I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2013, 03:59 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 03:47 PM)Regular_Joe Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 12:58 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  When I said "a lot" I made a mistake. I meant that i do not agree with taking people's possessions, and I used "a lot" because that is what's being done right now.
In this thread I've learnt a bit about libertarianism, and trust me, I'm still learning a lot about it.
...

As I said, I'm still learning, and I'd like to thank you again for discussing this with me, it's really helping me a lot.

I am stunned. This doesn't happen often on the internet or in real life. This is how people (including me) learn.

Haha, thank you, I saw your comment on my profile, and I appreciate it.

I've always had an open mind really, because no idea was stamped into my brain. Then atheism came along and I just learned to be open-minded and critical of everything, not just of the status quo, but also of the counter culture. Often anarchists and liberals alike will start name-calling and putting their hands over their ears which is anything but productive. I feel sad that not a lot of other people understand this.

I'm young, teach me, convince me!

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NL Atheist's post
16-11-2013, 04:06 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
I used to be an anarchist and then I grew up.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 04:06 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I used to be an anarchist and then I grew up.

Explain.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 04:09 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 04:06 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I used to be an anarchist and then I grew up.

Explain.

[Image: river.jpg]

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 04:24 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 04:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-11-2013 04:09 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  Explain.

[Image: river.jpg]

You've got the wrong idea of anarchy. I do not mean anarchy in a punk rock kind of form with riots and stuff, I mean anarchy as in a society without an authoritarian state. This misconception happens all too often.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NL Atheist's post
16-11-2013, 04:59 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 03:30 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  @frankksj, you said something i really want to address to make a new point.
"what if you're a beautiful woman, and 51% of the town wants to have sex you? You don't own your body, so who are you to deny the men their right to exercise of free will?"
On the surface, sounds pretty heinous, but the democracy we live in today has this rule. The 51% can essentially bully the 49%. That's why I believe in some form of decentralised consensus democracy, although I'd have to read up some more about this. I'm interested what you think should be the preferred system for decision making in a libertarian society.

Agree, 1 million %. I feel that the proper role of government, as enshrined in the constitution, is to DEFEND the minority AGAINST the majority—not subject the minority to the will of the majority. The best way to achieve that, imo, is decentralized power. The Federal/national government merely enforces defensive laws that defend basic human rights (which are the list of enumerated powers in the constitution), and all other “rule of the majority democracy” stuff is left to state/local governments. And the Federal government must guarantee everyone's freedom of movement, so if a local government is bullying you, you have the option of leaving. The only time I disagree with any policy is when it forces people to do things against their will AND is enforced universally (ie at the national level) so people cannot escape. If we stuck to the constitution, we would never have tyranny of the majority, and the system would scale up infinitely; as the population grows and states become unmanageable, you just divide them to keep them at a manageable size. In Switzerland, for example, the average population for an 'autonomous self-ruling jurisdiction' is about than 250,000 people.

The only problem with our constitution, imo, was the Founders saw anything with a vagina, as well as those 'bizarre creatures from Africa' as livestock, genetically different from humans (ie white men), incapable of making decisions for themselves, and thus the constitution didn't apply to them, just like it doesn't apply to, say, a dog. The only change I'd make to the constitution is to broaden the definition of “man” and “people” to include all humans (with some possible exceptions for those with disabilities).

(16-11-2013 03:30 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  Furthermore, I am not sure what the exact division between private and collective goods should be, but I do know that in a society with worker self-management with rewards based on contribution, being an entrepeneur should be encouraged and people should be able to use the money they earn to buy goods that other people make. I do not want to police every transaction in a society, that would be a form of tyranny, counter-productive to my ideals.

Again, I agree. But you understand this puts you in the 'propertarian libertarian' camp with me, not the side that Noam Chomsky is on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
16-11-2013, 04:59 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 02:24 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  In the USA we do have States that are far more socialist...

I hate the way socialism, which is a morally justified position, gets perverted like this. Socialism/communism is a ban on private property, putting property under common ownership, in order to reduce coercion. Fine, it's moral because it's reciprocal; EVERYBODY is denied private property rights. And philosophers of morality seem to all agree reciprocity is key to something being moral. Such as saying that if you yourself are not subjecting others to violence, they have no right to subject you to violence. That is a moral position.

But, today's self-described liberals have, instead, imo, an immoral position of: “what's mine is mine, and what's yours is also mine”. But instead of saying that and calling it what it is, they couch it as “partial socialism”. Meaning “If we're talking about YOUR shit, then I'm socialist. If we're talking MY shit, then I'm capitalist.” So many times “liberals” like Chas and cjlr are quick to attack me by hijacking the “true, classic socialist” position that enforcement of private property rights is coercion. If I say that I want to keep something I own and don't want their government goons to take it, then they assume the socialist position that enforcement of private property rights is in itself violence. BUT, if I were then to say “Oh, I see you got a shiny new iPod, but you already had one, and I don't, so I'll be taking it”, then they switch and say “touch my iPod and I'll chop your hands off.” As Milton Friedman said, today a “liberal” just means someone who likes to spend other people's money.

So when you say a place is “more socialist” (or partially socialist), what you're saying is that SOME property should be jointly owned, and OTHER property can be privately owned. And who are you proposing make the decision which is which? Oh, yeah, some guy that you're voting for who has pledged that if you vote for him he'll make sure your stuff remains privately owned, and OTHER people's stuff is subject to “socialism”.

For the system to be moral, it has to be 100% socialist, or not socialist at all. Meaning you either ban private property altogether, which is what intellectually honest socialists/communists advocate, OR you enforce private property rights. You can't straddle and say we want a system that's 50/50.

