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.

 

So where are the conservative and libertarian utopias?

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

In theory, the freer versions. I've already mentioned potential problems.




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
In theory, the freer versions. I've already mentioned potential problems.


A potential problem is not an actual problem and what 'potential problems' have you already mentioned?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Free people are free to conspire.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Free people are free to conspire.


And I would wager oppressed people are conspiring much more than their freer counterparts.

If that is the best you have you really do not have much.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
And I would wager oppressed people are conspiring much more than their freer counterparts.

Might be, but in either case the result is usually a power structure and that is why libertarianism is knowhere to be seen.

You see I'm not advocating one thing over another. I'm just saying that, while freedom is the natural state of things, that same freedom allows people to use force on others, resulting in less freedom.


If that is the best you have you really do not have much.

Seems to be enough.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

Might be, but in either case the result is usually a power structure and that is why libertarianism is knowhere to be seen.


Libertarianism does not advocate an absence of central authority, it just limits the amount of personal freedoms that authority can deprive you of.


You see I'm not advocating one thing over another. I'm just saying that, while freedom is the natural state of things, that same freedom allows people to use force on others, resulting in less freedom.


I do not see how you make the leap from Libertarianism=people wantonly using force on fellow citizens.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
First off, before I begin to answer the questions you have presented and the overall premise, I would like to say it is an excellent question -- an excellent starting point and finding the common ground and begin fixing the many problems we have today as a Centralist form of Government.

I guess I should expound first what I mean "Centralist". When I use this term, I speak that while we are technically a representative republic, with democracy delegated down to the lowest level; we are far from a republic and far from the system actually envisioned by multitudes of documents during our founding. A large portion of control is either in the hands of the Central government or they use the prospect of grants, tax incentives, and other means of controlling how the 50 independent states operate (see speed-limit laws, helmet laws, drinking age laws, etc, etc.)

Brief I know, but that is where I am generally coming from -- that we have an ever increasing one-size-fits-all Central government applying things from the top-down upon 300+ million persons and their respective States.


originally posted by: muse7
This thread is aimed at conservatives and libertarians...yes I know that they are not alike but they both share the same hatred for liberalism and progressivism.


A true libertarian doesn't exhibit hate towards liberalism. In the truest sense, they are much alike with just how to achieve a free-society. One is under the guise that people themselves will achieve it through free-market principles and through community and the other through the force of Government.


The fact is unregulated markets lead to all of the wealth funneling to a small number of people, therefore regulation is necessary.


I would gander that a large (and I mean large) majority of Conservatives and libertarians would agree that small amounts of regulation is what is needed. Targeted and measured with actionable governmental need to the regulation itself. For instance: do we really need regulation on the People themselves to maintain health insurance? Or how about regulation on banks to notify the Federal government whenever a private citizen deposits more than X amount of dollars?

Those, among others, are the regulations that many conservatives and libertarians don't like. Regulations on what is in my tap-water that I obtain through pseudo-public utilities? Absolutely. Regulation on if my bathroom in my business that sells ladders can comply with the ADA? Kinda ridiculous if you ask me.


Laws, Government, Regulations and Welfare are crucial to maintain a functioning society. Do you agree with this? If not then why not?


Laws -- Yes. Government -- Yes. Regulations -- Yes. Welfare -- No. I don't see welfare as crucial to maintaining a functioning society. Okay maybe today's society, but that is because so much is built around that. You have large swaths of the citizenry that are dependent upon that welfare that was promised. I do not see it as a valid function of Government.

I do see it as a moral and valid function of society though.


I keep an open mind on everything and I know that a liberal and progressive utopia is just not possible. Just like how a conservative utopia or a libertarian utopia is not possible.


Agreed in the fact that I am assuming you are, just as those who rail against Communism and Socialism, take it to the complete extreme to make their points.


...getting rid of the department of education...


I think a cabinet level regarding education is okay, but they exercise too much control over an insanely diverse population. Let it be handled at the State and local levels without the fear of losing funding or being bullied into whatever the benevolent leaders in Washington (or their lobbyist) want.


...getting rid of the FDA


Revamp and refocus the FDA. Too many rules are stifling medications that could lead to some great benefits. Use them as the Governmental check against the industry, but not the gateway. They are exercising powers that are creepy. It is proven that listing nutritional information on items doesn't help -- but yet they want it done. Go figure.


...getting rid of the IRS...


Our nation existed quite nicely before our foreign expeditions and "welfare" applications in not collecting money from every persons based on their income prior to the 1916s....why then would we really need it?

Have you seen how much wealth the IRS rakes in? 3.6 trillion approximately. If you cannot run a country on that asinine amount of wealth then I don't know what to say.


Letting PUBLIC businesses decide which groups of people to serve and which not to serve.


Ah. That "public accommodation" thing again. I will admit, that "we" have lost that battle. Private ownership but beholden to the State I suppose.


Getting rid of most social safety nets..and I'm sure I could list a couple of more things.


There are quite a few that I could list too...


Libertarianism is to the Right as to what Communism is to the Left.


In their extremes...yep I agree.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Libertarianism does not advocate an absence of central authority, it just limits the amount of personal freedoms that authority can deprive you of.

