It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is wrong with Libertarianism?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
10) It relies too much on people not being stupid-guess what? They are.


Libertarianism does not really depend on people acting intelligently in all respects. It would be really odd for it to do so; one look at the bell curve, and we can see that most people (the average person) is most likely to have an average intelligence. This isn't an issue as much as this question: Should people of all intelligences be able to decide issues without government involvement? What libertarianism does depend on is some sense of a "profit motive." That is, people will generally direct their actions in the economy in hopes of gathering a profit. Using that ideology, business owners typically have a motivation not to poison their customers. Other arguments could be extended from this.



9)It assumes that not only would people be smart enough to own guns but that they would be intelligent about owning them and woudln't blow their face off.


Again, intelligence isn't the issue here. Intelligence does not necessarily correlate to accidental gun usage. Not that it is even an issue: sans libertarianism, such things occur. It should be noted that libertarians generally do not want suicide to be outlawed (a bit odd that it is outlawed), in the ideal that victimless crimes shouldn't be worried about. Having freedom can ironically mean being able to give your freedom up: for death, slavery, or what-have-you.



8)It assumes that the poor are poor because they choose to be poor. And of course every one knows how great it is to be poor, so of course they choose it.


Not exactly, but it will argue that the poor who remain poor either don't market their labor very well, or there is no market for their labor. Considering humans are dynamic creatures, it is very hard to see why those not disabled require forced handouts. However, people have a sense of empathy, and it is horrid to say that with a libertarian system none of the poor would be helped. There exists today many charities that help our fellow man without being government backed.

In a capitalist society, labor is just like a product being sold. If it isn't doing very well in the market, then either change its price, or find a new item to sell. Many of the poor remain that way because the refuse to move into different locations, preferring to stay in a specific city or town. Yet, we all know rationally that some things are better sold in some areas than others.

Just a small tidbit: It is just interesting that those considered "poor" in western countries have the luxuries of royality in other nations. Not to sound too much like Carnagie, but the poor here are much better off than the poor else where; the average poor family in the U.S. owns a car!



7) It demand that we mot only worry about drunk drivers but Drugged drivers aswell, but of course what a person does to themselves couldn't possibly affect me right? Of course not-watch out for that car!


Many people confuse being drunk or drugged with violating other's rights (such as the impact of a car accident). The fact is, being drunk in and of itself does not cause a car crash. It is the decision to drive while drunk that is the cause of many of these accidents. It is here we want to punish the majority for the bad decisions of a few. The same reasoning applies to drug use.



6)If you can't pay for your childs education, then you can't give them one, but that's OK becaue children of poor people deserve to be punished for what their parents can't/haven't earn, right?


I can't pay for my child's 2005 Viper. Why should my child be punished because of what I can't afford? But seriously, private universities offer scholarships to students all the time. If one does not have the money, and is not able to take out a loan, or not able to make the scholarships, then why do they deserve to attend?



5)It says frick the world, who cares if they have genocide and stuff, if it ain't happening here then it doesn't matter. After all Hitler would never have attacked the US right? And since all those Jews he killed weren't american it's not liek there lives had any value.


It does not say # the world per se. Libertarians who see a cause to take care of a genocide are FREE to volunteer, make their own militias, or even embargo their own goods from the countries of their choice. Volunteering to do such actions, in my opinion, would be much better than being forced into a place against your own moral values.

The U.S. is in Iraq right now. I wonder how it must feel for those who are morally opposed to this war, yet their tax money is used to fund it. What a moral delimma!



4)It is against globilization, after all we all know that selling our products to other nations is a stupic idea.


Not necessarily; it is against government induced globalization. Businesses are and should be free to cooperate with the rest of the world should they so desire. Private organizations create standards of business, as well as technical standards as well. A government isn't needed to do any of these things.



3) Who cares if another country tramples our good over seas, we should just let them walk right over us and kick our @$$ economically, after all when they buy up our companies well all be so much happier.


I'm not sure I follow. Perhaps you could elaborate?



2) It is against laws designed to prevent slave labor, after all virtual slavery
is a good thing, right? I mean, we all know that pesky "Civil War' was really over "States Right's" right?
and finally...


The LP party is a party about rights; human right/natural rights. Coerced slave labor would be and is against the LP philosophy. HOWEVER, it should be noted, as earlier, absolute freedom contains the freedom to give up freedom. Case in point: If someone consents to sell themself into slavery, then why should anyone stop them?



1) It's NOT what those "Founding Father" guys had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Declaration and sealed it with their lives, fortune and sacred honor -- and they do know about the way to set up a country.


