Libertarianism...A Parody

You asked me a question...and I answered it.

 

Yes, and I never denied it. It's most consistent with how the world actually works and is most consistent with what benefits me. Any system of government or economic system is viewed through the lens of what works for me or the interests I care about.

System of rules are often arbitrary and favor some groups more than others. When that group doesn't include me, I don't support it.

In other words, I live in reality, not a fantasy world.

Exactly, so don't complain when others use coercive systems to take your money from you.

Life isn't fair, is it?

 

This country couldn't keep the lights on if we taxed people fairly. We spend too much. We therefore have to ask more from those who have more, to get the bills paid. I appreciate your recognizing that ugly necessity is not fair.

As for complaining. It's useless to complain that hills take more work for some to climb than others. Life ain't fair. There is value to looking someone in the eye and correcting him when he claims to be paying his fair share. It useful to remind folks when they suggest new entitlements that they would not be paying for them.



​

 

There will always be some who defend the right of the barons to be the barons.

 

Sorry, but you aren't getting any sympathy from me. People with millions of dollars in the bank aren't suffering from having to pay high taxes.

Nothing in life is fair, as you suggested.

 

I'm not asking for your sympathy, I don't have a use for it. Life isn't fair and there's nothing you or I can do to change that.

Some people act fairly. Some don't. Admitting the quality of your actions isn't a question sympathy, it's one of honesty.

I appreciate your honesty.



​

 

Thanks.

I have many character flaws, more than I do strengths, but a lack of honesty isn't one of them.

I would say that some rules benefit some groups more than others but, at the end of the day, I will support the policies that I think benefit me, even if it is at someone else's expense and isn't by the rules. I have seen too much, and understand too much of human nature to have anything but a cynical and fatalistic approach to human affairs.

 

Can't say you'd be my first choice as a partner in anything. But I'd likely prefer you to many others.

Nobodies perfect, but it's possible to live with many shortcomings if you can see and therefore account for them. Honesty goes a long way to making that possible.



​

 

You style of government results in....well....we don't know since no one will use your style of government. LOL

 

I'm not sure who put forward such absurd nonsense but it's obviously false.

First and foremost, above all else, the libertarian ideology embraces the natural rights of the person and the foremost authoritative document is John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government that is expressly about humans banding together in communities, societies, and nations. It could be referred to as the "Bible of Libertarianism" because all of what is Libertarian today has built upon that foundation.

So the claim that libertarians oppose the banding together of people into communities, societies, and nations is false because the "Bible of Libertarianism" is expressly about how to accomplish that based upon the natural rights of the people.

Additionally we also have a "Social Contract" of a Libertarian government that was originally expressed in 1776 and with only minor modification due to philosophical evolution is the same today.

In 1776 it stated: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Today it would be virtually identical with only a few words changed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all People are created equal, that they are endowed by Nature with certain inalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among People, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

We can also note that based upon the role of government to protect our rights, as noted by the "social contract" for government above, libertarians advocate the government "necessary" to protect our natural rights which is not a minimalistic government that some, like Republicans, advocate. We believe in the following statement:

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine Common Sense

Government is "evil" because it must, by pragmatic necessity, infringe upon our "Freedom to Exercise" our Natural Rights based upon compelling arguments. The infringements on the "Freedom" (not the Right) is necessary to protect the Natural Rights of the Person and should be to the least extent possible while protecting those rights. If all people were responsible in respecting the Natural Rights of others the infringement would be unnecessary but people are not responsible which is why government must exist and it must exist the to the extent necessary because of the irresponsibility of the people in society that would violate the Natural Right of other.

An example provided earlier was that there are irresponsible people destroying our environment. They don't have a "right to destroy nature" (e.g our environment) and that destruction violates the Natural Rights of All People. The Environmental Protection Agency is a "necessary" agency of our government because of the irresponsible actions of those people in our society that destroy the environment.

In short the size of government is based upon that which is necessary to ensure against the violations of the Natural Rights of the People by the irresponsible actions of members of society. "Responsibility and Liberty" walk hand-in-hand and are not independent from each other.

This is juxtaposed to the ideology "That government is best which governs least." in the essay Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience) by Henry David Thoreau that is more of a Republican belief because minimalistic government is incapable of protecting the Natural Rights of the People.

If anyone wants to point at a political ideology that would lead to chaos then they should be pointing their finger at Republicans that want to reduce the size of government to the point that it render the federal government impotent in dealing with the violations of the Natural Rights of the People.

 

Shiva...I appreciate all the work you put into that defense of libertarianism...but I am convinced that libertarianism will eventually lead to chaos and anarchy.

I doubt that will ever be tested in any meaningful way, because I suspect libertarianism will never be more than a tiny fringe element of any electorate.

Not trying to be insulting with any of that...just sharing my considerations on the question with you.

