianism is too idealistic and reminds me of Communism. It seems to make perfect sense on paper, but you have to factor in human nature. Humans are selfish, greedy, mean, and sometimes evil. It's instinct. That aspect of survival of the fittest will always be present no matter what kind of government there is.

[falconsfan14]

RE: Re: RE: Libertarianism 101

Like the flash video said, you do not have the right to take other peoples lives, liberty, or property. It is cause and effect, people take other peoples lives, liberty, and property, probably because it has happened to them or someone they love. They are just trying to get even with society, theyre minds have tricked themselves into beliving that doing so wil make it better. Which obviously is wrong.

I think Libertarianism is too idealistic and reminds me of Communism. It seems to make perfect sense on paper, but you have to factor in human nature. Humans are selfish, greedy, mean, and sometimes evil. It's instinct. That aspect of survival of the fittest will always be present no matter what kind of government there is.

Yes, people are sometimes selfish, greedy, mean, and evil, but, human nature is also love, to care, and to think for ourselfes, humans are not just limited to such basic emotions and actions. Humans are unpredictible, our minds are so unpredictable that any change in our surroundings sets off those basic emotions. If someone you cared about was killed you would get angry and want to get that person for doing so, murder, evil, selfishness.

There arent any basic principals to humans, we are unpredictable, but intelligent life forms.
The government trys to take hold of those basic emotions to get us to do what they want, taking the lives of others. Its not that the government is the enemy, they just use unfair tactics to get us to do what they want, most do not get to decide for themselves, it is decided by others which also taking the lives of others.

Falcon

[jewpinthethird]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Libertarianism 101

Yes, people are sometimes selfish, greedy, mean, and evil, but, human nature is also love, to care, and to think for ourselfes, humans are not just limited to such basic emotions and actions. Humans are unpredictible, our minds are so unpredictable that any change in our surroundings sets off those basic emotions.

I am aware of this. But my argument was not that humans are evil, greedy, etc, it was that because of greed and selfishness an idealistic form of Government can never work.

There arent any basic principals to humans, we are unpredictable

Condradiction:

If someone you cared about was killed you would get angry

Sounds like a prediction to me. Humans are fairly predictable and can be easily manipulated. Freud would agree.

[The_Q]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Libertarianism 101

There arent any basic principals to humans, we are unpredictable

There are many sciences that are based on the very fact that humans are predictable. Most use their own methods to come to similar conclusions. Economics is one of them.

They are just trying to get even with society, theyre minds have tricked themselves into beliving that doing so wil make it better.

No, not really. That'd be a onesided transaction. In proper trade, both sides agree to the transaction. When something is stolen, even when there are risks involved, it is without the consent of one party. That's half of the parties missing. That's a huge problem.



This is blatantly naive. Yes, "hurt people hurt people" but that isn't always the case. In fact, when it comes to theft, murder, and slavery it is often that harming the other person is beneficial to the wrongdoer. I don't know what's so hard about that to understand. Making several thousand dollars without working is great. Theives know this.

Although cant it be viewed as one who intentially practices slavery, murder, or theft, as one who is willingly giving up their own right to their life, liberty and property? An eye for an eye.

Not entirely true. That'd be a one sided transaction, even with the risks, and wouldn't be considered a proper trade. You need two to tango, after all. Missing one party from a transaction is missing half of the people involved (assuming no externalities). That's a lot of people!

SUPER downside: Justice in this system would be impossible. The government or any other people have no right to punish the fraud or felon because the only forms of punishment involve taking away from the wrongdoer. Either their liberty or their property would be removed against their will. So the system is not perfect.

I was hoping someone would jump on this before I pointed it out. Although punishment is not attainable, making force or fraud be ineffective by strengthening the defenses against it (stronger police...but that means more taxes. Back to private security...) would create a rather large disincentive to even attempt such a thing.

Q

[msbrunnettemickey]

This contains a lot of true information,

other people in your life cannot control you life.
Don't let them either.
Maybe your parents could, but thats a different issue.
You can be a follower of a leader, but not a poser of other people.
Why? Because people would look at you differently.
People would judge you.

[The_Q]

Why? Because people would look at you differently.
People would judge you.

Not really. People judge you all the time, no matter what you do. People judge me because I have long hair and sideburns. They judge me, assuming I'm some skate punk who's high half the time and skipping class the other half, to be stupid. I prove them wrong. Turns out that you can judge a book by its cover. It's also rather good to do so, as well. It's bad for people like me, though, who lose so many opportunities because of the judgement against them. Other than that, stereotypes and judgement can quite often be a good thing.

Q

[msbrunnettemickey]

Not really. People judge you all the time, no matter what you do.

That is true...
People judge me sometimes because im Israeli.
People judge me when i go to the hospital.
People judge me when i even talk in a different language.
I got something to think about.