The Religion Of Libertarianism

[Max Rockatansky]

Libertarians have a lot of great ideas within the context of current protections.

But minus some protections, some government regulations, some infringement on the autonomy of humans, life will become more intolerable for many and better for only a few.

An agreeable general statement, but everyone should know that it's the details, not the grand ideas which matter.

For example, the LP platform states "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." A mining company polluting the drinking water of Americans citizens would certainly be in conflict with the "right of others to live in whatever manner they choose". Ergo, there would have to be laws against polluting the drinking water, food, etc of others.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Libertarians have a lot of great ideas within the context of current protections.

But minus some protections, some government regulations, some infringement on the autonomy of humans, life will become more intolerable for many and better for only a few.

An agreeable general statement, but everyone should know that it's the details, not the grand ideas which matter.

For example, the LP platform states "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." A mining company polluting the drinking water of Americans citizens would certainly be in conflict with the "right of others to live in whatever manner they choose". Ergo, there would have to be laws against polluting the drinking water, food, etc of others.

And all of those rolled back regulations and underfunded government departments will do a heckuva job of holding them accountable!

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Libertarians have a lot of great ideas within the context of current protections.

But minus some protections, some government regulations, some infringement on the autonomy of humans, life will become more intolerable for many and better for only a few.

An agreeable general statement, but everyone should know that it's the details, not the grand ideas which matter.

For example, the LP platform states "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." A mining company polluting the drinking water of Americans citizens would certainly be in conflict with the "right of others to live in whatever manner they choose". Ergo, there would have to be laws against polluting the drinking water, food, etc of others.

And all of those rolled back regulations and underfunded government departments will do a heckuva job of holding them accountable!

There are limits to everything. Again, the main goal is to prevent harm to others, not to dictate how people should live, what they should think and what they should believe.

 

[Worldtraveller]

And all of those rolled back regulations and underfunded government departments will do a heckuva job of holding them accountable!

There are limits to everything. Again, the main goal is to prevent harm to others, not to dictate how people should live, what they should think and what they should believe.

That strawman should keep the crows away, but when are you going to engage with reality?

Let's get specific here. What regulatory framework should there be, according to (your idea of) libertarian ideology? What taxes should be required to be paid?

 

[DrZoidberg]

And all of those rolled back regulations and underfunded government departments will do a heckuva job of holding them accountable!

There are limits to everything. Again, the main goal is to prevent harm to others, not to dictate how people should live, what they should think and what they should believe.

That strawman should keep the crows away, but when are you going to engage with reality?

Let's get specific here. What regulatory framework should there be, according to (your idea of) libertarian ideology? What taxes should be required to be paid?

Whatever fee is necessary to keep psychopaths in jail

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And all of those rolled back regulations and underfunded government departments will do a heckuva job of holding them accountable!

There are limits to everything. Again, the main goal is to prevent harm to others, not to dictate how people should live, what they should think and what they should believe.

Yes. This appears to be the goal of every single regulation ever made. Whether those regulations work as intended is a separate question, of course, but you've just described the entire purpose of a regulatory framework as a positive while lamenting the existence of regulatory frameworks.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Is there any difference between libertarian and anarchist?

Libertarians are (to quote Kim Stanley Robinson) anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

Here is a fuller quote from his 1993 book "Green Mars": "Even if you want no state, or a minimal state, then you have to argue point by point. Especially since the minimalists want to keep the economic and police system that keeps them privileged. That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves. No! If you want to make the minimum-state case, you have to argue it from the ground up."

None of which detracts from the idea that Libertarians are anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

He also wrote these two gems: "You can't get any movement larger than five people without including at least one fucking idiot." and "It was not power that corrupted people, but fools who corrupted power."

..and..?

The latter two apply to the Republican and Democratic parties as well as any others.

Except the Libertarian party who remain anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

FWIW, the Libertarian party has evolved for the better in the past 25 years since that book was written.

Nah, they've gone double looney since then. For example they're now saying that restricting the supply of cheap foreign labour is a "free market" policy because unrestricted immigration is "forced association"

Anyway, tits like you will find that sponsors of Libertarian think tanks/lobbyists are shitfing their funding to conservative think tanks/lobbyists because the latter have proven more effective at getting people to vote against their own interests.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

And your "what my argument fails to include" is actually an equivocation.

If I hire an electrician, that makes me the boss even though the electrician is an expert. That is entirely unlike the "tell people what to do" in a political sense, which is how I meant it and you knew that was how I meant it. Yes, it is FUCKING STUPID to confuse the two.

No, it's not at all unlike 'tell people what to do' in the political sense; Which is why I included a politician as one of my examples.

It would be FUCKING STUPID to imagine that a politician in a representative democracy is any less an expert, or any less an employee, than an electrician is. The only difference is that (like an electrician employed by a corporation), the politician is hired and fired by a collective decision of a group of decision makers, not by a single individual.

But nice try.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

If I may present Exhibit A: our current American president. In what function of government is his "expertise" sufficient?

Hopefully some of his other supervisors have noticed his deficit of expertise as well, and will help pink-slip him in 2020.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

And all of those rolled back regulations and underfunded government departments will do a heckuva job of holding them accountable!

There are limits to everything. Again, the main goal is to prevent harm to others, not to dictate how people should live, what they should think and what they should believe.

Yes. This appears to be the goal of every single regulation ever made. Whether those regulations work as intended is a separate question, of course, but you've just described the entire purpose of a regulatory framework as a positive while lamenting the existence of regulatory frameworks.

People may claim they are passing laws that prevent harm, but that’s not always true. How does teaching Sex Ed and passing out contraceptives harm anyone? How does limiting me to a 10-round magazine prevent harm? People should have a choice about abortion up to a scientific limit (24 weeks) and a right to self-defense.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Anyway, tits like you....

LOL. Obviously you are far too emotionally involved in this to have a rational discussion. Good luck!

 

[untermensche]

And all of those rolled back regulations and underfunded government departments will do a heckuva job of holding them accountable!

There are limits to everything. Again, the main goal is to prevent harm to others, not to dictate how people should live, what they should think and what they should believe.

That harm is not done to others is a given.

The purpose for having a society is to maximize the human potential in that society.

It is not to allow some to dominate due to a huge accumulation of chips.

 

[bilby]

And your "what my argument fails to include" is actually an equivocation.

If I hire an electrician, that makes me the boss even though the electrician is an expert. That is entirely unlike the "tell people what to do" in a political sense, which is how I meant it and you knew that was how I meant it. Yes, it is FUCKING STUPID to confuse the two.

No, it's not at all unlike 'tell people what to do' in the political sense; Which is why I included a politician as one of my examples.

It would be FUCKING STUPID to imagine that a politician in a representative democracy is any less an expert, or any less an employee, than an electrician is. The only difference is that (like an electrician employed by a corporation), the politician is hired and fired by a collective decision of a group of decision makers, not by a single individual.

But nice try.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

If I may present Exhibit A: our current American president. In what function of government is his "expertise" sufficient?

Hopefully some of his other supervisors have noticed his deficit of expertise as well, and will help pink-slip him in 2020.

Sure. Even the most diligent homeowner sometimes finds out too late that the tradesman they hired is incompetent.

And some fools even keep on bringing back the same guy who fucked up before. There's never been a world shortage of either incompetence nor foolishness.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

And all of those rolled back regulations and underfunded government departments will do a heckuva job of holding them accountable!

There are limits to everything. Again, the main goal is to prevent harm to others, not to dictate how people should live, what they should think and what they should believe.

That harm is not done to others is a given.

The purpose for having a society is to maximize the human potential in that society.

It is not to allow some to dominate due to a huge accumulation of chips.

Non sequitur.

Harm to others is not a given since that isn't the purpose of an authoritarian government such as Russia, China or North Korea.

I think if you study more current and past governments around the world you'll see that isn't true. Sure, you might find a few who claim that's what they are doing, but most do not.

Some do, but I agree the purpose of the US government, as stated, is not to empower the Feds or let Americans harm others. "Dominate" would be a form of harm. Just being wealthy is not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes. This appears to be the goal of every single regulation ever made. Whether those regulations work as intended is a separate question, of course, but you've just described the entire purpose of a regulatory framework as a positive while lamenting the existence of regulatory frameworks.