That is as very debated. If libertarianism is what the founding fathers intended, then yippee. If not, they are not Gods -- even they can be wrong.



[edit on 24-11-2004 by radardog]




posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Wow... I think I Am that I am has no clue what he's talking about. Libertarianism can work, they just have to... meet somewhere in the middle. Insead of leaping in the direcction of complete freedom from government.... they have to take smaller steps. Do you get what I'm trying to say?

I think having a big name endorse your party is a mistake... look at the demoncrats



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Krazy Jethro says:

“We need to restructure our entire business law section, to make it environmentally more sound but less acidic in the world and domestic markets (meaning TAKE YOUR DAMN HANDS OFF OUR MERCHANT AND STEEL INDUSTRY!).”

Jethro, it sounds to me like you want to se the government pass more laws so that businesses have to operate the way you want them to; hardly Libertarian, in my book.

“You fight to survive everyday no matter your means. Shouldn't you have control over your body, property, and family?”

Yes, you should be able to control your own property; and that means you should also be allow to buy whatever you want from whomever you want. If you are in the market for shoes, blankets or specialty steels, you should have the right to buy them from whomever you please, including a foreign country, without having to pay a bribe to the government which uses it in turn, to subsidize inefficient shoe, blanket, or specialty steel manufacturers in the United States.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Radardog, your post above was a masterful explanation of how libertarianism actually works and what it actually means, and I commend you for it.

I gather from your personal information that you are an atheist and (perhaps I am reading something into it which is not there) that there may be a correlation between the two belief-systems.

I'd like your opinion on the concept of a person being a principled libertarian and a born-again Christian; do you believe that these are mutually exclusive? Why or why not?

I'm lookig forward to your views; I'm sure they'll be well thought out and presented!

[edit on 24-11-2004 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Lost Sailor says:

"Wow... I think I Am that I am has no clue what he's talking about. Libertarianism can work, they just have to... meet somewhere in the middle. Insead of leaping in the direcction of complete freedom from government.... they have to take smaller steps. Do you get what I'm trying to say?"

I understand what you're trying to say, but I am not sure of why you say it. Do you believe that all freedoms are good and that we must ignore certain aspects of freedom because they'd cost us votes? If that's the case, believe me, libertarians have been debating that for thirty years!

Or do you believe that some of the Libertarians' ideas of freedom are simply wrong and Libertarians should not emphasize them because they're wrong?

In other words, are you advising "moderation" from a tactical -- or a strategic -- point of view?



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

Jethro, it sounds to me like you want to se the government pass more laws so that businesses have to operate the way you want them to; hardly Libertarian, in my book.


More laws? Yes, but without the present laws, the net is much smaller than existing law. Libertarianism is great, but we need a serious plan to enact this sort of thing.

Not very well put, but hey, it's been a long day. Business will do what business does if we allow it to, including small business.



Yes, you should be able to control your own property; and that means you should also be allow to buy whatever you want from whomever you want. If you are in the market for shoes, blankets or specialty steels, you should have the right to buy them from whomever you please, including a foreign country, without having to pay a bribe to the government which uses it in turn, to subsidize inefficient shoe, blanket, or specialty steel manufacturers in the United States.


Releasing domestic business does not even address tariffs and true free trade. Nor does it negate free trade, so I don't know why you are telling me this.

Yes, although I think in the short term, with no internal change, allowing open and free trade would hurt us a bit. It really depends on releasing America from income tax. That would compensate.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
10. It relies too much on individual decisions -- and American Citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions.

9. It does not punish the hard workers for being rich -- and everyone knows that rich people are bad and need to be punished.

8. It does not give rich peoples' money to the poor -- and everyone knows that the only reason a person is poor is because of class struggle or racism.

7. It allows people to do drugs -- and drugs are bad for you so the government has to take care of those people, even if it means locking them up in prison.

6. It allows people to choose the school they want for their kids -- which is bad because it takes away the pay from all the government educational and teacher-union bureaucrats.

5. It keeps us out of aggressive wars like Iraq and Kuwait and Vietnam -- which is bad, because how else would we have all those cool movies about men blowing stuff up and killing people?

4. It is against State support for big corporations -- which is bad because how else can McDonald's sell Quarter Pounders overseas?

3. It is against tarriffs -- and that is bad because if Japan punishes its citizens by imposing a tarriff on them, then we need to punish our citizens by taking away their right to buy the goods and services of their choice.

2. It is against minimum wage -- which is bad because the Government should tell people how much or little they can learn.

and finally...

