Why isn't Libertarianism more popular?

Not a gift. A gift implies it was mine to withhold. He has as much ownership in this nation as I. That the decision was made by equal parts his input and mine means I didn't assume anymore ownership of this country than him.

People use their property how they see fit, sometimes in what may seem to others stupid ways -- and that's their right. The guy who spent his life savings on fine art, a charity of his choice, or prostitutes... it's not my place to judge his decision. It's not my place impress upon him the importance of an opportunity. How well he uses his opportunities isn't my responsibility or concern. I'm not his keeper.

Now if his vote does impact my interests, well then I may choose to try and pursued him. I still don't have any responsibility to enhance his ability or cause him to act in what I think is his best interest. I won't try and cheat him either, out of the purely selfish consideration that it will likely come back to haunt me. But I may expend effort to get him to vote in my interest. That's not a responsibility though, it's a choice.
​

 

The analogy of the gift was to show how pointless a vote is without the environment to facilitate its proper use. I do not mean the description of a gift to imply what the vote is itself. As I said above, its a provision from the state.

But you are his keeper to the extent his vote is not anywhere near the same as an individual pursuit like a paid sex, art or charity. Its a social tool, designed to have social, ie collective consequences. It is a necessity that his vote be properly used for this very reason, because its ramifications are not restricted to him but everyone. How well he uses his vote IS a concern of everybody's.

I think you do, since you know just as well as I that, that ignorance is not the same as a free choice. Having information, and education, etc greatly enhance one's ability to utilize their abilities and provisions, like a vote.

I dont think that in anyway diminishes the necessity of establishing a governmental system that is effective in actually dealing with problems. An ignorant population does have ramifications that lead to dire outcomes. Must I go through historical examples? Need I go through modern examples?

 

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, we're kind of spinning in circles and I can't think of another way to express my point of view. I think the crux of the disagreement might be a fundamental belief on your part that you are responsible for society making the 'right' decision, and a fundamental belief on my part that there isn't always a 'right' decision or a responsibility to educate my neighbor even if I think there is one.


.​

 

So you dont mind if the result is, well, what the US has now, or worse, something like nazism etc? I mean, by the position you profess, you would simply tolerate society becoming totalitarian and stripping away the rights you have. My position is one that really is in conflict with the practicality of yours. It isnt practical to have an idiot voting populace if you want an effective democracy. But regardless, perhaps you would prefer addressing the argument I made in the other comment of mine. I think the principles behind our positions can better be explored and compared that way.

 

Ouch... you really want to play the Nazi card?

I don't want an effective democracy. I don't have any confidence it would produce decisions better than another form of government. I believe a democracy though is the best way to forestall the eventual decline into abuse and revolution that will occur in every other form of government I can imagine. Democracy insures there is no one group that can be singled out as the 'bad guy' and it slows the march of government to a pace where regular people can live their lives one step ahead of the destructive but fashionable shifts in government policies.​

 

LOL I'm not trying to make you look bad or anything, just to emphasize my point here about the flaw of your position. I cna sue other examples, but the point would be the same.

So you admit it could devolve into totalitarianism or something else. If it did, wouldn't your position be entirely useless?

 

It's simply that a republic with a strong constitution is much better. A democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, right? But this is exactly the problem -- if you have a big enough majority, you can outlaw the existence of people that bug you for whatever reason. You can require everyone to give you ice cream -- even if it means making them destitute. What strong limits to government power do is prevent those types of abuses -- instead of the 3 wolves voting to eat the sheep, the constitution would remove "dinner" from what the government can decide for the people. The sheep is protected because the wolves cannot use the power of the state to force the sheep to be dinner. Again, the idea of libertarianism is that there are certain lines that no government may legitamitly cross. We as a people cannot for example use the power of the state to compel you to give up your property for any cause -- good or bad. We cannot use the state to force you to buy something, nor forbid you from buying a legal product. We cannot force you to act against your conscience. You are not part of a collective, society is not a beehive or a borg cube. Reguardless of how much we think your life would be better if you chose to live our way, you still have fundemental rights that we may not violate no matter how good we think the cause is.

 

Do you know what is a democracy? Because you are living in a "democracy", a liberal representative democracy. Republic is only a system where you have a president as head of the state and you don't have a king(kingdom or monarchy), an emperor(Empire).

 

Republic:

a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

Democracy:

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

 

You are under a Representative Democracy. That for me is a false democracy. But yes, you are under Democracy. Republic is a form of organization

Republic:
1 "A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president."

Democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

So you are under a Representative Democratic Republic. Republic refers to the form of the state and Democracy to the form of the government. And for example, Spain is under a Representative Democratic Monarchy or also a Constitutional Monarchy. However that is in theoric terms, the reality is clear that we live in authoritarian countries that hate democracy and real freedom of people.

 

I don't understand the point. Yes, democracy can devolve into totalitarianism... Obamacare being one rather chilling example that comes to mind. I think democracies are more resistant to that decline than other forms of government though.​

 

I like libertarianism. Not a libertarian myself, but I respect libertarian philosophy.

 

How can a socialist like libertarianism??? I consider myself a libertarian and you socialists are about as far away from us on ANY political scale there is.

 

*shrug* I don't believe in the lie that you must hate everything that isn't like you. I think if libertarians and socialists teamed up, we could really smash wasteful bureaucracy, destroy the military industrial complex, and create a real utopia.

Oh, and libertarians can be socialists. It was a libertarian socialist that coined the term "libertarian" and libertarian socialists predate modern libertarians.

 

Please explain how a libertarian can also be a socialist...

Socialism requires government intervention, libertarianism doesn't want government intervention.

 

See for yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

And no, not all forms of socialism require government intervention. Common misconception, usually passed around by people that are unaware that socialism has many different types.

 

By changing his mind?​

 

The answer to the OP is, of course, dead obvious, the overwhelming majority dilsike one of the two of fiscal conservatism and social liberlism.

 

Libertarians are anarchists, like Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Berkman. And all that people like the social freedom, are the greatest defenders of social liberlism.

However, I must remender that Libertarian is an incorrect word that has been standarized in USA to refer what is known in the rest of the world as Liberalism. Making that the true Libertarians cannot use that word in USA, because they are incorrectly linked to the Liberalism, when they don't have any relation with it, and Libertarians have more relation with the libertarian socialist world.

Libertarianism or better said Liberalism is not popular because is a mad ideology. Is a ideology where mistreat the weakest members of a society and abandon them to their luck. Is an ideology that does not have any humanism, is absolutely inhuman.

 

All but Berkman were also libertarian socialists

Especially considering the term "libertarian" was coined by a libertarian socialist and libertarian socialists predate today's libertarianism.

 

There is nothing liberal about being liberal anymore. The liberals here are a joke to that word.

 

Terms evolve over time. Conservatism isn't what it used to be either.

 

I understand that and I completely agree. I go by what the terms mean in the present.... kilgram always wants to argue about what they used to mean.

 

"Liber"als do NOT believe in liberty because they do not believe in the "haves" having the liberty to monopolize all resources and thus economically force everyone else into submission and in turn drive human evolution via social Darwinism, which is the fundamental problem I have with The Left.

 

I do think it would be nice if both sides followed the example of their predecessors. For libs/Dems, JFK and Truman. For cons/Reps, Goldwater and compromise Reagan.