Libertarian Beliefs

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by lspahn, Mar 2, 2006.

  1. lspahn

    lspahn New Member

    Anyone else here besides me a Libertarian? I mean a true full circle libertarian. No federal public schools, health system, nothing. Limited federal power, especially in interpitation of the interstate commerce clause. No social based laws that are not mandated in the constitution. Legal Drugs, gambleing, prostitution, gay marriage, etc. Protect our borders, language and culture first and foremost, but the federal govt has no right in my home.

    I dont think any of the big 2 have any real credibility left, and both have some very obvious flaws. Does anyone here go with a a third party? and if not what would convince you to take it into consideration?

    If not libertarian, what? I attack socialism in this forum alot, but it is a valid position (not to bright, IMHO, but valid). Green?

    There tends to be arguments drawn on party line in these forums, but I have to wonder how far people are from each other when you strip away the donkeys and elephants....
  2. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Of course, libertarians disagree on what denotes libertarianism

    Philosophically I'm an anarcho-capitalist, which essentially is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion: no nothin'. It's not the most pragmatic position, though, as I recognize the chance I'll ever see it is basically zero. I've long since stopped writing about it or publicly arguing in favor of it. I'd rather focus on things that interest me that I actually can do (like FCC).

    I find that I differ from many libertarians in being concerned about what happens to the poor, both in the U.S. and abroad, such that I find I often agree with the socialists in what they care about, just disagree with the way they want to get there.

    I'm also against intellectual property (except trademarks), which has me at odds with many libertarians. I find it's not property at all, but is a state entitlement. Same thing with corporations -- a state entitlement of limited liability for one's actions is hardly libertarian!

    I'm interested that you put "Protect our borders, language and culture first and foremost" as part of the libertarian ideal. Borders, sure, but "protecting our language and culture" is conservative collectivism -- it's not libertarianism at all.

  3. lspahn

    lspahn New Member

    Protecting our borders is a simple extention of the federal govt duties to protect us. Our boader policy is unacceptable.

    Protecting our culture mean protecting the representative democracy that we have, not nesecarryly my culture, Irish. The base for americain culture has helped make the country stronger. Self Reliance and all that fun stuff. Our language is part of our culture also. I just really hate this attitude of back seating what is means to be an American. I may be alittle conservative here for some, but when people come here they are leaving something behind for something better (if not why come). Join us, dont change this place into the whole in the ground you came from.

    I do agree about the poor, i think most socialist methods lead to more poor not fewer. Teach to fish, dont feed them fish. Intellectual property is complicated. I think the problem is more in the abuse of intellectual property and greed, but If people didnt control their own ideas and make a profit there would be fewer people coming up with great ideas. There has to be a happy median. If i come up with a great idea than i should profit from it, sometime greatly. How is it a state entitlement if you came up with the idea. Your giving it to the state if you dont have intellectual property?

    Corporations suffer from from the Greed problem, but I dont know that making people who run business personally responsible all the time is the answer for economic issues. At the same time I dont think they should get the free pass, and when abuse is apparent, like Enron, we should nail there greedy theiven a$$es to the wall. Steal Grandma retirement, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200...

    wow....Anarcho-capialism is interesting...Ill continue reading...
  4. Steve Levicoff

    Steve Levicoff Well-Known Member

    First, this was posted in the Distance Learning Discussion Forum. I submit, sir, that you are guilty of the sin of irrelevance since you did not post it in the proper forum.

    Nonetheless, it never ceases to amuse me that people want to foist their views upon others.

    As far as I'm concerned, you're all wrong. I am the only one who is right. About everything.

    Moreover, you're all going to hell. I am the only one who is going to heaven. I have a suite reserved there. Poolside. With free breakfast and cable TV.

    So there. :D
  5. lspahn

    lspahn New Member

    If you read up at the top it say Political Discussions, hence the topic.

    but you are funny...thanks for the laugh!
  6. Robert_555

    Robert_555 New Member

    I am a socialist myself. I know I will get flack for this. However, this America and ALL are entitled to his or her individual beliefs. I like the libertarian views on social issues such as gay marriage,
    gun control (yes, I am a socialist and do believe people have a right to protect themselves via the second ammendment!!!), free
    speech, nonintervention in overseas matters, no draft, etc. However, on the economic issues, I am way on the other side of the spectrum. I believe it is government's job to have universal healthcare, education k-graduate school funded via Uncle Sam,
    severly controlling immigration, retirement, etc. I know none of what I have mentioned is free!!! I know socialism equals higher taxation. Call me naive, but I honestly believe if most people are given a fair chance in life, they will suceed. I accept there will be individuals which will abuse the system. There is a price for everything. IMHO, I can see the United States going more towards socialism as immigration increases. Why do I say this? Because many immigrants come from socialist (or atleast quasi-socialist countries) They see the United States as a rich nation and will demand our government does more for them and their children. Am I right? Only time and fate will prove me right or wrong. However, these are my beliefs and I am entitled to them like any other American. Whether one is conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian, etc., individuality is our country's greatest strength and no American would resign his or her freedom knowingly. We are a nation of individuals who must come together via comprise to reside in a civil society.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 1, 2006
  7. lspahn

    lspahn New Member

    Well its always good to see someone wear their beliefs on their shirt!!!

    I totally disagree about the govt responsiblity in most civil matter, but i find it funny that two position, such as our, that tend to be so far apart, in truth are much closed, and in this case agree on over half the issues. It really highlights part of the problem with the Rs vs Ds in washington mentality....

    As for socialism, for me it boils down to one point. There is only so much pie, and I want to compete for it. In a socialist society no matter how hard I work or how good i am at something it provide me with nothing "extra" for my effort or work. This leads to a rather lazy mentality which was why so much stuff that came from the Old Soviet block was total and complete junk. No accountablity leads to no performance. And people under a socialist system are entitle to so much that I believe that it destroys the motivation of all but the idealist that believe in a socialist system. I think it would acctually work if everyone gave 110% all the time, but we dont live in Oz or Narnia or any other fantasy world.

    So we have a Libertarian, a Cap-Ana, a socialist, and guy who wants to be king...anybody else?

  8. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    That fixed-pie, zero-sum belief belongs with your socialist friend. Capitalists understand that pies don't simple exist to be fought over but must be baked.
  9. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    Certainly, but, still, those resources to bake the cake are scanty and, more importantly, are finite. Very nice to hear from you again, Decimon! :)
  10. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Every resource is finite. Any resource, at any particular time, may be scanty. But resourcefullness is a resource without bounds.

    All bow before silicon! :)
  11. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    I think I didn´t explain myself properly. By using the terms finite and scanty I was trying to bring up in a subtle manner the word "unsustainable."
  12. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Unsustainable? Says who? What is unsustainable?
  13. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    I am just trying to offer another view from a different angle. I am a liberal, and generally accept what you´re saying, but, I´d add, voracious, uncontrolled capitalism will lead to what I mentioned earlier, to unsustainable growth because the capital is absolutely insensitive to key aspects in conservation that cannot be measured with currency. Are you familiar with the laws of thermo? If you have a finite reservoir of energy (or mass, whatever), and you keep on utilizing it without refilling it, eventually it becomes exhaust. That could be a corollary of one of the first law, and that´s what unsustainable actually means.
  14. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    Good points JLV.

    Abner :)
  15. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Sorry but that is vague and hollow.

    And the first law of thermodynamics states that energy can be converted but neither created nor destroyed.
  16. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

    And your answer in not hollow? And no, I am not saying Jlv's answer is hollow or vague.

  17. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    Exactly, I think you start to get it. So once it is finished, it is finished. Better now?
  18. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    First of all, I apologize if I sounded previously too harsh. I didn´t intended to. What I am trying to sy is that libertarian views conflict with a number of principles that cannot be measured in capitalist terms of business earnings or loses. For instance, a very small government like libertarians propose, would not overview the cut of trees or the protection of nature meaning the destruction of resources that won´t be recuperated.

    Look how Lou defined it:

    And I agree with that for the most part, but a government should be able to interfere to protect other interest that may not appear obvious or necessary to us but it is a decision that belongs as well to future generations. Plus I suspect that on top of that this careless system of consumption is in the long term unsustainable because there is so much available, and once it is gone, it is gone.
  19. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    A thing converted is not out of existence.

    You sound like the environmental apocalyptics of thirty-forty years back. They predicted, in absence of submitting to their rule, the exhaustion of many human necessities. They said we humans would by now be dropping like flies for lack of oxygen, food, water and fuel. They were wrong on every count.
  20. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    What is needed forthe conversion eventually will run out. I think you need to work now on the second law. Used up energy converted for work is gone, forever. If you use energy to lift a book, that energy doesn´t return if you bring your book back...... Once it is finished it is finished. For good.

    I don´t know. All I know is that this level of consumption is unsustainable, especially when two billion people are being added to this capitalist economy.

Share This Page