Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I'm libertarian(minarchist), ask me anything

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Okay I've noticed a lot of hate for libertarianism from some people on this site and unfortunatly alot of the critics seem to be confused as to what libertarianism actually is and seem to think that it has somthing to do with worshipping our corperate overlords, hating the poor and dressing like the guy from monopoly.
Now as an actual libertarian who hates corperations, is poor and (so I've been told) dresses somewhere between wrestlings the undertaker and vanhelsing (not seen either so I can't personally verify this) I find these beliefs about libertarians very confusing.

I considered writing a thread explaining about popular misconceptions but instead I figure offering people a chance to ask questions we might all get more out of this conversation.

Disclaimer: While I have looked into libertarianism a fair bit I am neither a professor of political philosophy nor am I an expert in economic theory, so please be gentle if I don't know something

Also I am only speaking for myself and my view of libertarianism (minarchism) other libertarians may have belief that differ from mine so please don't assume that what is true for one is automatically true for all.




posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: monkofmimir

Does understanding the core value of Libertarianism make it more or less attractive to you?

Are you comfortable being preyed upon?

Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

Link to a harsh synopsis of the book



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: monkofmimir

I left the GOP after Bush did TARP.

I didn't actually think about becoming a libertarian until the last election. Yes, I did vote for Romney.

Libertarian beliefs, adhere to individuality, self-determination, personal responsibility.

Am I off the mark?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: monkofmimir

What's your position on burning garbage? Why should a Libertarian be required to pay the fees for pick-up?

If you say I can burn all my trash in the backyard, I'm really going to take another look. That would be cool.



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
In before 'but the roads'.

Question: What is the best way to explain to someone that any government that uses violence to achieve its goals is an evil organization and needs to be abolished?



posted on Apr, 28 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

"individuality, self-determination, personal responsibility"

I definitely appreciate those stated values, I guess the "rub" is that so many people subscribe to the first two, but very few bother with even entertaining the third and most crucial.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I think that the OP didn't know he was going to run into so many knowledgeable libertarians. I don't claim to be a libertarian, by the way. I admit that I've only minimally looked into libertarianism. I don't think anybody cares that I'm not a libertarian, by the way. Lol.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Why do Libertarians hold the non-coercion principle in the highest regard, yet still want to use coercion for their own purposes?

You see, a Libertarian government is still a government, therefore any time it acts it violates the non-coercion principle. So the pledge you have to sign to be a card-carrying Libertarian represents a goal the party can never achieve due to the very existence of itself.

In fact, the very act of voting is, in effect, a violation of the non-coercion principle. What gives you the right to participate in the creation of laws that will invariably dictate what other people can't or must do?

So based on the non-coercion principle, having a political party makes no sense. That's why I can't really take "minarchism" seriously, and just went ahead and embraced full-blown anarchy.
edit on 4/29/14 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: monkofmimir

Does understanding the core value of Libertarianism make it more or less attractive to you?


Oh it most certainly makes it more attractive, I was raised as a left wing socialist and supported the labour party (uk). It has taken me several years to get to the point where I'm begining to really understand both the implications and the consiquences of its core value.

Libertarianism has two core principles which it expands to every area of life including government.

.1 non initiation of violence
While libertarians believe that self defence (or direct defence of others) is acceptable, agression towards others most certainly isn't.
.2 property rights
Libertarians believe that if you own something that means you sacrificed time out of your life either to make it or bartered your time for it in some way and that if someone is stealing or vandalising your property they are effectivly engaging in violence against you.



Are you comfortable being preyed upon?


No, most certainly not. That is why I am opposed to the corruption, violence and suffering that the corperations and governments are currently inflicting in every nation in the world.




Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

Link to a harsh synopsis of the book


Yes I have actually, infact I recomend it. While I don't agree with everything she says her portrayal of the government was spot on in many ways. even if you will never agree with me about libertarianism it is still worth reading as it so clearly lays out the problems we face with our modern government.

I looked at your link and it had a couple of good points about the book but a lot of them are just grasping at straws and looking for anything they can to insult both it and her.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: monkofmimir

Libertarian beliefs, adhere to individuality, self-determination, personal responsibility.

Am I off the mark?


No you are completely correct however libertarianism also recognises that there are evil people in the world and that the best way to protect ourselves from them is to either minimize (minarchist) or eleminate (anarcho-capitalist) the government as governments usually take special privaliges just for them selves (printing of money, owning weapons etc) and no matter what system of government we have, evil people always end up in charge.
Essentially libertarians don't believe we should give Psychopaths guns, money, the legal authority to use violence against us and the ability it write whatever arbitery law their lust for more power compells them to.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

That's a good point, and something I've wondered about too. The very idea of libertarianism is a paradox.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: monkofmimir

What's your position on burning garbage? Why should a Libertarian be required to pay the fees for pick-up?

If you say I can burn all my trash in the backyard, I'm really going to take another look. That would be cool.


Essentially it depends on whats in your garbage, if your burning tyres or somthing with nasy fumes like that, your neighbours would be able to take legal action against you as the fumes would be polluting their property but if it was somthing harmless like paper then there shouldn't be a problem. infact if burning waste caught on in your area and with free markets being more receptive to change than what we have now, businesses might even start selling products in packaging the is specifically designed to be burned.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: vasaga
In before 'but the roads'.

Question: What is the best way to explain to someone that any government that uses violence to achieve its goals is an evil organization and needs to be abolished?


Thats a very hard question to answer but I will do my best.
First of all I recomend that you check out a guy called Stefan Molyneux he has come up with an interesting argument ( www.youtube.com... ) which he essentially call "against me" which he has some good success with.

