Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous!

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET
reply to post by Magister
 

reply to post by 727Sky
 


I appreciate all the replies this thread has received, but these two especially. Thank you.

I have a totally unrelated and unambiguous question here for you folks.

I'm a farmer. On my farm I raise chickens, goats and cows, but most importantly I keep a big-old guard dog. He's a mean curmudgeon. Even though I don't have much, I feed him, treat him with respect, give him free reign. In return, I expect him to do his job by protecting my helpless stock from predators.

However, recently, when he spots the predator wolves gathering on the horizon, plotting the slaughter of my animals, he doesn't bark or growl. I have this sneaking suspicion the he is actually inviting them all in through the gate of my fence!

When I wake up in the morning I hear the wolves howling with joy out in the distance. I also find that my animals have been stolen or killed. When I attempt to confront my guard dog to find out what happened, he growls at me.

So here is my question: Do I fix the problem by crying over the nature of the wolves or do I get a new guard dog? I'm leaning towards just crying over the nature of wolves, but I don't know if that would actually accomplish anything.

This is going to be a tough decision. If only my problem wasn't so cryptic and had anything at all to do with the video!
edit on 4-5-2013 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)


I think you need to shoot that worthless dog.




posted on May, 5 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyofGlass
I would just like to make a point:

Organized crime is a form of government. They work similar to governments in their use of violence to steal from and subdue the general population. Please stop making a video of anarchy showing completely non-anarchist systems.

There will never be a day when government will just "poof" disappear. It will have to be a deliberate change among a population as we raise future generations to be less violent and more individualistic. These herds of children raised generation after generation to be blindly patriotic(insert country), violent, and accepting of harsh rule in the name of a better good is the problem and until that changes we will always be ruled by a small group of opportunistic people.

Volunteerism and free-markets have never existed but they are possible, again it would have to be a deliberate change in the way we raise the future. The current government disappearing and being replaced by a different government is not an example of anarchy. Also, organized crime in the midst of no other government wouldn't be a crime anymore than the feds coming and stealing my car because I didn't agree to their tax theft system would be. In the absence of another type of government, organized crime would simply be government.


Libertarians DO NOT want to eliminate government. Volunteerism and free markets did exist! It was before the "Civil" war. The bigger the govenment got the worse things became. The country was founded on the basis of individual LIBERTY. Libertarians want the minimum amount of government to maintain LIBERTY as established by the Constitution. Our current government is a monster that feeds on the people! And the more it feeds the more it wants! It is never satisfied!



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Magister
 


There are different offshoots to Libertarianism one being anarchistic. If you truly believe in the power of a free market it would be impossible to believe in a system that's designed upon the idea that stealing from John to pay (or protect) Paul is acceptable. Any geographical area where there is a monopoly on violence by a group of individuals will never have a free market.

I actually don't even bother with the Libertarian label for reasons that people don't exactly understand what they are even arguing, if they did they'd understand the fallacy of believing in a free market while the same time condoning violence by a particular group of individuals against other individuals in the name of "the greater good".

Even a system set up to protect constitutional rights is irrational considering that not everyone is given the same rights and the courts don't protect all individuals equally. The only moral form of violence is self-defense against someone hurting you or stealing your property.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


The only difference is that the gangs and all those bad guys you talk about already took over the country and squashed all their competition..

why should i fear one more than the other??
edit on 5-5-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


No it's not. I don't know where you even get that. One can be independent. What makes that fantasy? We are heading in the opposite direction of libertarianism, like the polar opposite, and it makes us less independent and less responsible, and takes government out of our hands.

It's not fantasy or impossible, it's just easier to say that and be lazy than to take responsibility.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MadMax7
 


The right to bear arms and a educated populace would prevent total lawlessness.

The criminals would be shot or hanged just like in the 1800's. Citizens would hire(or volunteer as) a police department,medics and fire fighters.

It would suck for criminals and the elite.

They would have to leech off the unarmed poor that are too poor to arm themselves or live in a protected sector.

The elite would lose all credibility to the public and under anarchism they would lose most of their control over us.
edit on 5-5-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-5-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0x00000017
reply to post by FyreByrd
 
Any governmental ideology is inherently flawed, due to human nature in the form of Greed. Not even anarchism is an exception.

Proponents of anarchism are, generally speaking, anti-social types. Self-centered, sociopathic social outcasts who cannot or will not integrate themselves into society.

Statists are...
-violent(wars)
-coercive(corporate media)
-hierarchical(non-representative government)
-manipulative(CIA/DHS/pentagon/white house/MIC propaganda and covert ops).
-materialistic
-sheeple


Libertarianism is basically what the Founding Fathers of the United States were arguing in favor of. It is that utopia you speak of. Wholly impractical (due to Greed), but arguably a Utopia (even moreso than Socialism, in my opinion).


I agree. Utopia is impossible because of greed,competition,and corruption.

At least in a libertarian government corruption doesn't travel as fast as it does now.

The best we can do is help make america as libertarian(free) as possible. As close to political anarchism as possible.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


Libertarian is physically conservative and socially liberal, so u are wrong, it's a combination of the best in both worlds, something the elites have to divide between two parties to keep them relevant.

Libertarians don't believe in no government. They believe in checks and balance what the founding father taught that has long been forgotten.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Conclusion: Go back to sleep, people, the government has everything under CONTROL.

Everything you described in the video, CRIMINALS ALREADY DO. So I see no difference between what they do NOW, as opposed if they ruled the land if Big Brother wasn't spying on everyone and enforcing dictatorship like you prefer. Criminals ALREADY rule the land when police aren't present. A crime was committed, and you just called the police AFTER it took place. They arrived late. How much robbing, burglary, theft, rape, and murder have you read in your local paper today? Too much to keep up with. CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW. If there were NO government, I would be the police of ME, and defend myself against said criminals. 2nd amendment, anyone.
edit on 5-5-2013 by Solarfall because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarfall
Everything you described in the video, CRIMINALS ALREADY DO. So I see no difference between what they do NOW, as opposed if they ruled the land when Big Brother wasn't spying on everyone and enforcing dictatorship like you prefer. Criminals ALREADY rule the land...


I think you "got it" but didn't quite "get it".

Watch the video again perhaps. It'll come.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


No it's not. I don't know where you even get that. One can be independent. What makes that fantasy? We are heading in the opposite direction of libertarianism, like the polar opposite, and it makes us less independent and less responsible, and takes government out of our hands.

It's not fantasy or impossible, it's just easier to say that and be lazy than to take responsibility.


We, each and everyone of us, is dependent on other people. Every day of our lives, the food we eat, the water we drink, the clothes on our backs, etc. come from others - usually people we don't, or don't care to, know. From the very beginning, humans were dependent on one another for survival. The idea of independence is a fantasy and always has been.



posted on May, 5 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd
We, each and everyone of us, is dependent on other people. Every day of our lives, the food we eat, the water we drink, the clothes on our backs, etc. come from others - usually people we don't, or don't care to, know. From the very beginning, humans were dependent on one another for survival. The idea of independence is a fantasy and always has been.


I think you simply misunderstand.


Originally posted by FyreByrd
Libertarianism posits that one can truly in fact be indipendant and does not have to rely on others.

My take on Libertarianism - what I think their motto is "Freedom without Responsibility". A great ideaology for the 21st century.

They do have some good ideas - but, much like, anarchists - it's a utopian fastasy that can't work.


Libertarianism is not a solitary man alone in a wilderness of his own devise.

A Libertarian is a person who demands the right to choose and to create for themselves the alternative of choice.

It's not that he shuns reliance on others, but he demands that all exchanges be voluntary, mutually beneficial and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, without the outside threat of force. He understand that legitimate government, as a duly constituted construct established by the Constitution, was created to be an expedient to that end.

Big diff bro.
edit on 5-5-2013 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd
We, each and everyone of us, is dependent on other people. Every day of our lives, the food we eat, the water we drink, the clothes on our backs, etc. come from others - usually people we don't, or don't care to, know. From the very beginning, humans were dependent on one another for survival. The idea of independence is a fantasy and always has been.


I believe you are mixing terms here. You believe that we are dependent upon others, in a capacity in which we cannot survive without such dependence. Whereas many believe in interdependence, or rather, the mutually free choice to engage with another to better our quality of life.

Humans do not need to rely upon others to survive, but we increase the chances when we mutually agree to share goods and ideas to better ourselves. There is a stark difference and it is quite evident in the ideologies that we carry.

I do not need another to provide food for me, but I do so with mutual agreement so I can focus on what I can do best. I suggest reading Adam Smith (though I will suspect that it is blasphemy for you).



posted on May, 6 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 


The problem here is that this video's implied definition of Libertarian-ism is very poor. Most people think that political "beliefs", if you will, is a straight line. Far right (Neo-Con), right, moderate, center, libertarian, left, far left (Socialist). It simply isn't so. If you honestly test yourself, you may be surprised where you fall. Political beliefs are no straight line, it's a full spectrum.

The best way to explain a true Libertarian is this: Financially Conservative, Socially Liberal. A libertarian would worry much more about the national debt than Gay Marriage.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


THat's nonsense. It only comes from other people because we have made it that way. It didn't always come from other people and doesn't have to. I could be completely independent of other people in a year or less.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   


Libertarianism is not a solitary man alone in a wilderness of his own devise.

No ofcause not who is suggesting that! The libertarians are the typical middle class family guys similar to the guy in the cartoon of the same name, whom have wife and 1.2 two kids have beer gutt do little exercise and sit around sipping bud while watching NFL and Nascar & whine about the tax they pay and about single pple that choose another lifestyle to their traditional outer suburban or rural christian GOP style american one right


Libertarian=Disenfranchised GOP voter yet still supporting gop by proxy so in the end no diff anyway.



posted on May, 10 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   


Libertarian is physically conservative and socially liberal, so u are wrong, it's a combination of the best in both worlds, something the elites have to divide between two parties to keep them relevant. Libertarians don't believe in no government. They believe in checks and balance what the founding father taught that has long been forgotten.

Oh you mean like Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Regan they still supported big gov but only for the military.
They still supported welfare but only for big tobacco and armaments manufacturers.

Secondly why is it on record the Pauls formed an alliance with the GOP this is hardly third way political party as they claim to be such alt choice.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I think libertarianism is best viewed as a counterweight to the oppressive and tyrannical tendencies of a government that is just naturally authoritarian in nature.

To put it another way, as someone who has many libertarian views myself, I probably would not want to get anywhere near the supposedly "ideal" libertarian society. But someone has to oppose people who are diametrically opposed to the entire concept of freedom.

There is (or can be) something that approaches a healthy balance. That is what America's founders (I believe) were striving for. But there will certainly be no balance if we just sit back and allow the big government people on both sides (D and R) to bulldoze everything. There has to be somebody who will take all of the elements of freedom which are kept separate by the traditional D & R parties, put them in one box and represent them in opposition to those who oppose any of them.

If you are a Republican, you supposedly believe in freedom but under a Bush style Republican presidency, you are supposed to support gross abuses to just about every conceivable civil liberty. If you are a Democrat, you're supposed to (for example) believe in a woman's right to choose but you're supposed to be rabidly against an individual's choice to live without health insurance.

Republicans are supposed to be the freedom party but they have a history of trying to censor (porn and so forth). They decide whether or not your freedom exists.

Liberals talk about freedom too but like the Republicans, they make up their own definition. You are free to speak as long as you don't offend anyone. WTF is that? Seriously? You're free to own a gun as long as you pass an extensive government evaluation of your fitness to own a gun. Which can obviously be abused by the government as easily as creating a new mental disorder that defines just about any political dissident as "dangerous" even if they've never laid a finger on anyone.

Both parties kind of work together to destroy liberty a piece at a time. When the Ds aren't doing it in one area, the Rs are doing it in another. Both of them have reason to fear libertarianism because it's the only thing that comes close to challenging their scheme.

We don't have to believe we will ever achieve a truly libertarian society. We just need to pull hard enough to keep things from going too far in the wrong direction. I'd be pretty happy if we could turn back the clock about 20 years and just have the freedom we had then. It wasn't perfect but things have certainly gotten far worse.
edit on 25-5-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIllusiveMan
I don't get it, I thought core libertarian beliefs were that the government should be limited to its proper role of protecting the rights of the people and providing for the common defense. Why do people always think libertarians want anarchy? I believe libertarians take the Democratic party's side on social issues but take the conservative's side when it comes to economics. Libertarians believe in a free market economy with sound money. Simply the government limited by the Constitution. Where do people get anarchy from?


Pretty much because people are dumb.. Libertarians don't want anarchy... At least I don't..

The core principal behind it is severely limiting the power of the federal government with the end of preserving civil liberties.

It's not about Anarchy, it's about personal liberty.. There is a big difference.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 

Well the rest of us SHOOT the wolves before it's an issue,usually with an AR15 in case there is a pack of wolves offending your area.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join