16 May 2015, 4:13 pm
LocksAndLiqueur wrote:
The word "libertarian" has been hi-jacked by certain right wing organizations in recent years. They like to describe themselves as libertarian because it's a good sounding word, but rarely if ever use it in a manner consistent with its actual definition.
Samuel Edward Konkin III wrote the "New Libertarian Manifesto" in the late 1970s (it was first printed in 1980) and in it he outlined the actual moral foundation of libertarianism. This was long before the word was stolen by the Republican party. You can Google it and the first result should be a .pdf file that you can read. Another good resource (which most people find to be an easier read) is a more contemporary which you can read here: Freedom
In Konkin's document, he explains that a libertarian believes that all human beings should be treated as equals regardless of race, gender, or other such arbitrary factors and that no group or individual has the right to own another human being, that people own themselves. This is the foundation of true libertarianism.
From this, something called the "Non-Aggression Principal" is derived. This is the idea that it's morally wrong to initiate violence against a peaceful person, threaten to initiate violence against them, steal from them or coerce them into doing something that they don't want to do. I'd like to think that most people would agree with this idea. It's certainly one that most people hold to most of the time. However, it's apparent that there are people who believe that it is acceptable to engage in assault, murder, kidnapping, etc. because people still do it.
To quote the text directly, "Libertarianism elaborates an entire philosophy from one simple premise: initiatory violence or its threat (coercion) is wrong and is forbidden; nothing else is."
So, gay marriage, legalizing pot, etc. are all things that true libertarians support, but the militarization of police, constantly starting conflicts in other parts of the world and so on are things that libertarians oppose.
What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the only reason a lot of mega-corporations are still afloat is because they receive bailouts and special tax breaks that smaller businesses don't. If you read the full document, you'll find that the libertarian philosophy is fundamentally opposed to bailing out the rich as has been common practice in recent years. Currently, they don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. In a libertarian society, they would have no mechanism for extorting money from the lower and middle classes to fund their endeavors.
There are now and have always been people who choose to give a certain percentage of their income to the less fortunate. This is a good thing. I don't have any money to give away, but I've volunteered quite a bit at a couple of local non-profits. Libertarianism isn't social Darwinism, it's just an opposition to the idea that one group of people can tell you "Give us X amount of money or men with guns will hunt you down and do bad things to you" or "stop self-medicating and take the drugs we tell you to take or men with guns will hunt you down and do bad things to you," even though any other party would go to prison for that type of behavior (and rightly so).
We don't want an "enforcer" class that's allowed to get away with extortion, assault, kidnapping and often even murder (as is currently the status quo). It's about equal rights for all people to do as they please without fear of someone else claiming that their group has moral authority to rob and attack peaceful people.
As I said before though, in recent years it's been conflated with a lot of Republican beliefs that have no place in Libertarianism.
Samuel Edward Konkin III wrote the "New Libertarian Manifesto" in the late 1970s (it was first printed in 1980) and in it he outlined the actual moral foundation of libertarianism. This was long before the word was stolen by the Republican party. You can Google it and the first result should be a .pdf file that you can read. Another good resource (which most people find to be an easier read) is a more contemporary which you can read here: Freedom
In Konkin's document, he explains that a libertarian believes that all human beings should be treated as equals regardless of race, gender, or other such arbitrary factors and that no group or individual has the right to own another human being, that people own themselves. This is the foundation of true libertarianism.
From this, something called the "Non-Aggression Principal" is derived. This is the idea that it's morally wrong to initiate violence against a peaceful person, threaten to initiate violence against them, steal from them or coerce them into doing something that they don't want to do. I'd like to think that most people would agree with this idea. It's certainly one that most people hold to most of the time. However, it's apparent that there are people who believe that it is acceptable to engage in assault, murder, kidnapping, etc. because people still do it.
To quote the text directly, "Libertarianism elaborates an entire philosophy from one simple premise: initiatory violence or its threat (coercion) is wrong and is forbidden; nothing else is."
So, gay marriage, legalizing pot, etc. are all things that true libertarians support, but the militarization of police, constantly starting conflicts in other parts of the world and so on are things that libertarians oppose.
What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the only reason a lot of mega-corporations are still afloat is because they receive bailouts and special tax breaks that smaller businesses don't. If you read the full document, you'll find that the libertarian philosophy is fundamentally opposed to bailing out the rich as has been common practice in recent years. Currently, they don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. In a libertarian society, they would have no mechanism for extorting money from the lower and middle classes to fund their endeavors.
There are now and have always been people who choose to give a certain percentage of their income to the less fortunate. This is a good thing. I don't have any money to give away, but I've volunteered quite a bit at a couple of local non-profits. Libertarianism isn't social Darwinism, it's just an opposition to the idea that one group of people can tell you "Give us X amount of money or men with guns will hunt you down and do bad things to you" or "stop self-medicating and take the drugs we tell you to take or men with guns will hunt you down and do bad things to you," even though any other party would go to prison for that type of behavior (and rightly so).
We don't want an "enforcer" class that's allowed to get away with extortion, assault, kidnapping and often even murder (as is currently the status quo). It's about equal rights for all people to do as they please without fear of someone else claiming that their group has moral authority to rob and attack peaceful people.
As I said before though, in recent years it's been conflated with a lot of Republican beliefs that have no place in Libertarianism.
The most salient reply I've read in this thread
"What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the only reason a lot of mega-corporations are still afloat is because they receive bailouts and special tax breaks that smaller businesses don't. If you read the full document, you'll find that the libertarian philosophy is fundamentally opposed to bailing out the rich as has been common practice in recent years. Currently, they don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. In a libertarian society, they would have no mechanism for extorting money from the lower and middle classes to fund their endeavors."
This especially is something I've been trying to communicate for years but you explain it much better me.
It disturbs me how many people confuse libertarianism (the free market aspect of it) with corporatism.
16 May 2015, 4:50 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 May 2015, 4:59 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 May 2015, 5:06 pm
16 May 2015, 5:10 pm
GoonSquad wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
KaylamiYarne wrote:
sly279 wrote:
killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way
at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way
at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.
True libertarianism is that....respect others, leave us alone. The term gets misused a lot. It's about freedom, voluntary association and primacy of individual judgement.
Before bashing it completely....think of it. If everyone was free to do what they wanted, we would still have charities and organizations to help people. It would actually be easier to form an organization to help those with disabilities because we wouldn't have the government holding us back.
It's sad that people think government intervention is the only way we can receive help when we need it, when in fact the government is getting in the way of people helping each other (a woman got arrested for handing out money to poor people at her church)
I have not seen a single presidential candidate who's a true libertarian.
Edit: free to do what we wanted as long as it's not harming others.
I agree with you on the ideal, but in practical terms we live in a world of sociopaths and it wouldn't be long before said sociopaths started subverting the one rule (not harming others). Without strong checks and balances in place they would shackle and chain us all.
Yeah, we've tried this libertarian approach before. See "The Gilded Age." It didn't work then, and it would totally suck now.
As someone else observed, what passes for libertarian today is pot-smoking, republican, social darwinists. They'd just as soon see those of us who cannot work die.
That was me, and I didn't say social Darwinists. Fact is most of the pot-smoking Republican-type libertarians firmly believe that public benefits recipients will be better off under their policies, thinking that those who can work will be motivated to do so, not only by the paucity of hand-outs but by the prospect of keeping far more of what they make; while those who truly cannot work will have family and friends better able to care for them than they are with the way things are now.
I don't endorse those beliefs. Far from it, I'm an anti-capitalist. But the idea that libertarians want the poor to die isn't about accurately describing their views, it's about smearing them.
16 May 2015, 5:13 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 May 2015, 5:14 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
16 May 2015, 5:23 pm
16 May 2015, 5:43 pm
RetroGamer87
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,185
Location: Adelaide, Australia
16 May 2015, 5:46 pm
16 May 2015, 6:15 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
sly279 wrote:
killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way
at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way
at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.
It seems leave others alone, unless those others are on any government assistance or not 'sinking' like they ought to if they aren't swimming all on their own. Unless that is just the more vocal libertarians...
true but those are more tea party people.
as for charities taking over for the government, they can't people on the right don't realise that most people on gov aid also get aid from those charities, so many people on are only able to make it because of both, so saying taking away gov aid that the charities will somehow be able to triple their support magically is crazy.
Sweetleaf wrote:
Well if government policy changes to honor the belief that taxation is theft....what would you propose to replace the social safety network that is funded by taxes? Are there any other avenues of providing such aid aside from government assistance and charity? because charity alone would leave many people starving in the streets regardless of if you personally wish that fate on anyone or not. Unless of course society and the entire system where drastically changed to such an extent to entirely eliminate poverty in the first place.
I've meet quite a few tea party people and read even more comments online from others. they tend to call themselves libertarians. they would have us lined up and shot or some other more efficient way of disposing of us. but they're different from nazis because that was based on so called race and there's is based on logic of the strong live and week die .
but to me genocide is is genocide despite how you label it. though keep in mind most don't want to see or actually do the dirty work they want others to do it for them. so they can own a 5th sports car. or another 500 million dollar yacht. gosh their lives are so terrible with their 4 cars and nice house and everything they want.then there's the almost poor bottom middle class who has be tricked to believe the enemy is the poor by the real enemy the rich. they slowly nock those people to the poor class while making them hate the other poor so they can have more money in their bank account. its the poors fault my billion dollar company had to cut wages back or lay off others to bring in robots. its the poors faut they had to move manufacturing to china and lay off everyone.
or they could take a profit lose of like 1/100 of their current profit. but in most cases they do those things to increase profits every slightly. its so sickening. money, that why wont' eve spend just to have more money is more important to them then human lives.
I'd probably never stay rich if I became rich because to me human life is more important then money. I'd try to help as many as I could.
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
16 May 2015, 7:02 pm
RhodyStruggle wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
KaylamiYarne wrote:
sly279 wrote:
killed by dems, or killed by repubs.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way
at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.
I vote balancing act to which is the more closer threat, which for me and where I live is dems.
not really a good choice eitehr way
at least the the most part true libertarians just want to be left alone and leave others alone.
True libertarianism is that....respect others, leave us alone. The term gets misused a lot. It's about freedom, voluntary association and primacy of individual judgement.
Before bashing it completely....think of it. If everyone was free to do what they wanted, we would still have charities and organizations to help people. It would actually be easier to form an organization to help those with disabilities because we wouldn't have the government holding us back.
It's sad that people think government intervention is the only way we can receive help when we need it, when in fact the government is getting in the way of people helping each other (a woman got arrested for handing out money to poor people at her church)
I have not seen a single presidential candidate who's a true libertarian.
Edit: free to do what we wanted as long as it's not harming others.
I agree with you on the ideal, but in practical terms we live in a world of sociopaths and it wouldn't be long before said sociopaths started subverting the one rule (not harming others). Without strong checks and balances in place they would shackle and chain us all.
Yeah, we've tried this libertarian approach before. See "The Gilded Age." It didn't work then, and it would totally suck now.
As someone else observed, what passes for libertarian today is pot-smoking, republican, social darwinists. They'd just as soon see those of us who cannot work die.
That was me, and I didn't say social Darwinists. Fact is most of the pot-smoking Republican-type libertarians firmly believe that public benefits recipients will be better off under their policies, thinking that those who can work will be motivated to do so, not only by the paucity of hand-outs but by the prospect of keeping far more of what they make; while those who truly cannot work will have family and friends better able to care for them than they are with the way things are now.
I don't endorse those beliefs. Far from it, I'm an anti-capitalist. But the idea that libertarians want the poor to die isn't about accurately describing their views, it's about smearing them.
What you described in that underlined bit is functionally social darwinism.
And, I don't believe that most libertarians WANT the poor to die. Most of them don't really care about the poor at all as long as they don't have to deal with them directly...
However, regardless of what they want, the functional result of their policies would be, "if you don't work, you don't eat" for many of the disabled poor.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 May 2015, 7:20 pm
16 May 2015, 7:57 pm
16 May 2015, 8:21 pm
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
16 May 2015, 8:34 pm
