Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

16 Oct 2009, 10:28 am

I am asking because I have done a lot of thinking on things, and I believe that certain things should be legalized simply because I feel that people should have choices.

Examples:

I support legalizing marijuana because I feel that people should decide for themselves if they want to do it.

I feel that the government should stay out of the marriage business altogether, and that marriage licenses should be issued by the private sector.

I strongly oppose 99% of forms of censorship.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


gamefreak
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,119
Location: Citrus County, Florida

16 Oct 2009, 11:26 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
I am asking because I have done a lot of thinking on things, and I believe that certain things should be legalized simply because I feel that people should have choices.

Examples:

I support legalizing marijuana because I feel that people should decide for themselves if they want to do it.

I feel that the government should stay out of the marriage business altogether, and that marriage licenses should be issued by the private sector.

I strongly oppose 99% of forms of censorship.




Depends, that sound pretty much libertarianism. I pretty much agree with every one of those proposals except leaving marriage to the corporate sector. However I do believe letting gay and trans gender marriages is all fine and dandy.



JasonGone
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 124

16 Oct 2009, 11:32 am

i am a libertarian. at least that is the best political label i can find to fit my world and life philosophy. i am just a firm believer in personal liberty, absolute righteous freedom, and a strong faith in humanity... despite my inability to understand them on most levels.

two things that really affected my overall thought process that has changed my entire approach to political and social issues.
1. anything by thomas jefferson.
2. satre's philosophy of "bad faith". you can find good info on the bad faith here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith_ ... tialism%29

and remember politics has no place in goverment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5mXPYPX79s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B93yn0O35Cw



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Oct 2009, 2:35 pm

None of your points stand against libertarianism(rather they stand in favor of it), and your line of reasoning is basically libertarian, but I can't tell where a person stands without a stand on a lot of positions so that way we can apply a political philosophy to the trends, or without a consistently adhered to political philosophy to analyze. I would not be surprised if you were moderately libertarian.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

16 Oct 2009, 7:29 pm

I kinda figured this was the case.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

17 Oct 2009, 12:45 am

Those all sound like relatively libertarian positions, but they could just as easily fall within the fold of liberal beliefs. To determine whether you were a libertarian would require a more complete description. How do you feel about government programs such as Medicaid, Social Security, etc? Should there be universal healthcare? Is the government responsible for helping people get an education?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


JasonGone
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 124

17 Oct 2009, 12:46 am

and tim i noticed you have mentioned being a south park fan before. there are no bigger libertarians that matt and trey.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

17 Oct 2009, 6:07 am

Wow, thanks!

I had heard that before.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

17 Oct 2009, 9:48 am

gamefreak wrote:
Depends, that sound pretty much libertarianism. I pretty much agree with every one of those proposals except leaving marriage to the corporate sector. However I do believe letting gay and trans gender marriages is all fine and dandy.

It wouldn't leave marriage to the private market. The government would still be the mediator of contracts. It's just that they wouldn't be defining what "marriage" is.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

17 Oct 2009, 5:30 pm

The private market would allow both straight and gay marriages. I came up with the idea because wedding planning is just a damn popularity contest nowadays. Now, a wedding has to be on top of Diamond Head, overlooking Waikiki Beach. I say add to the commercialization.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

17 Oct 2009, 5:36 pm

I also use the terms "law enforcement" and "government-sponsored terrorism" interchangeably.

This is because of the abortion and sodomy laws in some parts of the country. Some towns are like the town in Footloose, and alcohol, rock music, and dancing are banned in those places.

(The "To Serve, Protect, and Cram Fundamentalist Christian Beliefs Down People's Throats" topic)


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

17 Oct 2009, 7:04 pm

Tim_Tex wrote:
The private market would allow both straight and gay marriages. I came up with the idea because wedding planning is just a damn popularity contest nowadays. Now, a wedding has to be on top of Diamond Head, overlooking Waikiki Beach. I say add to the commercialization.

Tim you are confusing marriage ceremonies with marriage licensing. If you want government out of marriages, then abolish legal marriage altogether.

The private sector often are connected to marriage licensing.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

18 Oct 2009, 2:08 am

The most defining aspect of libertarianism is that the government should not get involved because the free market and/or local custom can provide better solutions. These noble-sounding ideals often hide something much more pernicious: paleoconservatism. Libertarians generally embrace federalism: a reading of the Constitution that grants the federal government only the powers explicitly listed (and then taking a rather narrow view—no Elastic Clause) and states' rights (harkening back to Dixie's attempt to secede from the Union over slavery and later Jim Crow laws). Paleoconservatism was the opposition to the expansion of the federal government under Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal: pro-business/anti-regulation, isolationist, states' rights, anti-tax, and often stridently racist and misogynist.