 

Excuse me but where is the government in Somalia protecting the natural rights of the people? Somalia is the Poster Child for the violations of the natural rights of the people and is as far as possible from a libertarian society where the very purpose of government is to protect the rights of the people from violations by others in society.

 

If chaos and anarchy evolved in society it won't be due to the libertarian ideology that is expressly opposed to the violations of the rights of the person that exists in both chaos and anarchy.

I'm both an idealist and a pragmatic realist so, at least in part, I also agree with much of what you believe. Government and a society based upon libertarianism is not in the foreseeable future or even the distant future based upon what we know and see today. There is a barrier that exists that is virtually impossible to overcome and we know that from history.

Having read the visionaries behind the creation of the United States such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Thomas Paine we know that their vision was for a nation based upon the natural rights of the person where the primary role of government was the protections of those rights. It was a "libertarian" ideology although the word didn't exist at the time. They didn't give us either the government or the society they envisioned but they instead took the first step on that journey. What opposed them then and what opposes us today in traveling forward towards the government and society they envision was "conservatism" that always seeks to retain those traditional institutions that benefit them either financially or with power. Those "conservatives" that have power can easily recruit members of society to support them because people are resistant to change even when change is ultimately for their benefit.

Obviously the continuation of slavery was the most glaring example of "conservatism" when the United States was founded because nothing violates the Natural Rights of the Person more than slavery but that's not the best example.

The foundation of the United States was revolutionary because it overthrew the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings and replaced it with doctrine of the Natural Rights of the Person. The problem was that many very powerful and wealthy people benefited from the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. Slavery was based upon it, and was literally a microcosm of that doctrine, but it was more expansive than that.

The "Natural Right of Property" is juxtaposed to the "Right of Ownership by Title" that exists under the Divine Right of Kings. If anything is really important to society it's "property" but because those with property based upon Title as opposed to the Natural Right of Property they, as conservatives, managed to prevent the change from "Ownership by Title" to the "Natural Right to Use and Consume" that is expressly limited that Locke addressed. Our entire economy today is still based upon "property ownership by title" that violates the "Natural Right of Property" of the Person. It was "conservatism" that retained this "traditional" definition that is a violation of the Rights of the Person.

We can also note that the "Traditional Government" when the nation was founded was controlled exclusively by White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men. The "conservatives" have been fighting since the nation was founded to retain that "traditional power" of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men. That is certainly juxtaposed to the highly progressive concept that all people are created equal when those in control represent just a part of the people. Christian conservatives of today are outraged because the traditional exclusions under the law and preferential treatment they received is slowly being eroded away. They're so bold as to state that the United States was founded upon Christianity when, in fact, our government was created to protect the people from Christianity and all other religions that would impose tyranny upon the people.

We fight "conservatism" that prevents us from progressing as a nation to one based upon the Natural Rights of the Person and where the government is dedicated to the protections of the Natural Rights of the Person. I don't know if progressive Libertarianism can overcome the self-interests, greed, and desire for power of conservatism which is why pragmatically I don't foresee us becoming a libertarian society and government. There's too much that the conservatives would lose and they don't care about the rest of society that would benefit from the liberation ideology.

 

Sounds like life in a Soviet, or Commie Gulag/work camp---updated with television.

Libs of any type never, ever discuss these places in any detail, but are the natural consequence of a strong central government without free speech.

 

You are just kidding here, right?

Natural rights of the person?

All persons?

And from where or what do these natural rights derive?

Anyway, I appreciate and applaud your apologetics on behalf of libertarianism. At some point, I hope you realize that the only place libertarianism ends...is in chaos and anarchy. Which, as I mentioned, is why no nation will ever have it as anything but a tiny fringe minority.

 

Bare assertion.

 

You do realize if they vote libertarian they may as well throw their votes away? because a vote for a libertarian may as well be a vote for a progressive and progressives represent the opposite of classical liberalism.

(*)(*)(*)(*)ing libertarians get 4% of the vote. Why? because libertarians want nothing to do with centralized government. Republicans and Democrats hate libertarians because republicans and democrats believe in the NANNY STATE - they believe they know what's best for you, me your child - NOT you.

It's time for both republicans and democrats to take their diapers off and put on some big boy pants and live life how THEY want as long as they're not hurting others.....

Not to mention the fundamental flaw in the anti-libertarian logic is that libertarians don't believe in government - no sorry that's anarchy - not classical liberalism. We do believe in government - not the federal government as it is today. No, we believe in a states rights - we believe in competition. If you don't like the laws in one state you move to a state that is inline with your ideals.... The federal government has little if any power other than to protect US citizens from foreign enemies - that and diplomatic obligations.

Libertarianism is about free will and no force..... If you want a socialist state - then make your state socialist, you want a capitalist state then you got one, just as long as the populace are on the same page and agree.

I have no intent on writing a for 3 hours explaining the philosophy and virtues of libertarianism, however the OP's nonsense is inline with anarchism - NOT libertarianism.

 

I laid out specific arguments against libertarianism throughout the thread. You are more than welcome to address any of them.

So far, only one person has been willing to engage me (steadypie).

 

The natural rights of the person are inherent in the person and they limit what a person can and cannot do. Some don't believe in the natural rights of the person because they don't understand the compelling arguments that identified them but that doesn't imply that the natural rights don't exist.

This thread is about libertarianism but if those engaged in the discussion don't understand and/or accept the natural rights of the person then they don't have the foundation to even discuss libertarianism because the foundation of libertarianism itself are the natural rights of the person. It would be like a person trying to discuss geometry without knowing the axioms of geometry.

For the person that knows and understands the natural rights of the person libertarianism makes sense but for someone that doesn't know and/or understand the natural rights of the person then libertarianism is like them attempting to criticizing the sentence structure of a foreign language that they can't understand.

So take a chair on one side of the room or the other because the two sides of the room are clearly marked.

On one side is "I understand the natural rights of the person and based upon those this is what I find right and/or wrong about the libertarian ideology."

The other side is "I don't know and/or understand the natural rights of the person so my opinions about the libertarian ideology are complete nonsense."

Of course Political Forum doesn't require anyone to be knowledgeable about the subjects they discuss but it soon becomes apparent when members are attempting to discuss subjects that are way over their heads because they literally have no knowledge about the subject. Apparently they just don't mind looking stupid.

 

In point of fact you haven't presented any arguments against the libertarian political ideology but instead, staring with the very first post, have put forward propositions based upon some unknown political ideology that, to my knowledge, doesn't even exist. You've invented a political ideology, mislabeled it as libertarianism, and then condemned it. Guess what, as a Libertarian I also condemn the political ideology that you've invented in your mind and mislabeled it as something that it doesn't represent.

The only thing I find fault with is the fact that you've mislabeled the ideology you've invented because it's clearly not the libertarian ideology.

 

Shiva...

...one: There are no "natural" rights.

Two: The only rights any humans enjoy are "rights" won for them by people willing to fight and die for those "rights."

None of those rights are inalienable...and they can be alienated damn near at a whim if the person enjoying them is careless.

Three: At no point did the founding fathers consider that all humans had these rights. In fact, a better case can be made that the only people they think had any rights were white, land-owning males.

But continue to think that those of us who think differently from you...do so because we are uninformed, stupid, or ignorant. Particularly if it helps you think more highly of yourself.

Oh...yeah...about this libertarianism. It is a path to chaos, anarchy...and is a sure way of being truly careless about the rights others have fought and died to pass on to you.

 

This thread is not about the argument for or against the existence of the natural rights of the person. It's about libertarianism that is based upon the natural rights of the person. Anyone that doesn't understand or accept the existence of the natural rights of the person is incapable of discussing libertarianism that's based upon those rights.

There's no commonality that can be used as the foundation for the discussion.

Of interest anyone that doesn't believe in the natural rights of the person is also incapable of understanding the government of the United States that was created to protect those natural rights of the person. The 9th Amendment, for example, that protects the unenumerated (natural) rights of the person makes absolutely no sense to anyone that doesn't believe in the natural rights of the person.

 

I respectfully disagree with you.

It is possible to discuss Christianity as an atheist...and it certainly is possible to discuss libertarianism without buying into any of its erroneous, illogical foundation tenets.

If you are saying that in order to discuss libertarianism...one must first accept that there ARE natural rights...you are being disingenuous. That is not the way logical debate (or discussion) works.

If you take a closer look at your "logic" even you should be able to see the faulty nature of it in this last paragraph of yours.

IF you had said, "...the government of the United States was created to protect what the founding fathers considered the natural rights of people"...it might make some sense.

But even if you did...you have to acknowledge that is not what they did. They did not accept that persons had natural rights...or they would have included the protection of those rights for people who were not land-owning, white males.

The DID NOT DO THAT...because (my guess is) they never for a moment thought there were natural rights that all persons possessed.

Your argument falls very flat if you include the sensibilities of the founding fathers.

Best give that part of your argument a rest...by tossing it into a trash can.

 

Yet another attempt at dodging.

Do you guys ever stop?

I laid out numerous criticisms that weren't addressed, and I think you know that.

 

Unfortunately none of those related to libertarian political ideology so how are we supposed to respond.

How about this. Here's the link to the Libertarian Party website: http://www.lp.org/

Now go there, find something to criticize, and then quote this post so that I'll be notified of your post. Otherwise you're really wasting the time of Libertarians on this forum by repeatedly posting nonsense that none of us that politically support Libertarianism in the United States believe.

It's tiring to deal with the uninformed that don't have a clue about libertarianism when all they do is make up things to criticize about their false beliefs that we can't intelligently respond to because they're not libertarian beliefs.