An Honest and Accurate libertarian Discussion Thread

If the system cant work with how people actually are, then the system is bad...

 

You titled your thread in a biased way, so biased I didn't bother reading the OP or any of it, despite holding many "classically liberal" beliefs. If someone reacted to that by attempting to start from a more objective place, that's on you for framing as you did. I respect you as a poster, but it is what it is.

 

Ffs, im not making an argument against classical liberalism here. Im making against nap libertarians. What is it you dont understand?? I already said what kind of libetarianism it was aimed at, shat do you want?

 

IMO they are similar enough to be considered together because NAP is an extreme abstraction subject to very broad semantic variance, whereas classically liberal governing principles are not nearly as abstract and actually form the crux of what libertarianism is in practicality. In short, I still think you are looking to curve fit classical liberalism into anarchy by referencing the NAP part of the OP while throwing the rest of the baby out with the bath.

But admittedly, libertarianism's chief problem is that it draws lots of high abstractionists who can agree on nothing, so it remains powerless in SQ government compared to more practical, less airy fairy doctrines.

 

It was meant to be an exaggeration--it was openly called a parody. I was trying to provoke people into engaging me in a debate. Sometimes, a calm, unbiased introduction does nothing but reduce the size of the audience. If you read through the thread, you will see that I more than engage the detractors.

- - - Updated - - -

Precisely. It has become synonymous with high-IQ, autistic individuals who can't stand ideas that rely on fuzzy logic or aren't binary in nature.

 

The same thing has been said for communism, but the fundamental problem with communism is that it is incompatible with human nature.

I agree.

Until that day comes, the best libertarians can hope for is advancing individual freedom in any way they practically can. If they don't, there will be no check on the expansion and encroachment of the state on individual freedom and prosperity.

Certainly, we don't live in an ideal world or a world of absolutes, but on the other hand that doesn't mean libertarians should abandon their beliefs and goals. There's no reason why they shouldn't live, defend and promote their beliefs and goals to the best of their abilities. As others have pointed out, these beliefs and goals are not dissimilar to the beliefs and goals of the Founders.

 

That chart of yours would work just as well if you left economic left and economic right on the west and east sides...if you left "Authoritarian" at the north...and changed "libertarian" at the bottom to cheese mold...or phlegm...or Mom, apple pie, and nice music.

The chart is as much a fraud as is libertarianism.

Civilization and society became possible by each person giving up parts of personal freedom...and civilization and society became more complex and functional as the "society and civilization" demanded more freedom of the society and less for the individual.

People who want to subvert the move to civilization and society ought to move to where it doesn't exist.

I suppose there still are places like that.

Be sure to keep out others who are also looking for that same thing.

 

Well that is you opinion about human nature and others may disagree regarding communism.

As far libertarians I welcome their involvement in government. I just don't think we are ready for a largely libertarian government at this time.

 

Im not trying to do anything with classical liberalism. What i am saying is that libertarianism includes everything between classical liberalism to anarchism. My question was aimed at the anarchist libertarians. Ie not at you. If you dont follow the nap, good, i agree. The question was meant for those who do follow nap. My beef with libertarians is with nap. I dont really mind the classical liberals much, they are atleast sane.

 

Everything humans need to survive, including: clean safe water, food and shelter, is property.
Property is the product of industry.
Industry is the combining of ingenuity and material.
There are only four ways we can acquire the property we need to survive: industry, trade, charity or theft.
Industry, trade and charity have a mutually voluntary nature; theft does not.
If one owns them self, that one owns the property acquired via industry, trade of charity.

Private-property extends from self-possession, not the other way around.

 

I consider myself a libertarian-anarcho-capitalist

 

Actually, I made the original version of this post here in April of 2013. I just reposted it today.

Your post was irrational, and the question where loaded. You've been challenged in your thread to present the logic behind your statements, and refuse to do so as a result it would be a waste of time to respond. This leads me to believe your thread was actually a very good attempt at trolling. As best I can, I resist responding to troll-threads.

I don't mind criticisms of libertarianism, as I do so myself (An-Coms, An-Prims for example, make no sense to me). But anyone I engage with must be reasonable, humble and be able to critically think.