That is the difference between the versions.


I do not see how you make the leap from Libertarianism=people wantonly using force on fellow citizens.

It doesn't equal it, it can facilitate it and again that all depends on the version you are talking about which makes asking for explanations rather pointless.


edit on 1-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: muse7

The problem is not government. The problem is government made up by humans.

Anarchism is the best option but needs to be aided by technology to make it practical in a modern day world full of sociopaths gaming the system. Government composed of people is flawed. Why? Because people are flawed. An anarchist society would still be plagued by the the same problems statists have.

-Greed.
-People's tendacy to want a strong sounding "king figure".
-Sociopaths/Psychopaths manipulating the system to make themselves more powerful at the expense of the many.

Machines have no ego nor do they fear death or crave power.

A government comprised of machines(totally self-regulating AI's) would be superior to normal government and would allow anarchism to exist in the real modern day world.


Negative.

Machines are still programmed by people.

Who in turn could program them to do anythingvthry want.

Or hack them etc.

I for one will not be turning my future over to the tender mercies of a heartless soulless machine intelligence.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
You know what I think (an realize it's not true in all cases) is that basically conservatives and their libertarian counterparts (and I'm speaking of 'rank and file' not academics) just don't want to pay any taxes or obey any laws. They use the 'sound bites' provided by the invested academics of these theories to justify that simple fact.

It's just about not paying taxes or following anyone else's laws and they just will not look a the consequences of such immature motives.



Yes you are right.

What's wrong with that?

You act like we require millions of laws to survive.

The ten commandments works just fine for me.

Hell I don't even need 10 because I don't have a god so I can't take his name, or have any graven images.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Free people are free to conspire.


And?

They conspire now.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick
And?

They conspire now.

So what do you think will actually change?



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: johnwick
And?

They conspire now.

So what do you think will actually change?


Everything.

No tickets or fines for things folks should be free to do.

No idiotic regulations forcing people under fines to acquire insurance they can't afford the premiums not to mention the fact it is absolutely impossible for them to ever pay the copay so the premiums are worthless to begin with.

No more breaking up families and ruining lives because a parent was in possession of marijuana.

The entire prison culture dismantled over night.

Because most are in there for victimless crimes, because currently the law is the victim somehow.

I could go on all day honestly.

What wouldn't change?


edit on 1-4-2015 by johnwick because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick
What wouldn't change?

Corruption and that would just bring everything you listed right back.

Everything eventually becomes crony capitalism. Laissez-faire, anarchy, libertarianism, socialism and communism all end up being crony capitalism.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7

Idaho is a conservative and libertarian utopia, they should move there. It has one of the worst education systems in the nation and a huge meth problem, as well as corrupt police and prison systems.

They passed a law stating that they would never allow gay marriage in their state and another one stating they would never allow legalized marijuana in their state. I know they were trying to pass a law that it is legal to deny services, even emergency medical services, to gay people if so desired.

There is one problem: gay marriage is allowed in the state now because their law forbidding it from ever being passed was found to be unconstitutional in a federal court.

But you could still shoot a gay person on your property and refuse to provide first aid due to philosophical differences, so it's a win.
edit on 02amThu, 02 Apr 2015 00:29:58 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: muse7

In the end the ignorant masses that continually grow the subsistence group will win in the ends... so both loose.

There is a reason why the 2nd most subsistence group is the second most poorest group in america.. (African Americans), and the most subsistence group is also the poorest in america (American Indian). Two groups that are very far a part except for the subsistence part. This tells us that HUMANS in general will give up quality of life, freedom, happiness etc for a poor quality but easy life choice.



edit on 2-4-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
It doesn't equal it, it can facilitate it and again that all depends on the version you are talking about which makes asking for explanations rather pointless.


You are obviously confusing Anarchism with Libertarianism and would do well to educate yourself on what true Libertarianism happens to be.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
Idaho is a conservative and libertarian utopia, they should move there.


I think you are also confusing Conservatism with Libertarianism. From the Idaho Libertarian platform:


1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.


And from the Libertarian National Committee:


WASHINGTON – America’s third largest party Monday praised officials in Iowa, Vermont and the District of Columbia for taking recent steps toward marriage equality, and urged legislators in all states to scrap government licensing, taxation and regulation of marriage.

“The government’s power to define marriage has historically been used as a tool to retaliate against minority groups, and the right to marry is the newest frontier of civil rights. Libertarians everywhere applaud this advancement of civil rights, but warn the only way to guarantee true marriage equality is to get government out of the question entirely,” said Catherine Sumner, LBGT policy advisor for the Libertarian National Committee. Source


A true Libertarian has no problem with Gay Marriage or any other personal rights issues that the media enjoys creating a left/right paradigm around.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I have noticed numerous times in this thread that the people who are arguing against libertarianism are completely wrong about it in the first place. "Idaho is a conservative and libertarian utopia"? Gay marriage and legal marijuana were examples given as to why libertarianism is bad yet libertarians tend to be pro legalization and not against gay marriage so both your examples of why libertarianism is bad were completely off the mark to begin with.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Greven

What does the Constitution and BoRs state?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join