Personally I believe we need to take back the argument from socialists that we are the ideology most able to help the poorest in society and that we are also most on the side of minorities. Because so much of our current system is based on the belief that most of what is happening now is to protect them, that if we can remove this huge cornerstone from the statist argument that it is very hard if not impossible to maintian it and once the fascade come crumbling down it will be very easy to see our governments for exactly what they are.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: beezzer

"individuality, self-determination, personal responsibility"

I definitely appreciate those stated values, I guess the "rub" is that so many people subscribe to the first two, but very few bother with even entertaining the third and most crucial.


I agree and that is why I think we need a society that both encourages all three and discourages those that want to rule over anyone who lacks in any of these three areas,



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: brazenalderpadrescorpio
I think that the OP didn't know he was going to run into so many knowledgeable libertarians. I don't claim to be a libertarian, by the way. I admit that I've only minimally looked into libertarianism. I don't think anybody cares that I'm not a libertarian, by the way. Lol.



I know we have a strong libertarian community here on ATS so I didn't doubt they'd come to at least take a look but I was expecting a few more non-libertarians/people not sympathetic to libertarianism to comment. I know I would if someone from a diffrent political point of view to me starded a thread like this.
edit on 2942014 by monkofmimir because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: monkofmimir

I think that you may have underestimated the size of the libertarian community, here. I'd say that almost everyone who is not a libertarian here is a contrarian. And then it's sprinkled with people like me who have really alternative views. It'd be interesting if they enabled polling here on ATS to find out what the percentages are. Everything else is speculation.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
Why do Libertarians hold the non-coercion principle in the highest regard, yet still want to use coercion for their own purposes?

You see, a Libertarian government is still a government, therefore any time it acts it violates the non-coercion principle. So the pledge you have to sign to be a card-carrying Libertarian represents a goal the party can never achieve due to the very existence of itself.

In fact, the very act of voting is, in effect, a violation of the non-coercion principle. What gives you the right to participate in the creation of laws that will invariably dictate what other people can't or must do?


I love this question and it is so, so important thankyou for posting it, infact I just gave you a star.

It is very difficult to imagine a libertarian government at the moment infact even from your well thought out political stance you made a misassumption about mine.
Yes voting for new laws (either directly or indirectly through an elected official) will inevitably lead to both abuses and breaches of the libertarian principle. That is why I do not believe that the government should have the power to pass new laws or abolish old laws (which would only consist of those few necissary to express libertarianism in a legal format.) Essential it would strictly follow the night-watchman format of government.

Wikipedia has an intresting article if you wish to learn more about night-watchmen states en.wikipedia.org... (although interestingly it does mention that some people who adovcate for it do support legislatures so your assumption was valid for at least some minarchists.)



So based on the non-coercion principle, having a political party makes no sense. That's why I can't really take "minarchism" seriously, and just went ahead and embraced full-blown anarchy.


I do find anarcho-captialism very interesting in I suspect that in the long run 1000yrs+ humanity will adopt some form of anarchy as the dominant system however I do not believe we are culturally ready for such a radical change.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: brazenalderpadrescorpio
a reply to: monkofmimir

I think that you may have underestimated the size of the libertarian community, here. I'd say that almost everyone who is not a libertarian here is a contrarian. And then it's sprinkled with people like me who have really alternative views. It'd be interesting if they enabled polling here on ATS to find out what the percentages are. Everything else is speculation.


worst comes to worst I'd like to think that I've shared my knowledge and other people have shared theirs and we all go away richer because of it.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
Why do Libertarians hold the non-coercion principle in the highest regard, yet still want to use coercion for their own purposes?

You see, a Libertarian government is still a government, therefore any time it acts it violates the non-coercion principle. So the pledge you have to sign to be a card-carrying Libertarian represents a goal the party can never achieve due to the very existence of itself.

In fact, the very act of voting is, in effect, a violation of the non-coercion principle. What gives you the right to participate in the creation of laws that will invariably dictate what other people can't or must do?

So based on the non-coercion principle, having a political party makes no sense. That's why I can't really take "minarchism" seriously, and just went ahead and embraced full-blown anarchy.


It's the Non-Aggression Principle actually, but in some contexts, coercion also falls under that umbrella. However that is a gray area - because even in a Libertarian minarchist society (which is minimal government based on Libertarian values, for anyone wondering) enforcing laws are NOT done through physical threats of violence. The only permissible violence is self-defense. The laws in that society - assuming it is a true Libertarian minarchist structure - are inherently non-coersive. If they were coersive, then that society wouldn't be Libertarian minarchist.

But I don't like gray areas, so I will gladly join you in full-blown anarchy =)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Son of Will

It's the Non-Aggression Principle actually, but in some contexts, coercion also falls under that umbrella. However that is a gray area - because even in a Libertarian minarchist society (which is minimal government based on Libertarian values, for anyone wondering) enforcing laws are NOT done through physical threats of violence. The only permissible violence is self-defense. The laws in that society - assuming it is a true Libertarian minarchist structure - are inherently non-coersive. If they were coersive, then that society wouldn't be Libertarian minarchist.

But I don't like gray areas, so I will gladly join you in full-blown anarchy =)

Non-Aggression. Indeed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not down on Libertarians--they just don't go far enough. Anarchism is the logical conclusion if one adheres to a philosophy of non-aggression.

This is why the idiots with ski masks breaking windows and throwing rocks are only called anarchists by the people who have an interest in portraying them to society as violent criminals (TPTB). True anarchists, minarchists, and libertarians are in fact pacifists.

Peace is bad for business, though.





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join