1. It's what those "Founding Father" guys had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Declaration and sealed it with their lives, fortune and sacred honor -- and what do they know about the way to set up a country?

[edit on 24-11-2004 by Off_The_Street]


I can't help but think that Off_the_Street is being sarcastic in this post, but I could be wrong



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Jethro says:

"It really depends on releasing America from income tax. That would compensate."

I sure agree with you there, Jethro! Taxation is just legalized theft, as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Xephyr says:

"I can't help but think that Off_the_Street is being sarcastic in this post...."

Satirical? Moi?


Odd

posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   
OTS, you have my second Way Above vote for this month


Both the Democrats and Republicans are so steeped in corporate interests and other dirty money that I no longer trust either one. I will argue for conservative fiscal policy to the bitter end, and I see libertarian social policy as the only one available that allows for total freedom without discriminatory 'affirmative action' politics.

Keep up the good work, guys



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I just cannot justify the libertarian stand on drugs. Having seen a pcp freak, impervious to TASERs, tossing cops around like rag dolls, and seeing what needles do to people, I just don't think the simple approach of "it's your body, do what you want with it" takes into account the effects on society. It doesn't just hurt the junkie; many are affected.

Just my .02



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I just cannot justify the libertarian stand on drugs. Having seen a pcp freak, impervious to TASERs, tossing cops around like rag dolls, and seeing what needles do to people, I just don't think the simple approach of "it's your body, do what you want with it" takes into account the effects on society. It doesn't just hurt the junkie; many are affected.

Just my .02


Well, no one said that Libertarians are about legalizing everything.

There are some things that should be illegal, and many of the synthetic drugs are pretty wicked.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I am glad to see so many Libertarians on this board.


OTS I know your question wasn't asked to me but I would like to answer it anyway.

There is no problem with a person being a Libertarian and a Born Again Christian. We believe in the separation of church and state and a mans religious beliefs are not anyones concern but his. We firmly believe in not only the freedom OF religion but also the freedom FROM religion. A man is free to worship or not as he sees fit.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

I understand what you're trying to say, but I am not sure of why you say it. Do you believe that all freedoms are good and that we must ignore certain aspects of freedom because they'd cost us votes? If that's the case, believe me, libertarians have been debating that for thirty years!

Or do you believe that some of the Libertarians' ideas of freedom are simply wrong and Libertarians should not emphasize them because they're wrong?

In other words, are you advising "moderation" from a tactical -- or a strategic -- point of view?


No.. what I'm trying to say is that if the libertarian party wants to succeed they have to cash in on voters that have libertrian leanings but aren't quite full pledged libertarians. Some of their ideas are just a bit to extreme right now for the average voter. If they could meet somewhere halfway, I think they would better there chances in the long wrong, of getting their full fledged libertarian ideals passed in this country.

Does that explain my thinkings better?

btw Happy Thanksgiving... I may not be on much longer today.



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I just cannot justify the libertarian stand on drugs. Having seen a pcp freak, impervious to TASERs, tossing cops around like rag dolls, and seeing what needles do to people, I just don't think the simple approach of "it's your body, do what you want with it" takes into account the effects on society. It doesn't just hurt the junkie; many are affected.

Just my .02


1. They did not have to use a taser, tasers are not powerful enough IMO. They could have shot him. A few bullets removing most of the brain WILL stop him.

2. It was his choice to throw the cops around in the first place. If he wanted not to, he would not have done the drugs.

3. People on PCP are NOT immune to everything, especially high voltage. See siri.uvm.edu...
(Yes that does make me sick, I do not enjoy seeing it. It is just an example.)

4. He would be in court for throwing around policemen.




Also, LostSailor, we should pretend to be more Republican or Democrat until we have some sort of foothold.

[edit on 25-11-2004 by DanD9]



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I'm sort of ignorant of Liberatism being from the UK
,

but isn't Libertarianism a type of 'structured moderate' anarchism????

sorry if i'm way off mark on the ideals of Libertarianism



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
I'm sort of ignorant of Liberatism being from the UK
,

but isn't Libertarianism a type of 'structured moderate' anarchism????

sorry if i'm way off mark on the ideals of Libertarianism





Libertarianism is basicly a government that doesnt get involved in your way of life as such. The government will provide police and miltary to protect you and thats it (i think)



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Libertarianism is basicly a government that doesnt get involved in your way of life as such. The government will provide police and miltary to protect you and thats it (i think)


thanks,

another question


has a country ever been run by Libertarianism?

and was it succesful?



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
thanks,

another question


has a country ever been run by Libertarianism?

and was it succesful?


Im not sure to be honest,
the UK has been controlled numerous time by the Liberal party, but im not sure if thats the same thing. Hopefully, someone can help me out here



posted on Nov, 25 2004 @ 11:54 AM
link   
jsobecky says:

“I just cannot justify the libertarian stand on drugs.”

Krazy Jethro says:

“Well, no one said that Libertarians are about legalizing everything.”

Let me address Brother Jethro’s point first. He’s right; Libertarians are not about legalizing everything, such as child molestation, murder, assault, trespass, damage of property, theft, and fraud. (Rape, of course, is a particular degrading form of assault, and pollution can be considered an insidious form of trespass and property damage.)

In other words, libertarians believe that you should not physically hurt other people or trespass, or damage/steal their property; and pretty much everything else that competent adults do should be legal. Note that I said “competent adults”; children, despite howls from our younger members, are not competent adults and need special protection -- whether they like it or not!

Now what does that have to do with drugs?

Well, I should start off by saying that, as a 60-year-old, I came of age during the early sixties and have ingested just about every drug available during that and the following decade. Some drugs I did a lot of, like marijuana, its derivatives, and other hallucinogens; some only a few times, like coc aine and heroin.

I stopped using the above decades ago, and finally, after over thirty years of addiction, kicked the most deadly drug I can think of; June 28, 2002, I threw away my last nicotine-injector. The only drugs I still ingest now are caffeine (3-5 cups of coffee a day) and a little ethanol (1-2 oz per month, usually in the form of a Coors after mowing the lawn).

My point is that I’ve been there, done that, and have the t-shirt -- before most of you were born.

Now I think you’ll agree that there’s a difference between buying a car and getting a ticket; between buying a gun and shooting someone; between having HIV and deliberately infecting someone with it. This is why we don’t bust someone from driving a car, buying a pistol, or having HIV unless they cause a crime with it!

If you look at the crimes caused by drug-takers (not counting the actual possession or use of the drug itself), you’ll realize that they fall into three categories

The first is the murder and violence that is part of the illegal distribution network. Think of the robberies, murders, and wholesale wars that are carried out by narcotraficantes such as the Medellín Cartel in Colombia, the Escobar Brothers in Mexico, and all the associated domestic Bad Guys, such as the Mafia.

The second is the robberies and associated crimes carried out by users in an effort to raise money for their fix.

The third is the violence that is caused / exacerbated by the chemical changes in the brain from the drug itself.

The first reason is caused by people willing to use violence to get access to the huge profits from drugs. Have you been listening lately to reports about the drug wars over controlling the turf for selling and distributing parsley and oregano? You haven’t? Neither have I! And the reason for this, of course, is that there’s not a huge profit margin for those two drugs. And the reason for that, of course, is that they’re both legal, so you don’t have to tack on the thousand percent markup for the paranoia factor, like you have to do with illicit drugs. The reason that there’re so many crimes associated with growing and distributing is that their very illegality makes them very valuable, and it’s the greed involved with the illicit drug trade, not the drugs themselves, that cause that violence.

The second reason goes back to the same way. Did you hear about the guy who robbed people to get enough money for his cigarettes? You haven’t? Neither have I! And the reason for this is that cigarettes, although much more addictive than most illicit drugs, are so cheap that you don’t have to steal for them!

The third reason -- that in some people, some drugs cause a propensity to violence, cannot be ameliorated merely by making those drugs legal. But legal drugs could have a better quality, which could reduce some of the violence involved. And besides, liquor makes some people violent; yet you don’t see calls for its being made illegal.

Drug crimes aren’t usually caused by drugs per se; they’re caused by the drug laws!

And finally, here are two interesting things to think about:

First, the United States spends billions and billions of dollars a year on prisons and jails. Twenty percent of the people in those jails are there because of illicit drugs “offenses”, and about half of the 49 percent who are there on violence charges are there because of the drug laws “inciting” them to violence -- muggings, robberies gone bad, etc. -- stemming from their raising the money to buy the drugs whose price was raised by their illegality. That 44.5 percent of inmates is responsible for almost half of the money spent on prisons, and probably an equal percentage of the monies spent on pre-prison law enforcement, post-prison parole costs, etc. Figure at least a hundred billion dollars a year.

Second, we have been fighting The War on Some Drugs now for fifty years, and the results make the Vietnam War look like a smashing victory. We haven’t even achieved a standoff yet! Consider the billions of dollars wasted, the millions of lives ruined.

This is the price we pay for making some drugs illegal -- and this is why Libertarians have the stance they do.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join