 

I didn't respond? Yes, I did.

Please, I'll crush you like a bug.

Bring it whenever you are ready.

 

If you are attempting to narrow your branch of the discussion to An-caps/An-coms/Anprims, etc, that is fine But know they are a very small branch of libertarianism.

Please support your statement, because I submit that it is not accurate. Please my original statement, link and reading recommendation.

 

Let me clarify: you quoted people and typed a response, but you did not respond to the points they made.

Your response to me here is similar: it is irrational. I don't seek "to crush anyone like a bug". It is a childish perspective.

If you wish to speak to the tenants that I have outlined in this thread, please do. I welcome an earnest conversation and not "bug crushing".

 

A libertarian is defined by their tolerance. Whereas an anarchist has no limit to their tolerance, a libertarian limits their tolerance to that which does not infringe upon the self-possession of others.

Those who are liberal with the legal use of force, are those most likely to condemn whatever they don't condone. They are largely indiscriminant and therefore intolerant because one cannot be more tolerant than they are judgmental.

As a libertarian, I condone very little and condemn even less. I judge all things and tolerate most of it. In my opinion, a healthy balance is to condone 2% of stuff, condemn 1% of stuff and tolerate 97% of stuff.

"I don't judge", is not a noble claim. Those who do not exercise good judgement on a regular basis are those most likely to condemn whatever they don't condone because no one can be more tolerant than they are judgmental.

Good judgement is a learned and perishable skill, and no one can be more tolerant than they are judgmental.

Good judgement and tolerance combine to form libertarianism.

 

Most libertarian thinking I've encountered seems to be "I want to do what I want to do...and I don't want anyone telling me I can't."

Eventually...that leads to chaos and anarchy. It has to.

But...libertarians seem to want to insist it won't.

How to resolve?

 

What is libertarianism? A third party that gets less than 10% of the vote......

 

You are misinformed about classical liberalism. While it is clearly distinct from libertarianism, government spending never rose above 5% of GDP until 1910, at which point it exploded and has never looked back. That's not the fault of classical liberalism.

 

Libertarianism is like liberalism or conservatism, it is not a party. The Libertarian Party is a party like the Democrats or GOP.

 

Libertarians are NOT pacifists.

 

Like I said, at this point in time libertarianism expects too much from people, especially those who refuse to take personal responsibility for their own lives.

As for the Libertarian Party, I don't agree with everything the party and its candidates endorse. I was astonished when LP presidential nominee Gary Johnson asserted that Jews should be forced to bake cakes for Nazis. In my opinion, that flies in the face of some of the core beliefs of libertarians (freedom of conscience and expression, voluntary association, etc.).

 

That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Since when is it in our nature to be forcibly beholden to other people's will?

It is in our nature to be free, not slaves.

Chattel slavery in America and communism elsewhere throughout the world has failed precisely because they violated that fundamental law of human nature, and as Nobel laureate William Faulkner correctly pointed out in his works, Man cannot defy human nature with impunity. Communism has always failed and always will fail because within the seed of communism lies the germ of authoritarianism.

I agree that most of us are not ready.

Personally, I'm not dogmatic about these things. I recognize and accept what people are and the limitations this imposes on libertarians and their agenda. As it has been said, politics is the art of the possible, so libertarians have to be realistic.

In this respect, libertarians can learn something from the "progressive" Long March through our nation's institutions - people can accomplish remarkable things if they're willing to be persistent. If libertarians and conservatarians are ever to be successful at returning America to its libertarian roots, it will take decades to do so, and many of us won't live to see it.

 

I know it's not pacifist, and that's not what I meant. What I mean is that if you follow the NAP it is impossible to form an effective military which would defend against a statist group trying to conquer you. Following the NAP means that the free rider problem can't be solved. Libertarians who follow NAP would be unable to effectively organise to counter a statist threat, and thus, the libertarian system would not last, it would be replaced.

yes. I do have issues with libertarianism in general, but the biggest problem is with people who follow NAP, ie anarchists.

It is accurate. The logical consequence of applying the NAP is anarchism. If you are in favour of e.g. tax funded military, you cannot also be in favour of the NAP. It is impossible to properly tax without violating the NAP.