Libertarianism

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

sjc wrote:

That is another example of the religious behavior as well. Denial.

Well, then that's another example of your religous behaviour - hallucinations
Show exatly where have I denied anything in my previous post.

Recheck what I wrote. The Baseless and outright lies comment. The American system is failing the majority of its citizens.

Edit: Previous post "Oppressed or forced..."

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:35 am

sjc wrote:

Recheck what I wrote. The Baseless and outright lies comment.

Very well:

Quote:

Like it or not that is what many of them believe in. Either they have as much liberty as they want or they are being opressed and forced against their will.

Altough that's a strawman I'd like to see you deny how this is true.
If you limit someone's liberty you are by definition opressing them and forcing them against their will.

Quote:

The American system is failing the majority of its citizens.

Yet another baseless assertion.
What do you mean by majority?
In what way are the system is failing?
Show some evidence.

Also, the claim that the American system is libertarian is laughable.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Altough that's a strawman I'd like to see you deny how this is true.
If you limit someone's liberty you are by definition opressing them and forcing them against their will.

A functioning society can not exist for long when everyone is allowed to do as they please. Liberty is a relative term. It is not an absolute. You seem to believe that it is an absolute. Your playing semantic games is not a valid argument.

Quote:

Yet another baseless assertion.
What do you mean by majority?
In what way are the system is failing?
Show some evidence.

I've been showing it all along on here. Where have you been? Are you like a creationist where one has to repeat the same things over and over again to get it through?

Quote:

Also, the claim that the American system is libertarian is laughable.

I didn't say that it was. I have said that it is influenced by that way of thinking, though. The same as it is being influenced by religious thinking as well and it is not a theocracy, yet. If it were it would be far worse off than it is now just by seeing the small example of what either way of thinking can do.

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:09 am

sjc wrote:

A functioning society can not exist for long when everyone is allowed to do as they please.

Another strawman, it's allowed to do as you please as long as you don't infringe on the liberty of others.

Quote:

Liberty is a relative term. It is not an absolute.

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

Here are a few definitions, according to them there is nothing that would make the existence of absolute liberty impossible.
Also, the existance of absolute liberty doesn't make it binary - you can still have different amounts of liberty.

Quote:

I've been showing it all along on here. Where have you been? Are you like a creationist where one has to repeat the same things over and over again to get it through?

Throughout your all time on these forums I haven't seen you cite a source or show any kind of evidence a single solitary time.
If you did show any evidence in any thread please link to it, I'll apologize for my mistake.

Quote:

I didn't say that it was. I have said that it is influenced by that way of thinking, though. The same as it is being influenced by religious thinking as well and it is not a theocracy, yet. If it were it would be far worse off than it is now just by seeing the small example of what either way of thinking can do.

Ok, but unlike religous thinking, the US was actually founded on almost libertarian principles, and it was succesful.
You can also pretty easily show that many problems with America's system are actuallu caused by government intervention.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Another strawman, it's allowed to do as you please as long as you don't infringe on the liberty of others.

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control./

According to some on here that is everything the government does.

Quote:

2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

Here are a few definitions, according to them there is nothing that would make the existence of absolute liberty impossible.
Also, the existance of absolute liberty doesn't make it binary - you can still have different amounts of liberty.

You seem to like playing with the dictionary. Very rarely does the definition in a book exactly match what is actually out in the real world. This is one reason why playing semantics is a very poor form of argument. Absolute means, if you want to continue playing semantics, all or completely. No restrictions, no limits. Liberty, without responsibility is nothing but anarchy.

Plus, I never actually said anything against those forms of liberty. They are not what is at issue. Each citizen has certain duties and obligations to every other citizen in their society. The libertarians, on here, mainly see this as a burden on them and a form of forcing against their will. They don't feel that they should help pay to educate someone else's child nor provide proper health care for others even though those things make for a better and more productive society in the end and also help lower the real costs to society as well. What they want in this regard is not liberty. It is anarchy instead.

Quote:

Throughout your all time on these forums I haven't seen you cite a source or show any kind of evidence a single solitary time.
If you did show any evidence in any thread please link to it, I'll apologize for my mistake.

It would help if you had your eyes open.

Quote:

Ok, but unlike religous thinking, the US was actually founded on almost libertarian principles, and it was succesful.
You can also pretty easily show that many problems with America's system are actuallu caused by government intervention.

And they quickly fell by the wayside once exposed to the rest of the world. Which proves that it is doomed to failure in the real world.

Canada has many of the same systems, and more, here and yet we don't have nearly as many problems, nor do many other Western nations either. Its not the government which is at fault, but who is influencing it.

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:06 am

sjc wrote:

By whose definition?

The libertarains'.

Quote:

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control./

According to some on here that is everything the government does.

Yes, if you disagree with them then provide an actual argument or show some evidence.

Quote:

2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

Yeah, King George III is just dying to invade...

And what does this have anything to do with libertarianism?

Quote:

3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

That is already guaranteed.

By, for example, outlawing private healthcare in Canada?

Quote:

Each citizen has certain duties and obligation to every other citizen in their society.

Why?

Quote:

The libertarians, on here, mainly see this as a burden on them and a form of forcing against their will.

If it is against their will, then they obviously are forced.

Quote:

They don't feel that they should help pay to educate someone else's child nor provide proper health care for others even though those things make for a better and more productive society

No.
They feel that people shouldn't be FORCED to help pay for eduaction or healthcare.
The fact that socialists cannot concieve of someone voluntarily helping another speaks much more about their nature then that of libertarians'

Quote:

in the end and also help lower the real costs to society as well.

Back that up.
Government is much less efficient then a private enterprise, this means that in the end you are paying much more then you would if a certain service was just bought from a private company.
As evidence, I present this here study about the eficiency of private and government run airports.
In other words you are hurting the people you wish to help.

Quote:

It would help if you had your eyes open.

No link.
I take it you admit that you have never cited any source, or presented any kind of evidence ever ?
Good, atleast you're honest about pulling everything from your ass.

Quote:

And they quickly fell by the wayside once exposed to the rest of the world. Which proves that it is doomed to failure in the real world.

Provide specific examples of what you're talking about.

Quote:

Canada has many of the same systems, and more, here and yet we don't have nearly as many problems, nor do many other Western nations either.

You're living in a fantasy land.
Every welfare state in the world is currently scared shitless about coming up with money to cover social security as their societies grow older.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Quote:

Ivan_Ivanov

You took too long to reply. Reread the post.

Quote:

No.
They feel that people shouldn't be FORCED to help pay for eduaction or healthcare.

It isn't really force in the strict sense of the term. Force would be if you couldn't benefit from them at all yourself. They want all of the benefits of living in a society, but they don't want any of the responsibilities that go along with it. Its really no different than paying your rent or mortgage. They want anarchy.

Quote:

The fact that socialists cannot concieve of someone voluntarily helping another speaks much more about their nature then that of libertarians'

There was a real reason why such programs had to be be brought in in the first place. Charity alone was not accomplishing anything.

Quote:

Back that up.
Government is much less efficient then a private enterprise, this means that in the end you are paying much more then you would if a certain service was just bought from a private company.

The health care system in the USA is primarily run by private enterprise and it is the worse coverage in the industrialized world in comparison. Americans also pay far more for their health care as it is and get far less back from it than that of the system up here in Canada which is primarily run by the state. You have examples of American seniors coming all of the way to Canada to get their medications and it is still cheaper for them to travel this far.

Quote:

As evidence, I present this here study about the eficiency of private and government run airports.
In other words you are hurting the people you wish to help.

Service at airports has also gone down in quality as well after deregulation. The real costs to the customers has gone up with the decreasing service provided by privately run airports. They are saving money, but at this real cost. Some of the highest costs are not measured in money. Besides, we're not talking about airports. that is like comparing apples to oranges.

Quote:

Provide specific examples of what you're talking about.

By its very failure to exist now in the modern world.

Quote:

You're living in a fantasy land.

Better a fantasy land than to live in your nightmare world of your own creation.

Quote:

Every welfare state in the world is currently scared shitless about coming up with money to cover social security as their societies grow older.

Even in the USA as well. But that is in the future and much of it is just doomsaying. It is irrelevant to the discussion now.

You measure success by the wealth of a very few. That is not true wealth, nor success. I measure it by the wealth of many.

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:56 pm

MockingGods wrote:

What imaginary thing would that be?

sjc wrote:

That libertarianism works in the real world. The USA has only had a small simple of that way of thinking and just look at the mess its in now.

Oh, you must be operating under some non-standard definition of "libertarianism" that means "mercantilism, socialism, quasi-syndicalism, and quasi-fascism".

When you know what you're talking about, please return to the politics area. Until then, you really need to stay out. You run away whenever you're taken to task here. Please spare yourself.

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:26 pm

sjc wrote:

You took too long to reply. Reread the post.

No. You think twice before hitting the 'submit' button.

Quote:

It isn't really force in the strict sense of the term. Force would be if you couldn't benefit from them at all yourself.

So if I rob you and later buy you lunch for the money stolen, this means that force wasn't involved?

Quote:

They want all of the benefits of living in a society, but they don't want any of the responsibilities that go along with it.

If by benefits of living in a society you mean stuff like healthcare, education, or infrastructure, you could not be more incorrect. We don't want any of it handed to us by 'society' we want to pay for it ourselves, and decide to whom the money goes to.

Quote:

Its really no different than paying your rent or mortgage.

The main difference is that paying rent or mortgage is volutary.

Quote:

They want anarchy.

Some do, some don't, but either wat you haven't shown what's wrong with that.

Quote:

There was a real reason why such programs had to be be brought in in the first place. Charity alone was not accomplishing anything.

Baseless assertion.

Quote:

The health care system in the USA is primarily run by private enterprise and it is the worse coverage in the industrialized world in comparison. Americans also pay far more for their health care as it is and get far less back from it than that of the system up here in Canada which is primarily run by the state.

Present some evidence then:
How much does an avarage American pay for healthcare vs. an avarage Canadian?
What are the services they get in return, and what's their quality?

Repeating something until it's true doesn't work around here.

Quote:

You have examples of American seniors coming all of the way to Canada to get their medications and it is still cheaper for them to travel this far.

You have examples of Canadians going to America, because they don't want to wait a year and a half for a simple operation.

Also, if Canadian medicine is cheaper then American, even if you take travel costs into account, howcome there are no import companies shipping truckloads of cheap Canadian medicne?

Quote:

Service at airports has also gone down in quality as well after deregulation.

Evidence?

Quote:

The real costs to the customers has gone up with the decreasing service provided by privately run airports.

Define 'real costs', and provide examples of decresing service, I have flown on cheap private airlines and their service quality is comperable to government run giants, yet they offer a much lower price.
Also when it comes to 'real costs' keep in mind that they are hidden in the case of government run enterprises, since part of their budget comes from taxes.

Quote:

Besides, we're not talking about airports. that is like comparing apples to oranges.

Not really. Both are services and both of them are provided in pretty much the same way.
I guess I could look for a study about the efficiency of government vs. private healthcare... but what's the point if your answer to a study consists of baseless asserions?

Quote:

By its very failure to exist now in the modern world.

Look who's talking in absolutes now.
Even tough there's no completely libertarian system, it has been shown that less government intervention usually means a more prosperous society (Offsprng has a nice chart showing that).
If this does not satisfy you, and you still wish to claim that the non-eixstance of a completely libertarian state proves that a libertarian system cannot work, let me point out that there is no socialist state has ever existed either.

Quote:

Even in the USA as well. But that is in the future and much of it is just doomsaying.

Doomsaying?
Hardly, most social security systems in the world are scams. Instead of saving the money, investing it somewhere and paying out when one has retired, most systens use the pyramid scheme and pay out the money as they recieve it.
This can only work when there are more people paying then taking the money.
Seeing as most western societies are becoming older it is obvious that there will be trouble finding money to fuel the system.

Quote:

You measure success by the wealth of a very few. That is not true wealth, nor success. I measure it by the wealth of many.

No I bloody don't.
Show me any eviedence (as in studies and statistics) that of two comparable countries run by different systems, the people from the socialist one fare better then people from the capitalist one.
Or show an increase in the standard of living in a country that has gone from a capitalist to socialist system.
If you do so, I'll be on your side.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

I'm going back to me original assessment, and the original intent of this thread, that libertarianism is more of a religious belief than a political one and that arguing with a libertarian is no different than arguing with a Christian apologist, a waste of time. These guys just keep on proving this fact as they open their mouths and use the very same tactics and arguments as a theist.

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 377

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:

Quote:

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control./

According to some on here that is everything the government does.

Yes, if you disagree with them then provide an actual argument or show some evidence.

Instead, why not demand proof for the claim that governments necessarily act arbitrarily and despoticly in every thing they do? Why should we begin with the premise that government amounts to a form of evil?

Many arguments against government take it as sufficient to point out that governments do some bad things and do some other things badly. When it comes to theoretical justifications for government, the most vocal libertarians display ignorance about such matters, point to articles and books they can't explain or simply change the subject.

Judging from their fervor, the fundamentalist libertarians take pride in steadfastly sustaining open hostility toward the very idea of governments achieving any good.

Resident Joined: Jul 12, 2004 Posts: 377

sjc wrote:

I'm going back to me original assessment, and the original intent of this thread, that libertarianism is more of a religious belief than a political one and that arguing with a libertarian is no different than arguing with a Christian apologist, a waste of time. These guys just keep on proving this fact as they open their mouths and use the very same tactics and arguments as a theist.

Could we call it a political position with certain characteristics a few people find attractive? Many libertarians seem to enjoy a feeling of moral certainty that the ideology somehow provides. I read here someone call libertarian premises "self evident". (Yet the poster wouldn't elaborate.)

Let's not forget that many types of libertarians exist. They may have the common characteristic of tending to attribute some different (and less favorable) character to actions undertaken by government. Many explain this in moral terms, as due to something like a matter of illegitimate authority. Less subjective treatments consider effects on incentives and contributions to costs. What a libertarian counts as government may vary.

The libertarian idea of justice might equal "lack of inteference". I haven't seen a serious treatment on this forum of how to achieve such a thing in reality.

I can agree with thoughful libertarians on many issues. They certainly don't provoke or provide nearly as many postings.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

materialguy wrote:

Could we call it a political position with certain characteristics a few people find attractive? Many libertarians seem to enjoy a feeling of moral certainty that the ideology somehow provides. I read here someone call libertarian premises "self evident". (Yet the poster wouldn't elaborate.)

Let's not forget that many types of libertarians exist. They may have the common characteristic of tending to attribute some different (and less favorable) character to actions undertaken by government. Many explain this in moral terms, as due to something like a matter of illegitimate authority. Less subjective treatments consider effects on incentives and contributions to costs. What a libertarian counts as government may vary.

The very same things can be said of religious belief as well.

Quote:

The libertarian idea of justice might equal "lack of inteference".

That's not justice. Sort of like being judged by a god after you die.

Quote:

I haven't seen a serious treatment on this forum of how to achieve such a thing in reality.

And you won't either. All are suppose to be "inspired" as to how justice is done.

Quote:

I can agree with thoughful libertarians on many issues. They certainly don't provoke or provide nearly as many postings.

Hey, the same as so-called moderate theists. Smile

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:25 pm

materialguy wrote:

Instead, why not demand proof for the claim that governments necessarily act arbitrarily and despoticly in every thing they do?

They act arbitrarily by definition, all human actions are arbitrary, it isn't bad in and of itself, the problems begin when they impose their will on others.
As for despotism, it might seem like an exageration at first, but really, what is there to stop the government from doing something bloody stupid or wrong?

Quote:

Why should we begin with the premise that government amounts to a form of evil?

I don'r begin with the premise that the government is evil, it's a conclusion that arises from other premises:
- that individuals own themselves
- that they can own stuff

Stuff can change it's owner, but obviously all the parties involved have to agree to perform such a transaction.
I agreed with my employer that they will give me a certain amount of money in exchange for my services, however I never agreed with my government to give them money for their services (which are crappy by the way), and yet that's what me and my employer are forced to do. So as you can see the government is pretty naughty.

Quote:

Many arguments against government take it as sufficient to point out that governments do some bad things and do some other things badly.

In my case it is not sufficient.
I am of the opinion that every single government service is provided in a less efficient manner then it would be by it's private counterpart.

Mind you, I don't have evidence that every single service is provided inefficiently, it's an extrapolation of the data we have gathered so far. I have not heard of a single instance where government was more efficient then private enterprise. If you showed me a few instances of this occuring, this would force me to reconsider my stance on libertarianism in general.

Quote:

When it comes to theoretical justifications for government, the most vocal libertarians display ignorance about such matters, point to articles and books they can't explain or simply change the subject.

If you have an argument, give it.
If these are your experiences with other libertarians, then I'm sorry it must have sucked debating with them.
However this proves nothing about wheter they were right or wrong.

Quote:

Judging from their fervor, the fundamentalist libertarians take pride in steadfastly sustaining open hostility toward the very idea of governments achieving any good.

I'm starting to doubt wheter your previous discussions really looked the way you described them, seeing as this is a blantant misrepresentation of libertarians' opinions.
I have two reasons to be hostile to governments:
1) Even if they do good, they do it inefficiently.
2) Even if they do good, they had to do something bad in order to accomplish it.

The second argument isn't that important to me (altough I do think it's a valid problem that government supporters just ignore), if you can show that governments are generally more efficient I will most likely change my opinion on the subject of libertarianism.

Posted: Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:27 pm

sjc wrote:

I'm going back to me original assessment, and the original intent of this thread, that libertarianism is more of a religious belief than a political one and that arguing with a libertarian is no different than arguing with a Christian apologist, a waste of time. These guys just keep on proving this fact as they open their mouths and use the very same tactics and arguments as a theist.

Actually what you just did, is ignore every single point I raised and just repeated your original, baseless claim in hopes that repeating it will make it true.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore