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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by radardog
I wouldn't say it is a virtue (in a moral sense), but rather a quality inherently in us. Systems of governments are philosophies, so I do not see why philosophers should touch them. Plato, for example, argued for the republic with the human soul as its analogy.


If you reward greed it will only encourage it. YOu would be surpised at the number of people who would take the short term benefits with out regard to the lo;ng term consequences.



Originally posted by radardogI think that corporate entities need to be consciously or inherently benevolent, but rather a totally free market system would require them to lean in that direction...


I think you just proved Boogeymans point for him.


Originally posted by radardog...Insofar as humans fear the law to not murder, so will corporations.


And yet they (both corporations and humans) murder people anyways. Why? Greed. Look at the recent FDA scandals about the Drug companies. They didn't want to test people with heart problems for fear of bad publicity if it didn't do as well.


Originally posted by radardog
Libertarians are generally isolationists. Generally, a competitive military and an advanced foreign intelligence is not needed for isolationist countries. The U.S. before WWI, for example, did not have much of a military yet had secure borders.


I can agree with that the advanced foreign intelligence would be unneeded for an isolationist country(at least in theory).

However, LP doesnt' want us to actually be isolationist, they want to let buisnesses( and people) to be able to get as involved as they want to be on the world stage. As today's economy is very much a global economy they(buisness, if not people in general) would want to get very involved.
They would prevent us from being isolationist.


Originally posted by radardogIn contemporary history, conquered people that do not want to be conquered do not stay that way long. India, African Colonies, Phillipines, etc. Benevolent forces have also been known to come to the aid of invaded peoples.


You forgot to mention all those the USSR supressed who were only freed by the USSR's dissolving. Not to mention a number of people Sodamn conquered nad yet remained that way despite their desire for freedom. Your arguement doesn't really hold up in many cases.


Originally posted by radardogThat is right. According to this philosophy, an unjust ruler can be overthrown by its subjects. At the same time, at what point should a group rebel?


How doesn this answer the question "what keeps Joe Shmoe from setting up the People Republic of Joe Shmoe" where I can do whatever I want to whoever I want and have full immunity(In the Shmoe Republic)."?


Originally posted by radardog
Economic resources. The power of money have and will continue to bring people together. In the end, economics tend to be what hold countries together or apart:


A fair defense, though somewhat misleading. Ecomomics can keep people trading and working with each other. It won't make them unite as a country though. The original colonies each thought of themsleves as an independant country. IT wasn't till after the civil war that the country was even refered to by using singular terminology(as opposed to the plural terminalogy) i.e. "The Us was" verses "the US is" .


Originally posted by radardog
The environment tend to be one of the sharpest critiques of libertarianism. It is an irony that the LP party wants to continue the DoD, but at the same time they want to reform it.


Ok, reforming the DOD, I can see that. Well, I should say, I can see you trying that at least. I don't know how successful you'd be.


Originally posted by radardog A logging company does not have access to every bit of land that has a tree. That is, the land they have rights to and own are relatively finite. With this in mind, private sellers can limit logging companies, and at the same time, companies have a good incintive to repopulate land that they could eventually come back to.


Ah, the "trees are a renewable resource" myth. They aren't. ANd even if they were, the logging company's policy of "plant 2 trees for every one we cut down and then go backin 20 years and cut those trees down" plan doesn't address the loss of soil quality and lifeweb complexity that such policies cause. If you dont' know why that's bad then you need to do more research in that area.


Originally posted by radardogLooking at the economy, as land with trees becomes scarce, the price to cut them down will become large. It is within their best interest to make sure the supply of trees is relatively large.


Except that they own the land with the trees on it. And to the tree suppliers it would make more snes to make more money by cutting down on the supply. Supply and demand. Do you really think that diamonds are that rare?


Originally posted by radardog
I covered this in a previous post; Counting the charities listed on the tax returns in just three states, there was just under 1 trillion dollars given to charity.



That doesn't mean that any of it's going to replace welfare.


Originally posted by radardog There is a lot of money out there, and people will be able to give more if they are paying less in taxes.


Yes, they could give more. but will they?
Do you have any studies showing they will?


Originally posted by radardog
The LP party wants to keep a weak U.S. government. The anarcho capitalists, on the other hand, do not want a government. Private companies can not force policies on to other companies, and that is what is the most different between the two: the U.S. government can force a policy onto all individuals and entities, while in anarcho-capitalist land, no such entity could do that.


This does not answer the concern over exchanging a private goverment for a public one. You just stated the the weak public one that remains would somehow be able to keep in check the powerful private one. I fail to see this happening.




posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DanD9
I am an extreme libertarian, and I still can't see much wrong with the philosophy. Therefore, I will make a bet that you can't make 10 real good reasons as to why Libertarianism is wrong. Also, please include why you think those should be reasons.

Thanks,
Dan


Usually when people are set in their belief system such as yourself, it's pretty hard to change it...

On a relative note... Ask a socialist to give you 10 he'll give you 100...

Libertarianism is for those who wish to make it on their own, have no government intervention, no helping hands, just leave them along to let them do their thing...

Independant people usually...


Socialists, though they hide behind this compassionate good will mask for all... You can be sure that mediocrity is there middle name...

I'm a libertarian and I LOVE that party!



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I am not a liberatarian but more like a sort of comunist, so its nice to meet some people on the left side!



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 06:51 PM
link   
I dont know enough about theparty to come up with 10 good reasons... but i think the reason most americans dont like them is either.

1/ Their social agenda is too liberal,

2/ Their Fiscal agenda is too conservative.

2/ is the reason i dont like them.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Too conservative? Well, I guess it does require a bit of mental tenacity on the part of people (who historically have proven to have only some). But come on, we can't keep going on with the rediculous system we have now.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
In our current predicament, I don't think that there is such a thing as fiscally too conservative. Just take a look at our national debt! We should have elected Ross Perot!



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by radardog

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

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!



Off_the_street,

Thank you for your compliments; I have been enjoying your posts also.

I'm not aware of any published statistical correlations between the two groups, but in general, I think most religions can fit into libertarianism well. With respect to christianity in general, I think we can see that nothing biblical or papal prohibits one to be a libertarian, and in fact I can argue decently that those into biblical study might be interested in libertarianism.

One could point out:
1. The christian theist's concept of freewill isn't that far off from the libertarian's concept of liberty. In one case we have God telling us what sin is, yet allows us to sin, and the other we have our personal values/morals telling us what is wrong, yet there is no absolute power (government) to prevent us from doing it. e.x. A libertarian could be morally opposed to drug use, yet will not want a law against it.

2. The christian theist's concept of faith and works ("faith without works is blind") puts into light a fundamental motive for people to give in charity without a higher power forcing them to do so. One's reward for giving should be fulfillment of their own wish to give, and christianity simply does give that motivation.

3. Biblically, theft is wrong. Absolutely a sin. While this is a very touchy subject, I can give witness to that I never consented to pay taxes directly or indirectly. For those who say, "well what about the social contract?!" I suggest you go back and read Hobbes and the subsequent authors with doubt; (a) most social contract theorists go off the horrible premise that man is not a social animal, and (b) most social contract theorists have doubts that any such contract ever existed.


In my experience, most atheists I know are on the left end of the scale: socialists, communists, green, etc. I have been known to stand out from my peers (atheists) in this regard; heated discussions occur daily. An interesting thing I have noticed, though, is that most libertarians that I know are very involved with some subset of engineering: computer sciences, engineering, etc. Perhaps just all the logic gates make sense with libertarianism. :-P

Regards,
Radardog

I have been christian since 6 months ago, and am a Libertarian. I think that since god created free will, the government should let people decide for themselves, whether to obey god, or not. If someone wishes to go to hell, it is their choice. God wants everyone to come to him, but he doesnt force them. Neither should the government.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by specialasianX
I dont know enough about theparty to come up with 10 good reasons... but i think the reason most americans dont like them is either.

1/ Their social agenda is too liberal,

2/ Their Fiscal agenda is too conservative.

2/ is the reason i dont like them.

So, I suppose you dont want to earn your own money? You want to share it? Or do you want to be shared with? Do you not want to have your own stuff? Why not?
I suppose you have never earned money before. It is a great feeling to know, I worked for this, I earned it, it's mine. It's an even better feeling when you donate to charity.You know, they are in need of it, and they can use it more than you can, and it pleases God. However, it's wrong to steal money through the government and spread it around people, including yourself. What have you done to earn that money? Is it up to other people to support you? This is why I think that socialists are greedy and lazy.



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Just a couple questions for Libertarians if the government dosnt run nuthouses how will society deal with mentaly ill people who are a risk to themselvs and others?

Say I give my money to a charity what happens if I dont get along with the people that run that charity and they wont help me ?

I live in a small country town either the locals love you or hate you.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Just a couple questions for Libertarians if the government dosnt run nuthouses how will society deal with mentaly ill people who are a risk to themselvs and others?

Let nature run its course or people will take them in and help them out of the kindness of thier hearts or the society would probably orginise a nut house and "pay" people.


Say I give my money to a charity what happens if I dont get along with the people that run that charity and they wont help me ?

Then dont donate.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
haha, yeah, dont donate. Also - there are people out there who care about insane people and will help.




top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join