People may claim they are passing laws that prevent harm, but that’s not always true. How does teaching Sex Ed and passing out contraceptives harm anyone? How does limiting me to a 10-round magazine prevent harm? People should have a choice about abortion up to a scientific limit (24 weeks) and a right to self-defense.

I'm not following your argument here. You say that you don't have a problem with regulations who's main goal is to prevent harm to others but then list out a bunch of regulations which people put in place for the sake of preventing harm to others.

People put in regulations limiting sex ed and handing out condoms because they feel that having those encourages risky sexual behaviour amongst those who are too young to be able to make good decisions. Whether they are correct about that or not, their rationale is to prevent harm.

People put in regulations limiting magazine size because they feel that limits the ability of shooters to cause harm with firearms. Whether they are correct about that or not, their rationale is to prevent harm.

People put in regulations limiting access to abortions because they feel that fetuses are children and doing this is saving the lives of babies. Whether they are correct about that or not, their rationale is to prevent harm.

So, all the examples you gave of improper regulations are things which agree with your definition of what a proper regulation should be. Are you simply saying that the only good regulations are the ones which you agree with or is it more than that? None of those are put in place to dictate how people should live, what they should think and what they should believe, but all to try and prevent harm.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not following your argument here. You say that you don't have a problem with regulations who's main goal is to prevent harm to others but then list out a bunch of regulations which people put in place for the sake of preventing harm to others.....

That's the problem; people claiming that me having a 30 round magazine is the same as me dumping toxic waste in the water system

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm not following your argument here. You say that you don't have a problem with regulations who's main goal is to prevent harm to others but then list out a bunch of regulations which people put in place for the sake of preventing harm to others.....

That's the problem; people claiming that me having a 30 round magazine is the same as me dumping toxic waste in the water system

I'm not aware of anyone in the entire history of forever who's actually made such a claim. Can you provide a link to any of these so-called "people" who are making such claims? If they don't exist, they're not really much of a problem. If they do exist but they're not the people making regulations but just angry teens ranting on the internet, they're not really much of a problem either.

Saying that two things are dangerous is not remotely the same as saying that the dangers of those things are comparable. For instance, I have said that both running with scissors and attempting to disarm nuclear warheads while drunk are dangerous activities. That doesn't somehow mean that I see running with scissors as having a comparable level of danger as going on a bender and then fiddling around with the detonator of a nuke.

 

[Sarpedon]

FWIW, the Libertarian party has evolved for the better in the past 25 years since that book was written.

Oh, how so? In the last election, their hopefuls for the presidency included a pederast and another who said that children should be allowed to buy heroin, and the eventual nominee was roundly booed when he said he'd have voted for the Civil Rights Act.

Was it worse 25 years ago?

 

[Max Rockatansky]

FWIW, the Libertarian party has evolved for the better in the past 25 years since that book was written.

Oh, how so? In the last election, their hopefuls for the presidency included a pederast and another who said that children should be allowed to buy heroin, and the eventual nominee was roundly booed when he said he'd have voted for the Civil Rights Act.

Was it worse 25 years ago?

Yes. So what is your recommendation? You dislike the Libertarians, so do you vote Democrat, Republican, something else, not at all?

I'll readily agree the LP is far from perfect, and it still has some loons in it, but from looking at the two major parties, they have several loons too such as Roy Moore and Maxine Waters.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That sounds like the problem. You don't know that there are people who consider "high capacity magazines" to be highly dangerous. That and your hyperbole explain a lot. The "entire history of forever"? LOL

I know of nobody who considers them as dangerous as toxic waste. You seem to feel that not only do you know of such people. I'm just curious what people you know whom I do not know.

If your problem with regulations deals with actual people doing actual things as opposed to made up people not doing anything, then you have a much more legitimate complaint.

 

[laughing dog]

That sounds like the problem. You don't know that there are people who consider "high capacity magazines" to be highly dangerous. That and your hyperbole explain a lot. The "entire history of forever"? LOL

Says the author of "one of the two most deplorable scumbags in the history of US elections"? You are proving my observation about Libertarians not having a clue.