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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
After reading into this thread and reading the numerous comments, i was inspired to do some research into Libertarianism and i must say that i became more and more interested in Libertarianism and how it works. To be honest, Libertarianism is probably how you would define my political view


The Conservative Party wants to cut down the size of the Government, so i guess this makes them partically Libertarian.
They also believe in people making their own decisions Link




posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by infinite
After reading into this thread and reading the numerous comments, i was inspired to do some research into Libertarianism and i must say that i became more and more interested in Libertarianism and how it works. To be honest, Libertarianism is probably how you would define my political view


The Conservative Party wants to cut down the size of the Government, so i guess this makes them partically Libertarian.
They also believe in people making their own decisions Link


Hiissss!!! the C word

Well, to begin with, i was thinking along the line of Liberal Democrats...but im not sure to be honest. I think Liberal Democrats are more of a safe bet, but im confuzzled



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Hiissss!!! the C word



i get that alot


Originally posted by infinite
Well, to begin with, i was thinking along the line of Liberal Democrats...but im not sure to be honest. I think Liberal Democrats are more of a safe bet, but im confuzzled


Politics is confusing i agree, why not look through the Conservative Policy to give yourself a better idea on what their policys are


I personally don't like the Lib Dems, but as i say: each to their own

Link to Conservative Policy



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
Politics is confusing


Tell me about it

I think "confusing" is an understatement



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Well, Radardog, you beat me to the punch once again!

Your response to my original question was supposed to be that it's difficult to be a born-again Christian and a Libertarian because of the inability of Christians to live and let live, which is exactly the same comment I get from a lot of Libertarians AND Christians.

Then I was going to turn around and say, "au contraire..." and explain exactly what you said.

But NOOOO! You had to beat me to the punch!

I've been both a registered Libertarian and a member of the LP since 1979 and, in the late 1980's held state office in the AZ LP. (And an atheist, too, as a part of my "recovering Catholic" self-imposed therapy.) I will not bore you with the details of my finding Christ (or Him finding me); suffice it to say that I had to do a lot of thinking about my libertarian concept of 'live and let live' with my obligations as a Christian under what we call the Great Commission.

Nonetheless, as you mentioned, there are both theological bases for such a laizzez-faire actions (Free Will, of course) and purely philosophical (you could look at Steiner's 'monism').

To a non-religious libertarian, of course, such niceties are probably irrelevant; as long as I let you do your thing, why should it matter (to you, anyway) if I'm doing it because freedom is always good -- or that you will be judged for your actions by a much higher Court than an Earthly one? The bottom line is that I will not try to stop you from doing what you choose as long as it doesn't harm me.

Sure, I might try to convince you or pray for you; but hey, "...sticks and stones may break my bones but appeals to a hypothetical paterfamilias myth-figure cannot harm me."

(Or something like that).



posted on Nov, 26 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Off_The_Street,

I debate theism and politics daily for both entertainment and intellectual gains, and I have personally discovered that being militant in atheism or theism puts off a really bad impression. I have seen individuals from both sides of the spectrum, and I really don't want to be percieved that way. I respect christians, and approach them in an open mind; never to bash, but always to learn.

If you U2U me, I will tell you about the online chat room where I usually debate at; I think you would really enjoy it. While it is generally a debate of atheism vs. christianity, is always has a political debate going on in it, usually consisting of leftists vs. libertarians.

-- Radardog



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by radardog
10,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.


Really? So, they wouldn't knowlingly continue to make products that would cause, say, cancer? Or say put something in them that makes them addictive?
That "profit motive" that you refer to means that they would want to do things that would profit them.
Unfortunately that all to often means screwing over your fellow man.


9) 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.


Suicide is outlawed because the vast majority of people who would commit it are depressed. I can support doctor assisted suicide. But I can see too many reasons why the other types of suicide should be out lawed.


8) 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.

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.


I can understnad the the poor of our nation are relativaly better than the poor of a poorer nation.
What I can't understand is this insistance that the poor who remain that way, do so by choice. Many of the poor do move to other cities. How does location help you "market" that fact atha you don't have a home?
I can understand, however the L's wanting to reform the welfare system to keep people from leeching off it. I don't thinkthe majority of people on it do this, but some do and that needs to stop. However, I find the idea that private charities could somehow replace to be laughable. No offense, intended. I think however that without a tax-deduction for it a lot of charityies owuld find many people not as willing to give to them. Yes, people have morals, but many if bitg buisness have shownthat they care more aobu the bottom line than the little guy(remember the Enron "scandle"-it's hardly new stuff, they just got caught doing it on a bigger scale is all.)


7)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.


to be clear, I am not equating being drunk or drugged with violating peoples rights. But allowing to them to do so would cause more people to do so than already do. This would cause more people to get into accidents that they wouldn't have if they were sober. It is not the "bad desicions of a few" that I am worried about. It is the bad desicion of the one person who kill my wife/brother/father/etc...


6)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?


Because they are intelligent, have good grades, could be someone?
As, their is know way that private universities could giv eout scholarships to everyone who deserves them. And why would they want to? They are private universities anyway. they aren't obligated to alow anyone to go to them in the first place. So if your smart but too poor to pay for private college on your own and all the scholarships have been given out, where do you go? L's tend to ignore things like this it seems...



5)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.


As no one new about the Holocaust until the war was actually winding down I can't see why they would bother to stop something they didn't know was going on. While you would undoubtibly get a small number of people who would gladly join the fight on their own, most would be to busy makeing profits selling supplies to both sides(per WW1) ANd some people would end up inevitably fighting onthe oppisite sides. Now niether of those things bother me too much as it would be what people chose to do. What bothers me is that either nazi's or communists would have dome out in control fo eurasia and then come over to the US and we would have had to fight on our own soil. The casualty rate would have been a lot higher. Alot more pople would have gotten hurt than did by us joining the fight earleir, something we couldn't do under a L gov't.


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!


Please stop comparing Irag to WW2. Theyare not the same at all. One good thing I can see about an L gov't is that we wouldn't be in their in the first place.


4) 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.


That missed the point of what I was trying to say. I apologize for not being clear-my bad. My point was that the gov't can and does have tarrifs to help out our buisness's compete in foreign, I made this remark in response to a remark abou thow those things were bad, as I dont' feel that they are.


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


Again, I apologize for not being clear. See my response above for what I meant.


2) 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?


Please tell me you don't believe in debt slvery.

If you do I will have lost all respect for you.



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


On this I can agree, the founding fathers were not simply 1 united group of people(the Founding Fathers) or even 2 easily divided groups(federalist/nationalist) as some would have us believe. They would individuals and human and thus capable of being just as imperfect and wrong as any of us.

[edit on 27-11-2004 by I_AM_that_I_AM]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
"Please tell me you don't believe in debt slvery. "
By debt slavery you mean working to pay off your debt? Well now, wasn't it your choice to borrow the money in the first place? If you didn't borrow the money, you would not be in debt. Borrowing that money was volunteering to be a slave.
Of course, I may not know what you mean by debt slavery. Please explain.
Thanks,
Dan

[edit on 27-11-2004 by DanD9]



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DanD9
"Please tell me you don't believe in debt slvery. "
By debt slavery you mean working to pay off your debt? Well now, wasn't it your choice to borrow the money in the first place? If you didn't borrow the money, you would not be in debt. Borrowing that money was volunteering to be a slave.
Of course, I may not know what you mean by debt slavery. Please explain.
Thanks,


Nice, but no, what I meant was sellingyour children/wife to pay off your debt. Who would stop you? The gov't? Well, there wouldn't really be one to stop you, now, would there? While you personally probably have the morals to avoid this, you know that their are people who don't.



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
There is nothing wrong with Libertariansim, but there is on the other hand, something wrong with the Libertarian Party.
The LP is @$$ backwards in its approach to elect a US president, or for that sake, members of congress. What the LP disperatly needs is a grass roots movement to branch out towards local and state communities in order to gain support in the Senate and HoR. How can you expect to compete with the Dems and Reps if there are 0 members of your party holding office in either of those two assemblies? Notice, that the Dems and Reps make up a huge majority of both the Senate and HoR(allmost all but for I believe one seat in the HoR) and notice that they continuely compete strongly for the presidency. Wow, coincidence or what? The LP knows what it needs to do, but socialites and the big money within that funds the LP are leading it in the wrong direction.
Either change the LP approach to campaigning or break away, start a new LP, and form a grass roots movement, there is no alternative.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

Originally posted by DanD9
"Please tell me you don't believe in debt slvery. "
By debt slavery you mean working to pay off your debt? Well now, wasn't it your choice to borrow the money in the first place? If you didn't borrow the money, you would not be in debt. Borrowing that money was volunteering to be a slave.
Of course, I may not know what you mean by debt slavery. Please explain.
Thanks,


Nice, but no, what I meant was sellingyour children/wife to pay off your debt. Who would stop you? The gov't? Well, there wouldn't really be one to stop you, now, would there? While you personally probably have the morals to avoid this, you know that their are people who don't.





If you remember, Libertarians are for personal freedoms, and this would be taking those freedoms away. Remember, we are against slavery as it violates people's freedom.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

Originally posted by DanD9
"Please tell me you don't believe in debt slvery. "
By debt slavery you mean working to pay off your debt? Well now, wasn't it your choice to borrow the money in the first place? If you didn't borrow the money, you would not be in debt. Borrowing that money was volunteering to be a slave.
Of course, I may not know what you mean by debt slavery. Please explain.
Thanks,


Nice, but no, what I meant was sellingyour children/wife to pay off your debt. Who would stop you? The gov't? Well, there wouldn't really be one to stop you, now, would there? While you personally probably have the morals to avoid this, you know that their are people who don't.





If you remember, Libertarians are for personal freedoms, and this would be taking those freedoms away. Remember, we are against slavery as it violates people's freedom.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Frosty says:

"There is nothing wrong with Libertariansim, but there is on the other hand, something wrong with the Libertarian Party. The LP is @$$ backwards in its approach to elect a US president, or for that sake, members of congress. What the LP disperatly needs is a grass roots movement to branch out towards local and state communities in order to gain support in the Senate and HoR"

Libertarians argue that question a lot; if you would go to some of the get-togethers, sooner or later someone would bring up the very same comment and then the squabbling would begin.

There are arguments both for and against running a Libertarian for President. The down side is that it takes a lot of money which is in very short supply to do what advertising we do and to get the person on the ballot, etc. -- money that some believe could be spent in a more cost-effective way.

On the other hand, having a candidate for president -- even with no chance of success -- is a tremendous outreach strategy. People who wouldn't even have heard of the LP otherwise would at least take the first step by finding out something.

I remember going to a Phoenix downtown hotel in 1980 to listen to some Presidential candidate of an organization I'd never even heard of speak; all my LP activism and, indeed, my views on governance and economics, have stemmed from that one meeting. Had there been no "magnet" of a presidential candidate, I doubt if I'd have even gone.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Frosty says:

"There is nothing wrong with Libertariansim, but there is on the other hand, something wrong with the Libertarian Party. The LP is @$$ backwards in its approach to elect a US president, or for that sake, members of congress. What the LP disperatly needs is a grass roots movement to branch out towards local and state communities in order to gain support in the Senate and HoR"

Libertarians argue that question a lot; if you would go to some of the get-togethers, sooner or later someone would bring up the very same comment and then the squabbling would begin.

On the other hand, having a candidate for president -- even with no chance of success -- is a tremendous outreach strategy. People who wouldn't even have heard of the LP otherwise would at least take the first step by finding out something.


I couldn't agree more, and I have had this very conversation at almost every Libertarian party I've been to (which are very diverse in viewpoints and backgrounds, and that inspires me).

I also came because of a presidential candidate. I am really a true form Republican who knows his party has abandoned him. I disagree with some of the pure Libertarian form, but any "perfect" model can not be implemented. I try to come from a more common sense perspective, i.e. knowing things take time.

In order to implement Libertarian policy, it would take great effort on a large scale. This is something Washington (at the moment) is the best place to start (at least about thinking how to strategize any moves).

The local government is good, and they are making moves there (and winning), but the presidential candidate is worthwhile. I was very impressed at the gathering strength, on a local level, of the motivated people coming together for the election. That for the Big Two is much easier, so it impressive that they did as much as they did (the Libertarians that is).



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Really? So, they wouldn't knowlingly continue to make products that would cause, say, cancer? Or say put something in them that makes them addictive?
That "profit motive" that you refer to means that they would want to do things that would profit them.
Unfortunately that all to often means screwing over your fellow man.


Really. Any business that kills its customers will not stay in business very long, unless said business has a customer base willing to die by taking their products. Cigarettes are a prime example; most smokers know that cigarettes have been linked to cancer, yet they still smoke. Why? Why do they risk their lives? I'm not sure, personally, but at least they have the freedom to do so. Screwing your fellow man typically does not give you rave reviews, and bad PR isn't always the best to have. However, if you have a person willing to be screwed (warning labels are on cigarette packages), then who are you to play nanny?



Suicide is outlawed because the vast majority of people who would commit it are depressed. I can support doctor assisted suicide. But I can see too many reasons why the other types of suicide should be out lawed.



I'm not sure I follow. Some people eat while depressed, but eating is not outlawed.





What I can't understand is this insistance that the poor who remain that way, do so by choice. Many of the poor do move to other cities. How does location help you "market" that fact atha you don't have a home?


Location, location, location. For example, if you are an out of work coal miner living in New York City, I am not very impressed. In realistic terms, if you are an out of work assembly line worker and all the factories near your city have closed, then I again do not have much sympathy. Many employers (without government involvement) have homeless work programs. Wendy's, for example, has an excellent program for those who do not have a home. Granted, people will not start with a high wage, but any wage is better than none.

With that said, some homless do not have a choice to be in their situation. They may be mentally ill, retarded, or some other such problems. It is here that we must be thankful for the compassion of men (non-government charity programs) that have and will take care of those who can not work. However, I see an odd disconnect occuring when I see illegals (hey, I live in Texas) working for a very low wage while many of those places are actively hiring, yet there are people without jobs. Is is pride that keeps some people away from minimum wage jobs? I'm not sure, but they are there, and some people choose not to take them.




However, I find the idea that private charities could somehow replace to be laughable. No offense, intended.


Will you explain why? Or is that just an opinion?



Yes, people have morals, but many if bitg buisness have shownthat they care more aobu the bottom line than the little guy(remember the Enron "scandle"-it's hardly new stuff, they just got caught doing it on a bigger scale is all.)


You should stop looking at the headlines, and look around you. Many huge businesses willingly donate billions of dollars to charities. See: Microsoft, Lowe's, Home Depot, etc. (the list could go on and on). While there are some very famous wrongs around, there are some not so well known rights.





But allowing to them to do so would cause more people to do so than already do. This would cause more people to get into accidents that they wouldn't have if they were sober.


This is simple speculation. Perhaps I am incorrect, but I don't think you really know that your assertion if true.




It is not the "bad desicions of a few" that I am worried about. It is the bad desicion of the one person who kill my wife/brother/father/etc...


You worry about things out of your control. In all honesty, it could be the bad decision of one person to go into your home and murder those members of your family. You can not know the future, and you can not control other's thoughts. In the end, you can only seek to reduce risk in an uncertain world. Now we can decide how to reduce risk, and I assert the most just way to reduce risk is to do everything in your freedom that will not take away from another's freedom.

That is, one way to have relative certainty of risk is to jail everyone besides your loved ones. However, that is not very just. Nor is it very just to prohibit an action from others that in and of itself does not cause any harm to your family.



Because they are intelligent, have good grades, could be someone?
As, their is know way that private universities could giv eout scholarships to everyone who deserves them.


Those who are the most intelligent, with the better grades, and could be someone great are those who deserve scholarships. The entire point of scholarships is for universities to invest in students to give them a nice list of alma mater students. As such, they, in the end, are the individuals who decide who is worthy of their investment.

Implicitly, you seem to want to tell people who they should consider a good investment, and while some suggestions are liked, being told what to do is another matter. People sell themselves in the work world, and like it or not, students must sell themselves to the universities.



As no one new about the Holocaust until the war was actually winding down I can't see why they would bother to stop something they didn't know was going on.


Are you suggesting that we should go to war against any and all countries just in case something horrid is occuring in that country? I do not understand your point here.




While you would undoubtibly get a small number of people who would gladly join the fight on their own, most would be to busy makeing profits selling supplies to both sides(per WW1) ANd some people would end up inevitably fighting onthe oppisite sides.


I agree. People should be able to have the freedom to support any side of a conflict that they want so long as it does not violate another citizen's right. That falls along many lines: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of trade, etc. etc.



Now niether of those things bother me too much as it would be what people chose to do. What bothers me is that either nazi's or communists would have dome out in control fo eurasia and then come over to the US and we would have had to fight on our own soil. The casualty rate would have been a lot higher. Alot more pople would have gotten hurt than did by us joining the fight earleir, something we couldn't do under a L gov't.


You know, people make a living by writings what-if history stories. While they are interesting books, they are still placed in the fiction section. Not to be rude, but all of this is speculation.



Please stop comparing Irag to WW2. Theyare not the same at all. One good thing I can see about an L gov't is that we wouldn't be in their in the first place.


I never compared Iraq to WW2, I am simply showing a horrible moral delimma. Being forced to support an action you are morally opposed to can not be a good feeling.



That missed the point of what I was trying to say. I apologize for not being clear-my bad. My point was that the gov't can and does have tarrifs to help out our buisness's compete in foreign, I made this remark in response to a remark abou thow those things were bad, as I dont' feel that they are.


Many government policies with international trade are that way to solve other problems that were ironically caused by government. One thing many American businesses have trouble with is product price; most countries can produce items at much less cost than America can. Why is this? America is not inherently weak with regard to the cost of producing, but it does have many standards that cause the price of goods to increase. Minimum wage, strict pollution controls, real estate guidelines, employer sponsered healthcare, etc. are many of the policies that cause American goods to not be able to compete internationally.



Please tell me you don't believe in debt slvery.

If you do I will have lost all respect for you.


I actually part from many libertarians in that I think it can be argued relatively well that absolute freedom includes the ability to give up your freedom. Slavery only violates another's rights if and only if that person has rights (i.e. has not given up their rights).



-- Radardog



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by radardog

I actually part from many libertarians in that I think it can be argued relatively well that absolute freedom includes the ability to give up your freedom. Slavery only violates another's rights if and only if that person has rights (i.e. has not given up their rights).


We will have to talk on this another time, I agree with you to an extent true freedom DOES include the right to GIVE UP that freedom, like I said another thread and another time.

As for Private charities not doing the job like the Government, you are absolutely right there is no comparison. I had a operation a couple months ago and have been out of work since.(I return tomorrow I hope) We asked the government for help and after 2 months piles of paper work and being treated like dogs the Government gave us 75$.

During this same time several churches and friends and family have paid every bill I owe (on time) sometimes anonymously helped us get food and every bit was unasked for and happily given. the total was around 4-5 thousand dollars.

Which would you rather have had?

The only problem I could see was if I wanted to live of of them forever things might have got worse but if it had of came to that I could have moved in with one of my kids.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Meh... I'm still skeptical it sounds like just another dogma and not a solution to a dynamic world. Much like communism...

How does libertarianism deal with corruption in business?
What will it do in response to a belligerent corporate monopoly that crushes all competition it faces?

Where exactly will the money come from to support the army and police forces if the taxes are as low as it seems you libertarians want?

It seems too reliant on the belief that people are inherently good and will always make the right decisions for the good of humanity. Cheaters all to often do prosper and I dont see an effective answer to this in the libertarian philosophy.

I am not saying that the core principles of self reliance and personal freedom are bad just that with the application of a little common sense and pragmatism you can get similar results in our current
system.

[edit on 28-11-2004 by boogyman]



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman


It seems too reliant on the belief that people are inherently good and will always make the right decisions for the good of humanity. Cheaters all to often do prosper and I dont see an effective answer to this in the libertarian philosophy.


No it doesnt work like that at all, it is reliant on the belief that people are selfish and will act in ways that are good for THEM. Its kinda hard to have Cheaters in a game with no rules


Libertarianism just depends on people being people cheaters arent going to follow the rules ANYWAY.



posted on Nov, 28 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   
It's useless to vote for a third party. There will always only be two major parties and neither of the two now are gonna go away unless something major (ie they all die in a plane crash) happens. We need to focus on reforming the message of the parties that do exist and stop neo-con shift of ideolgies



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
Meh... I'm still skeptical it sounds like just another dogma and not a solution to a dynamic world. Much like communism...

cuba seems to have done ok.


How does libertarianism deal with corruption in business?
What will it do in response to a belligerent corporate monopoly that crushes all competition it faces?

it will still have the same services dedicated to stopping them.


Where exactly will the money come from to support the army and police forces if the taxes are as low as it seems you libertarians want?

the point is that you have a small well trained army. also the police would have civilians helpers.


It seems too reliant on the belief that people are inherently good and will always make the right decisions for the good of humanity. Cheaters all to often do prosper and I dont see an effective answer to this in the libertarian philosophy.

its better than haveing a government control you.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join