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.

 

The Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You • Christopher Cantwell

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: greencmp




Murray Rothbard is probably the most thorough about environmental issues. He simply treats it as property rights.

Befouling another person's property is a violation of their property rights and is an act of violence of sorts.

He explains pretty well how a completely private justice system might operate.


I'll have to give him a read. Any recommendations? I admit my naivety on this topic so I appreciate your insight.

But what about one's own property? Can one rape its resources, maybe pave over it? Can one do what he wants on it? Also private land does not include air and oceans. I just have this inclination that libertarianism declines any obligation to these sorts of things.

I'm sorry about your loss, friend. If you're mourning, I would suggest avoiding the regressive left on these boards.


This is his general manifesto.

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

Thanks, I know I probably shouldn't be here now, I'm not exactly in the best state.

It's probably the internet equivalent of going out to a bar to pick a fight.




posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: greencmp




Murray Rothbard is probably the most thorough about environmental issues. He simply treats it as property rights.

Befouling another person's property is a violation of their property rights and is an act of violence of sorts.

He explains pretty well how a completely private justice system might operate.


I'll have to give him a read. Any recommendations? I admit my naivety on this topic so I appreciate your insight.

But what about one's own property? Can one rape its resources, maybe pave over it? Can one do what he wants on it? Also private land does not include air and oceans. I just have this inclination that libertarianism declines any obligation to these sorts of things.

I'm sorry about your loss, friend. If you're mourning, I would suggest avoiding the regressive left on these boards.


He is surprisingly comprehensive and addresses air and water pollution though, not entirely satisfactorily.

You can rape your land but, since it is your land and people are generally much better stewards of their own property than anyone else's, you are more likely to make sweet love to it.



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: greencmp



Damage to the environment is my main concern. What is the libertarian thought on the environment?





the state has no rights that the people themselves do not possess.
source

Murry N. Rothbard is the reason I am a libertarian. For me, Libertarian describes your ideas on the social controls a government may have, but the philosophy says little about how they will economically implement that action.

Now, to your question. Unfortunately, if you own the land(private property) you can do what you want as long as you are not interfering with the individual liberty of others. One could argue that the climate can never be owned, thus is public property. Public property then falls under the realm of government control, specifically a representative style government, that is they should represent the public's interest and keep the environment in working condition.

As a libertarian, my main social concern is that no one can tell me what I can do to myself. If I do not want to wear a seat belt then that's my choice, and I must live with the consequences of an accident. If I want to pollute my body with drugs, I can do that, as long as I do not steal or kill to get those drugs. If I want to dump trash in my backyard, that is fine as long as I prevent it from leaking into the publically shared ground water. If I do not want to go to war then I should not be drafted. If I want to spend my money on red-headed troll dolls then I spend my money on red-headed troll dolls.

Being a libertarian does not mean you are not allowed to believe in capitalism or socialism or representative government; instead, it means that you value personal liberty, but not at the cost of social order.

Last, I also suggest reading Ron Paul's End the Fed which shows that Libertarians can believe in social contracts as long as those contracts have some sort of Rousseauian guarantee of the protection of personal liberty.

Most libertarians do want to save the environment from the major polluters, which are large corporations, which should not be seen as people that deserve the same personal liberties as me.

Hope that helped,

edit on 14-1-2016 by hubrisinxs because: to many quotes, lol

edit on 14-1-2016 by hubrisinxs because: needed to fix Unfortunately



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: hubrisinxs

That’s a fair primer, thanks. I can agree with the whole do not interfere with the liberty of others—although it sounds nice in theory but probably difficult in practice.

Still, in regards to doing whatever one wants on one’s own property, I take that to mean (in its logical extreme) one can ruin it without regard to who might own that property after, or essentially, without care to the liberty of those not yet born. I know most people wouldn’t try to destroy their own property, but things like Chernobyl come to mind.

When it comes to politics, I’m not much of a fan of movements or affiliations that have no empirical merit. Libertarian to me sounds more like an individual choice, like a religion, as opposed to a politics. Obviously some liberal and conservative methods would need to be thrown in just to make it work—the rule of law, borders, checks and balances, and things like these, or people would take their liberty and run with it. Would you agree?



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Libertarians, the Peter Pans of political ideologists.

K~



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes, in practice one needs liberal or conservative methods to get anything thing done. In that respect, I am a conservative libertarian and, as was pointed out by someone else this topic, this is because of a dissatisfaction of the GOP.

Yes, that is a logical extreme sadly allowed by libertarian philosophy. It comes down to respect. Personal liberty does not require anyone to respect anything but the personal liberty of others thus a need for a social contract; otherwise, it would just be anarchy. Chernobyl, if I understand that event well enough, was an accident, so while no legal action would be taken it would fall under the responsibility of the government to ensure those who were affected are rectified. I guess what I am trying to say is that pollution is not a personal liberty thus no libertarian would defend such actions.

I would say it is more of a philosophy, as opposed to a politics or religion. Social contracts with checks and balances are absolutely necessary for libertarianism to transform from personal philosophy to a true political ideology. That is why there can be many policial flavors of libertarianism. In a lot of ways, Chomsky's anarcho-syndicalism is a form of socialist libertarianism. Laws are a necessary part of society and as long as they protect individuals and their property from violence, they are good. Laws that are crimes aginst the state are seen as superfluous being that the state is not seen as a person thus is not afforded personal liberty. Borders are also necessary, for they allow for a distinction between two pieces of private property and a distinction between public and private property.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

edit on 15-1-2016 by ScepticScot because: Browser hates me.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp



An important family member died yesterday so I suppose I'm not really trying to be influential here as much as cathartic.


Sorry for your loss, hope a gold old debate here helps take your mind of it.
edit on 15-1-2016 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

yes, that was one of my favorites as well




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: greencmp



An important family member died yesterday so I suppose I'm not really trying to be influential here as much as cathartic.


Sorry for your loss, hope a gold old debate here helps take your mind of it.


Thanks Scot!



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The only way to really have them would be to also have a very virtuous, moral/ethical society which would scare off a lot of potential libertarians who are mainly in it for the free access to vice.



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Tea party at its roots IS libertarian in it's approach but it has been fought by both parties and media to DEMAND that it IS in fact something else,which happens to be what they want it to be. If it DID indeed represent who we say WE are then it is a threat.
I would say I am primarily Libertarian in my approach but I am independent because these jerks are all over the place.
Perhaps the Metal Party...



posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

That's a party I could get behind. Thrasher unity party? Abso-flipping-lutely!




posted on Jan, 15 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Instead of preventing them from voting like other parties we'll barge in, get them ripped then drag them to the both and a concert after...you know like last month...




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join