(16-11-2013 02:24 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Aye, there's the rub.

ANYTHING that is based on small, autonomous units is infinitely scalable. Yes, libertarianism is infinitely scalable because we oppose having one central authority. We favor the Federalist system outlined in the constitution, the one Switzerland followed, where each local authority makes their own decisions. This system is scalable whether it's done in one place, or worldwide. What's NOT scalable is the “modern liberal” approach of centralized control. There, as the entity in question gets bigger and bigger, there are more and more layers of bureaucracy, accountability becomes impossible, and it becomes less and less efficient. This is why Obama spent $300 million to launch healthcare.gov, and it doesn't work to even let you browse a list of plans, whereas http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/ was written by 3 San Francisco coders in a couple days for “a couple thousand dollars”, and it does the same thing, and is fast and works 100% of the time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 05:01 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2013 05:08 PM by frankksj.)
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 03:09 PM)JAH Wrote:  you miss a very important point. Money and property are power. To suggest that a libertarian future did not require self limitations on wealth and property or more properly (to my mind) shared wealth and property will not be libertarian, it will retain the coercion of the power in that money and property.

I don't see how I miss that point. I've ALWAYS said we need a way to limit the concentration of wealth and power. In fact, I put my money where my mouth is. For example, I live in a dense urban, almost exclusively liberal place. Last year a Starbucks opened across the street. I refuse to go to it, because Starbucks already has too much and is using their power to squeeze out the little guys. Even if it's raining and miserable, I'll still walk a few blocks to go to a local, family owned joint. However, hardly anybody in my building does. All my “liberal” neighbors just go across the street to Starbucks, while at the same time telling me we need to limit the concentration of wealth and power.

We don't disagree on the need to limit the concentration of wealth and power, we only disagree on HOW to go about it. I search for non-violent solutions, whereas most liberals take the easy way out and just want a law to send police in at gunpoint. Just because I don't want to use violence to achieve some goal, please do not assume that I want that goal any less than you do.


(16-11-2013 03:09 PM)JAH Wrote:  Your example of charity is a perfect example of that. Charity should not be required, and in itself defines a power relationship between the givers and receivers that gives the power to the givers.

Here I disagree 1 million %. Let's say that I'm an old arthritic man with a bunch of fruit trees, and you're my young healthy neighbor. Should I say “please” and ask for your help picking my fruit? Or is it my right to DEMAND that you MUST pick my fruit for me at gunpoint? Your suggestion is that it's bad if I ask you to help me out of the kindness of your heart, as charity, that it somehow defines a power relationship. Maybe it does. If you're young and healthy, I'm old and crippled, yeah I guess you do have more “power” than me. But I don't see what that has to do with morality. To me, morality is based on reciprocity. And it is NOT reciprocal when you order at gunpoint OTHER PROFESSIONS (like Doctors) to perform their services against their will, whereas you would object vehemently if that happened to you. Say you're a car mechanic. How would you feel if a law was passed that you had to fix everybody's car regardless of whether they could pay you or not? But you're doing the same thing to doctors.

It just baffles me that 'liberals' hate charity so much, and see it as somehow demeaning, when to me, it's a wonderful and beautiful thing when people who have more help out those less fortunate. If I needed something, and didn't have the means to get it, whether it be surgery or something else, I would be thrilled to say “please” and “thank you” if some kind soul was willing to give me what I needed. I would never find it demeaning, whether or not it established a “power relationship”. The notion that it's my RIGHT to demand other people to help me out just seems so bizarre to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
16-11-2013, 05:21 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
What annoys me most is that here in The Netherlands the thing people are most proud of, is the "verzorgingsstaat", which means the state that cares for you. It's basically a big redistribution of wealth in order to take care of people who have less. My dad makes quite a large amount of money and has to pay almost 50% taxes. Now I am not an expert, but if some people can't afford health care, then maybe we should make sure that health care is affordable for eveyone instead of laying the burden of taking care of the weak with the people who can afford it.
And on the other side of the spectrum we have people who want less restrictions on the market and are basically proposing the "laissez-faire" kind of capitalism, at least to a certain extent. In America there is at least a small debate about whether or not the mainstream ideas are good, probably because you guys are big on freedom. Here, we just pleasure ourselves on the thought that we give poor people free shit.

People think that redistribution is necessary because of poverty, but what they don't realise is that we wouldn't need redistribution in a fair, equal and free society in which poverty would be rare to non-existent. It's like we've created a system which creates poverty, only to then try and reduce poverty by going against the rules of the system.

[Image: godtroll.php]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 05:30 PM
RE: I really don't like Ron Paul (and libertarianism)
(16-11-2013 05:21 PM)NL Atheist Wrote:  What annoys me most is that here in The Netherlands the thing people are most proud of, is the "verzorgingsstaat", which means the state that cares for you. It's basically a big redistribution of wealth in order to take care of people who have less.... People think that redistribution is necessary because of poverty, but what they don't realise is that we wouldn't need redistribution in a fair, equal and free society in which poverty would be rare to non-existent. It's like we've created a system which creates poverty, only to then try and reduce poverty by going against the rules of the system.

Agreed completely. Next time your fellow nederlanders say that, ask how Switzerland did it. They have done a better job of eliminating poverty than the Netherlands, in fact are the only country where the poorest make at least half the median, and everybody is well taken care of. Yet there is no welfare system, no minimum wage, and no redistribution of wealth. In fact, if your Dad moved there, he could negotiate a fixed tax amount without ever having to report his income. It's all accomplished through voluntary charity at the local level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: