Why isn't Libertarianism more popular?

Actually that is more likely to lead away from comprehension than towards it - which I suspect explains why the overwhelming majority of your posts on the subject are so nonsensical.

To put a finer point on it, the day you were born you had a better (albeit nonverbal) understanding of these things than you do now.

 

Libertarian concepts are not simplistic. To believe otherwise is counterintuitive to study of any ideology/philosophy/school of thought. Take for example macroeconomics. Education institutions teach neoclassical economics as the foundation of such. Alfred Marshall, the founder of neoclassical economics, would design his work for the laymen. Never did he imagine professional economists to employ his rudimentary methodologies to great extents. His work scratches the surface of economic cognizance.

 

Yeah! And besides, Libertarians are a bunch of bonehead whackos!

 

That may be, but nothing is simpler than liberty itself; and you may rest assured that "studying" it as a concept serves no other purpose than to corrupt the understanding of it as a fundamental reality.

 

Both sides of the establishment hate libertarians because we expose how they are really just a bunch of control freaks, who in action, are following the same exact path of anti-liberty, anti-constitution, pro-imperialism, pro-bailouts, pro-technocracy, pro-oligarchy.

 

I agree

 

And those on both sides don't even know it. At least at the voter level. Those who are elected and been in the system for a while know they are all of the above. It's about staying in the elite status for those elected officials.
Each side believes someone has to control us. 1 side says it's gov't. The other side gov't with God's approval.

 

Okay, I didn't actually mean that - well certainly not about ALL Libertarians, anyway. Just had a snarky moment.

My apologies to all the non-bonehead-whacko Libertarians!

 

The complexity comes from overlap of fundamental liberties and expected entitlements between people. For the most part, we pass laws and offer entitlements with good intentions but those civil rights necessarily cost some liberty. There's also just an inescapable sacrifice of some liberty whenever you try to interact fairly with other people.

It get's complex when you try to understand where my right to free speech interacts with his right to privacy, or right not to be defamed. It's not always a clear line (imho).​

 

So your defense is essentially "don't try to learn about it, use your gut!"

 

While it might be said that fundamental liberties overlap each other, they never conflict. Ever.

You do understand that every "civil right" enshrined at the expense of liberty is a step towards despotism, right?

Anyone who considers dealing fairly with people a constraint on his liberty doesn't understand what liberty is; and anyone who thinks ensuring fairness requires the curtailment of liberty doesn't understand what fairness is.

Not really, as the unalienable right to free speech, which comes from God, is endowed with the implicit proviso, as with every other such right, that it not be abused.

On a case by case basis, when all the pertinent facts are known, it always is.

I have no idea what it is you think I need to defend.

 

You know... if you read my post through before responding and then responded to it as as whole you might have found some of your statements to be unnecessary. For example, I didn't talk about fundamental liberties overlapping with other fundamental liberties, I talked about them overlapping with expected entitlements.

I do recognize that almost every entitlement comes at the expense of some liberty, but I don't think that compromise always leads to despotism.

If your answer is there's always a clear and absolute right and wrong to every difference of opinion and that the solution to complicated differences is simply that we 'don't abuse' our natural rights... well, I'm starting to see why some libertarians have trouble building consensus. Kind of sad really, cause I'd much rather vote for a libertarian than most of the folks we have in office now. If they could just shed the loony fringe elements that seem to stick to them.​

 

Then pilgrim, you don't think too good.

What any of that has to do with libertarianism I don't know or care, but if, as history seems to indicate, the overwhelming majority of people are selfish and stupid, one would hardly expect the things I've said to be widely accepted.

 

Might have something to do with the rudeness and arrogance.​

 

Swell. Show me how it has to do with anything I said being untrue and I'll be impressed.

 

How is wanting more freedoms and less confiscation of my money through taxes... a whacky idea?

 

Those of us speaking English as a first language, speak it "well" not "good". I welcome you to our country but if you're going to live here, please familiarize yourself with our language.

So then is it that anyone who doesn't subscribe to the myth of Libertarianism must be selfish or stupid? Lemme guess, you've called Liberals "elitists" at some point...

 

Nice of you to advertise your pharisaical desperation.

I'd say the question is better directed at a proponent of Libertarianism. Wouldn't you?

Dammed if I know, but you are welcome to do a keyword search on my posts if you think it will serve to confirm your sense of superiority.

 

Oh dude, I'm just having fun with you.

 

Just thought I'd let you know Taxpayer...

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...tarianism-more-popular-55.html#post1061306187

 

(thanks for the heads up)

I don't think a vote is a gift. I'm not gifting a guy with a vote (or a gun or a car or a share of this country), I'm just acknowledging his existing ownership. The point is, if I failed to acknowledge that ownership, it would be the same as taking something that wasn't mine. You or I might not care how the other guy feels about that, but his feelings will likely make him a lot harder to work with and possibly a danger if we don't. People who feel that their country was taken away from them, tend to hold responsible those that they see as taking it from them -- especially if they're unhappy with where the country ends up. It's reasonable for them to do so.

I don't want to be more responsible for where this country ends up, I don't want to give my neighbor a reason to blame me for it's direction. So I'll insist we all get an equal vote. That doesn't mean I'm also willing to go the extra mile and gift him with my time or efforts, unless I feel strongly enough about a particular issue to want to influence his vote on it.​

 

The idea of absolute right and wrong is fundemental to libertarian philosophy. The idea is that since I have no moral authority to control you, that I cannot be allowed to do so. The only legitamate purpose of a government is to prevent someone from using force against someone else -- no farther. And it's because we as libertarians believe that some things are wrong no matter how how much you tell yourself it will improve their lives. And there's a very good reason for this. People always are inclined to think that their own ideas of how a society should be are the ones that would fix everything, and so they think if they could just get the power to force such a thing on everyone else, society would be great. It's not true, and futher it's the greatest threat to human rights that there is. Assad thinks he knows how to run a society, and he's willing to kill to make his vision happen. Perhaps most of us are not ready to kill to make sure that Americans live the way we've decided they should, but we are increasingly willing to use the hammer of the state to force people onto our way of thinking.

 

No worries.

"Existing ownership"? A vote is a gift, or more likely a provision to citizens of a state to control and direct its activities. That endeavor is entirely pointless however if people are entirely ignorant and without the ability, or given the opportunities, to fully utilize their vote.

I dont think we should discount another person's discontent, but I dont think that should diminish the shared interest of best utilizing and shaping the operations of law and government.

Its not about the issues or the vote itself, its about enhancing people's ability to use the vote. People wont place a value on it if they have no comprehension of its power. People will vote for the most stupidest reasons without being given the information that would otherwise impress upon them the various issues at stake.

 

Whilst I mostly agree, libertarians shouldn't kid themselves either. They also use the state to impose their values, which can often be as equally immoral, imo, as tyrannical regimes. For example, some libertarians believe letting people without any chance at life being doomed to a terrible death due entirely to that unavoidable fate which they could not affect. In the same vein, libertarians are opposed to aid that might otherwise save thousands of lives. I find these kinds of ideas equally pernicious as forcing someone to do xyz. Simply saying 'let everyone function individually and we wont have evil take place' is just plain ignorant and denies the reality of life we currently exist in. Collective policies are necessary for some issues - like extreme poverty. There is also one other flaw in a lot of libertarian philosophies I find repulsive, and that is that every person is destined to lead the life they are genetically disposed to acquire. So if you are born an idiot, you have an idiot's job and an idiot's wage and thus a, presumably, poorer life than a smarter person, assuming they both work with full utilization of their capacities. That I find a totally illogical set up of how society should operate when it is clear these two people might have entirely shared interests, like education for their children, health care etc. I see no reason why the idiot should be left to be deprived these interests simply due to his natural inability to acquire them.

 

Cannibalism never really caught on.