Paleoconservatives—and today's libertarians—prefer that more local institutions and customs dictate social behavior. Contemporary libertarians generally oppose racial and sexual discrimination by law, but many believe the social tool of ostracism is the appropriate way to further a socially conservative society (e.g., private business could refuse to patronize African Americans or gays; snubbing people of different ancestries would still be perfectly acceptable). Some libertarians are even okay with state or local laws enforcing a socially conservative outlook—as long as it's not done by "activist" judges or the federal government.

Libertarians generally believe government's role in business should be limited to enforcement of contracts through the courts and prosecution of fraud and crimes against the person or property only. Consumer protections go against this philosophy (caveat emptor—no "nanny state"). Environmental protections are also considered undesirable; the libertarian response to pollution and other environmental concerns is that, if people dislike it, they should vote with their dollars to buy another company's products or services; if this doesn't happen, economically, the consumer simply doesn't value environmental damage over the convenience/price of the product.

Libertarians generally accept the power imbalance between employee and employer: the feudal-like hierarchy of the traditional corporation, the authoritarian control of the employer over many aspects of the employee's life (sometimes even outside of working hours if that's part of the employment agreement). Libertarians generally believe, if you don't like the conditions at your current workplace, you own your labor, and you can take it somewhere else (where likely you may only find similar conditions in your current profession/trade). This is because libertarians see employment as a voluntary contract and the labor given and goods or services rendered as private capital, a fundamental good that should exist outside governmental purview. Libertarians generally accept the fact that this system will tend to create large imbalances of power and wealth and a stratification of the society (they may have a social-Darwinist retort for this). Libertarians generally don't see any problem with the disproportionate power for-profit corporations (after all, only voluntary associations of private persons) wield in our society because it's the private sector, not the public/government sector. The paradox that a laissez-faire economy will tend to concentrate wealth and power in just a few's hands doesn't bother or concern libertarians, most of whom believe they are on their way to the top, especially the Randian objectivists.

Libertarians are almost without exception scornful of the "welfare state": government-sponsored scholarships, government-backed student loans, disability income, unemployment income, job assistance, socialized health care, food stamps, Social Security, progressive income tax (preferring a "flat" income tax if there must be any income tax at all), and even public K-12 education in extreme cases. The nostrum is that the private sector can always do a better job; and for charity, churches, charities, and the philanthropy of private individuals is always a better idea than any systematic government involvement. This is in sharp contrast with the modern liberal and social democratic conceptions of the role of government.

When a libertarian speaks of freedom, they only mean freedom from a formal government's interference; their philosophy is unconcerned with how the contingencies of life—economic cycles, societal custom, imbalances of wealth and power—can and do have a great impact on most individuals' freedom to act according to their own principles and desires. This is in contrast with the liberal idea of freedom, which tends to promote equal opportunity, freedom of expression/speech, freedom of conscience/religion, etc. (i.e., liberals can see a role in government promoting individual freedom).



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Oct 2009, 8:23 am

NeantHumain wrote:
The most defining aspect of libertarianism is that the government should not get involved because the free market and/or local custom can provide better solutions;


That is not the stand of libertarians. You are confusing anarchism with the libertarian view. The libertarian view is that government should confine itself to protecting the property and rights of the citizens that pay for the government.

Government, among other things, would punish fraud and breach of contract. Government would provide police services and armed forces. The alternative is to have privately owned police forces and armies. They tried that in Germany in the 20's and 30's following the Great War. There were armed groups called Frei Korps which were private armies. History has taught us how Germany ended up, given that circumstance.

ruveyn



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

18 Oct 2009, 11:21 am

ruveyn wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
The most defining aspect of libertarianism is that the government should not get involved because the free market and/or local custom can provide better solutions;


That is not the stand of libertarians. You are confusing anarchism with the libertarian view. The libertarian view is that government should confine itself to protecting the property and rights of the citizens that pay for the government.

Notice this is exactly what I wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
Libertarians generally believe government's role in business should be limited to enforcement of contracts through the courts and prosecution of fraud and crimes against the person or property only.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,472
Location: Houston, Texas

18 Oct 2009, 11:38 am

I am not a paleoconservative in any way, if that helps.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!