Page 2 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

17 Aug 2011, 3:45 pm

I would like libertarians to explain how the financial sector overexuberance which lead to the most recent crisis was a victimless activity. It seems when private entities grow to a certain size, our society as a whole can become dependent on them. Do we just ignore this dependency that develops?



DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

17 Aug 2011, 4:41 pm

A "libertarian" used to just be anyone who believed in freedom. Some people like Noam Chomsky are trying to take the term back but I've accepted that a "libertarian" is a capitalist now. English is a living language.

I think that libertarians and anarchists should have an agreement that anarchists aren't allowed to call themselves libertarians anymore and libertarians aren't allowed to call themselves classic liberals anymore.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

17 Aug 2011, 6:25 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
libertarians aren't allowed to call themselves classic liberals anymore.


Classical liberals are really what I'd use to describe mild libertarians.



blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

17 Aug 2011, 6:36 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
I'd build the worlds biggest nuclear reactor and start blowing up hydrogen bombs in it. This ought to give me plenty of energy to desalinate the entire worlds water supply.


Isn't school back in session in a week or two?

That'll be good.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Aug 2011, 6:47 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
The Libertarian Party teaches that the poor do not even have a right to a cup of cold water.


Firstly, I was talking about libertarianism, not the Libertarian Party. Secondly; evidence, please?


Okay, given that you disregard the closest thing to an organization representing the consensus among libertarians as representative of libertarianism, you've made it impossible to support any generalizations about libertarians. That is because you've made it clear earlier that you don't trust polling data (unless you've changed your mind on that issue).


Aha, more proof of stalking. So, Master_Pedant, should everyone be entitled to a cup of cold water and how often would you want it to be delivered and at what velocity?



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

17 Aug 2011, 7:12 pm

Admitting that people can change their minds is now stalking? Wow, I guess you learn something new everyday.

Don't you have something better to do right now Keet, like voting against your own interests?


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Last edited by Master_Pedant on 17 Aug 2011, 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

17 Aug 2011, 7:14 pm

I used to consider myself a left-libertarian until i figured out that the libtertarian party disagrees with my ideals. Now I just consider myself a malcontent.

all that freedom stuff is great, but one of the valid arguments for taxation is to pool the resources of the many to create the value that no profit-seeking self-interested party will bother to do on an open enough scale.

I don't buy the (right?) libertarian argument that if we were taxed less, more money could be given to charities and people would take more time out to help the poor in person.

I think that enough of us are selfish bastards that we would let people starve.



VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

17 Aug 2011, 7:35 pm

Most of this kind of discussion is about what kind of Federal Government we want. I would like to see it be much more Libertarian in it's approach to things.

However if there is a government program you think you need why not just create it within your own local state government? Do we really need a massive Federal government dealing with all these social issues and programs?

If you want to help the poor for example why not propose a local state or even city tax? Why send it to Washington D.C. where the money gets picked over by administration fees and then gets sent back to your district with strings attached?

I'd really like to see an America with the Federal government out of the way, and yet we could allow our States to have Conservative or even Socialist policies. Even try government healthcare at the State Level if they want to.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Aug 2011, 7:45 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Admitting that people can change their minds is now stalking? Wow, I guess you learn something new everyday.

Don't you have something better to do right now Keet, like voting against your own interests?


Your statement implied a reference to knowledge you supposedly had, but whatever.


Don't you have something better to do also, like not going around and providing labels to everyone you disagree with? Perhaps in lieu of that you can possibly buy a textbook to study or play a video game or something more productive. Anyway, voting in favor of economic improvement at the cost of temporary lack of handouts versus voting for more and more handouts at the cost of the economy isn't voting against my own interests in the long term, but why should I even entertain the notion that either social or economic liberals (Labour Party members in most English speaking nations apart from the USA) care about anything more than short term benefits and myopic gains? Also, voting isn't everyday in America, not even for politicians who get paid even when they literally do nothing.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

17 Aug 2011, 7:50 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Don't you have something better to do right now
Well you're one to talk :lol:



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

17 Aug 2011, 7:54 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
It's also funny that this guy draws inspiration from John Stuart Mill, as Mill is one of the people responsible for the social welfare orientation of modern liberalism in Anglo-American countries.

Not really. Mill is a major thinker in the liberal tradition. Most libertarians believe they follow in the liberal tradition. The claim that they follow in the liberal tradition, also isn't absurd. Some may contest it historically, but a very strong overlap is the thinker Frederic Bastiat, who is often labeled a classical liberal but his writings are very much libertarian in nature. However, a lot of people of this mindset have been inspired by JS Mill in some form or fashion. One of the favored writings is his book called "On Liberty".



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

17 Aug 2011, 8:57 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
It's also funny that this guy draws inspiration from John Stuart Mill, as Mill is one of the people responsible for the social welfare orientation of modern liberalism in Anglo-American countries.

Not really. Mill is a major thinker in the liberal tradition. Most libertarians believe they follow in the liberal tradition. The claim that they follow in the liberal tradition, also isn't absurd. Some may contest it historically, but a very strong overlap is the thinker Frederic Bastiat, who is often labeled a classical liberal but his writings are very much libertarian in nature. However, a lot of people of this mindset have been inspired by JS Mill in some form or fashion. One of the favored writings is his book called "On Liberty".


While I can see some sense in drawing inspiration from Mill's framework, the fact remains that he should represent the "perversion" of classical liberalism towards social welfare under libertarian logic. He was (well before the concept was thoroughly formulated, albeit) essential in incorporating a broader, positive conception of liberty into liberalism. Modern day American natural rights libertarianism is about narrowing the scope towards negative liberty, given that they view many elements of positive liberty are easy to abuse - leading to paternalism.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

17 Aug 2011, 9:02 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
While I can see some sense in drawing inspiration from Mill's framework, the fact remains that he should represent the "perversion" of classical liberalism towards social welfare under libertarian logic. He was (well before the concept was thoroughly formulated, albeit) essential in incorporating a broader, positive conception of liberty into liberalism. Modern day American natural rights libertarianism is about narrowing the scope towards negative liberty, given that they view many elements of positive liberty are easy to abuse - leading to paternalism.

I don't think I care. I don't think anybody needs to care. Yes, libertarians may disagree with Mill. So what? Everybody disagrees with everybody else. A person can easily refer to Mill, consider oneself very Millian, and all of that, while still rejecting some parts of Mill's framework. The problem that also makes things difficult is that libertarians also don't necessarily reject utilitarianism, which is Mill's ethical framework.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

17 Aug 2011, 10:36 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
A "libertarian" used to just be anyone who believed in freedom. Some people like Noam Chomsky are trying to take the term back but I've accepted that a "libertarian" is a capitalist now. English is a living language.

I think that libertarians and anarchists should have an agreement that anarchists aren't allowed to call themselves libertarians anymore and libertarians aren't allowed to call themselves classic liberals anymore.

It will never happen. Especially since capitalists will now use the term anarchist if it fits their ideology.



mcg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Sacramento

18 Aug 2011, 3:14 am

blauSamstag wrote:
I used to consider myself a left-libertarian until i figured out that the libtertarian party disagrees with my ideals. Now I just consider myself a malcontent.

all that freedom stuff is great, but one of the valid arguments for taxation is to pool the resources of the many to create the value that no profit-seeking self-interested party will bother to do on an open enough scale.

I don't buy the (right?) libertarian argument that if we were taxed less, more money could be given to charities and people would take more time out to help the poor in person.

I think that enough of us are selfish bastards that we would let people starve.
Public policy should focus on long term growth. The poor will get dragged up with the rest of us, however selfish we may inherently be.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

18 Aug 2011, 5:45 am

tht reasoning has proven erronous, especially over the last couple of years.
from where i stand it is nothing but myth.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.