• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Libertarian Party Goes Crazy

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,872
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Libertarianism is the desire to have high levels of freedom, along with strict rule of law.

I'm going to express this more broadly and apply it to the Party itself:
A strict view of individualistic freedom is contrary to a collective group imposing structure to the benefit of the group. The strict individualism allows for secession even at an individual level but the collective group tries to agree on a structure through mutual consent such as majority voting. Mutual consent (or contract) is an important facet of group dynamics and to both allow it and promote that it has no term of enforcement is immature and impractical in the real world. Therefore, unless the Libertarian Party has a platform of meaningless platitudes, it can never be a big tent party because factions will always splinter off once specific policies are put into place in the platform.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,495
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
...

At heart, I have generally lefty views, but I also have a realistic view of human psychology. I think that it might be a pipe dream to imagine a world where we don't have any social obligations at all, but I still see imposing such obligations as something that needs to be expensed. I think that ignoring that expense is irresponsible and politically reckless. I am tired of seeing political leaders I otherwise agree with lose because they won't get serious about finding ways to mitigate the political cost of putting more burdens onto people that inevitably must resent being burdened.

But the difference between myself and a libertarian is that libertarians are not looking at liberty in a rational or socially conscious sort of way. They have adopted a sort of child-like perspective where any sense at all in which they are asked to take responsibility is looked upon with anger and disdain. They even sneer at being asked to honor transgender people's pronouns as if it were somehow an IMPOSSIBLE burden on them to just be respectful.

...
I agree with much of your post, but have singled out just two paragraphs, and especially the sentence I've colored red.

I know you address much more than this, but wealth and income inequality is an important problem in the U.S. It is the Ds rather than the Rs or Libertarians that represent the less wealthy, and many Americans of limited means feel let down. The elite have just too much political power. The Ds need Manchin and Sinema just to get to a razor-thin majority, and this situation will probably get worse after November.

The world's ten most expensive private yachts have a total value of over $10 billion.. One could improve the education and nutrition of a million children with that kind of money. (Admittedly the most expensive superyachts are owned by billionaires from SE Asia, Russia, or the Arabian peninsula, but Bill Gates used to lease a superyacht for $5 million per week.)
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
614
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
...

At heart, I have generally lefty views, but I also have a realistic view of human psychology. I think that it might be a pipe dream to imagine a world where we don't have any social obligations at all, but I still see imposing such obligations as something that needs to be expensed. I think that ignoring that expense is irresponsible and politically reckless. I am tired of seeing political leaders I otherwise agree with lose because they won't get serious about finding ways to mitigate the political cost of putting more burdens onto people that inevitably must resent being burdened.

But the difference between myself and a libertarian is that libertarians are not looking at liberty in a rational or socially conscious sort of way. They have adopted a sort of child-like perspective where any sense at all in which they are asked to take responsibility is looked upon with anger and disdain. They even sneer at being asked to honor transgender people's pronouns as if it were somehow an IMPOSSIBLE burden on them to just be respectful.

...
I agree with much of your post, but have singled out just two paragraphs, and especially the sentence I've colored red.

I know you address much more than this, but wealth and income inequality is an important problem in the U.S. It is the Ds rather than the Rs or Libertarians that represent the less wealthy, and many Americans of limited means feel let down. The elite have just too much political power. The Ds need Manchin and Sinema just to get to a razor-thin majority, and this situation will probably get worse after November.

The world's ten most expensive private yachts have a total value of over $10 billion.. One could improve the education and nutrition of a million children with that kind of money. (Admittedly the most expensive superyachts are owned by billionaires from SE Asia, Russia, or the Arabian peninsula, but Bill Gates used to lease a superyacht for $5 million per week.)
The D's often miss out on opportunities to sell the idea of tax-cuts on their own terms. The people that are not really making it, in the country, shouldn't have to shoulder so much of the burden of maintaining and growing a country that is not really working out for them as well as it is for others. They ought to try to market the idea of getting tax-relief for the poorest Americans.

What we ought to do is restructure the tax burden so that it isn't wrecking the lives of the poorest Americans. That ought to come before raising taxes on anybody. The people that control the majority of the country's wealth need to repay some of their plenty to helping make more for everybody, including themselves, rather than expecting the people that are not really making it to continue carrying the burden for them.

The tagline "tax-relief for the poor" would be more marketable than "hike taxes on the rich." It shouldn't be about the rich. I don't care if someone else is a trillionaire or not. The poorest Americans are just barely able to survive, and there is only but so far that they can be ravaged before they are not just broke but broken. How much the richest Americans pay should not even be in the discussion. They will pay however much is necessary to keep the country running when we are also trying to get some tax-relief for the poor. They are not going to die of not being trillionaires. Nobody ever died of that illness.

I like the idea of a wealth tax. Instead of just shifting the income tax, let's go ahead and cut the overall income tax for all Americans and replace the revenue with a wealth-tax, put there specifically to make sure that the people that benefit the most from the economy are also doing the most to help keep the country it comes from running properly. Put it toward paying for the military. I guarantee that if overseas conflicts and insecure international relations were the primary cause of the richest Americans' tax burden, the richest Americans would all become the biggest peaceniks in the land. What does the military really do except guard a rich man's loot? If the poorest Americans owe anything to the protecting the country, then they pay it through service, and during a time of war when we had to reinstate the draft, they wouldn't have the resources to buy their way out of their responsibilities.
 
Last edited:

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,267
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
It is pretty ironic that the NH Mises caucus of the Libertarian party does show that Libertarian does have 3 silent K's in its name.
If you think individualism is equated to racism, that absurdity explains your entire posting history.
Naturally, your premise is a straw man.

It has been two days and you have yet to produce a jot of evidence to rebut the OP (which is a report). As a self-appointed expert of Libertarians, you ought to be able to provide something of substance instead of these increasing risible straw men.
 

Bullmoose Too

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
177
Location
Ohio.
Basic Beliefs
Awesomeness.
"The MC-led Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, for instance, has repeatedly called for repealing the Civil Rights Act,
So the party that is supposed to be based on personal freedoms is against an act that protected personal freedom. oookkaaaayyyy.

View attachment 40504
The Civil Rights act is Federal interference that infringes on the rights of business owners. If the Libertarian Party opposes it it is because of some type of Federal regulation that effects business.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,259
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
So, the Libertarian party supports rights to run whites only restaurants and whites only hotels. Or for a business not to hire Blacks, Jews, or Muslims.
 

crazyfingers

Supermagnon
Staff member
Joined
Mar 15, 2001
Messages
4,989
Location
Massachusetts USA
Basic Beliefs
Secular Humanism
I am confused. How does one distinguish this crazy from the normal Libertarian Party crazy?
The original Libertarian crazy was founded in self-centeredness and naïve / child-like understanding of how the world works. The new Libertarian crazy is more founded in fascism and hatred of liberal ideology.
When I was in high school in the late 1970's I was swept up into it. I recall thinking that the magic market and greed could solve the world's problems. Then I went to University and learned that it was stupid to think so.

I haven't given the Libertarian Party much thought in several decades but it does seem that they've ditched the civil liberties half of their agenda. That was the only thing that gave them some credibility.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
614
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I am confused. How does one distinguish this crazy from the normal Libertarian Party crazy?
The original Libertarian crazy was founded in self-centeredness and naïve / child-like understanding of how the world works. The new Libertarian crazy is more founded in fascism and hatred of liberal ideology.
When I was in high school in the late 1970's I was swept up into it. I recall thinking that the magic market and greed could solve the world's problems. Then I went to University and learned that it was stupid to think so.

I haven't given the Libertarian Party much thought in several decades but it does seem that they've ditched the civil liberties half of their agenda. That was the only thing that gave them some credibility.
These days, the people that call themselves "Libertarians" are just Republicans without the religion.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
21,265
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So, the Libertarian party supports rights to run whites only restaurants and whites only hotels. Or for a business not to hire Blacks, Jews, or Muslims.
Their solution to that is "The Market will provide, The Market will provide, The Market will provide, ..."

But The Market failed to provide over the entire era of Jim Crow.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,532
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
We're now on page 2 and yet none of those who enjoy the original "news" article have been able to tell me what makes the Mises Caucus different from other factions.
They say the quiet part out loud. It's not that difficult.
A meaningless statement.

So I've already explained part if it for the people here who have no understanding, I'll try to break it down as simply as possible so that even the people who think individualism is racism can understand.

Group A insulted Group B. Group A said "you're a bunch of Republicans" as an insult. That caused people in this thread with an understanding deficit to say "aha, they called them Republicans that means that both groups like Republicans." There is no connection between premise and conclusion, but that is common among those I am trying to respond to.

There are more than one faction within the LP. In 2006 the Reform Caucus grew much too strong and foisted the Barr-Root ticket on us, the first time I didn't vote for the party's nominee. That was such a catastrophe that those who are more friendly with Democrats and those who are more mainline libertarian worked together to undo that mess. Now that the Reform Caucus is out, there is a split between the mainline and the Democrat friendly. The more mainline gathered together under the Mises Caucus banner to throw the other side of the pendulum out of power.

Shocking, I know, that a political party would have internal politics.

Now you are going to go through all the typical boring tired old refuted tropes about how not regulating businesses means that racism will blossom all over the country. Yawn.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,308
Basic Beliefs
---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Libertarianism is the desire to have high levels of freedom, along with strict rule of law.

I'm going to express this more broadly and apply it to the Party itself:
A strict view of individualistic freedom is contrary to a collective group imposing structure to the benefit of the group. The strict individualism allows for secession even at an individual level but the collective group tries to agree on a structure through mutual consent such as majority voting. Mutual consent (or contract) is an important facet of group dynamics and to both allow it and promote that it has no term of enforcement is immature and impractical in the real world. Therefore, unless the Libertarian Party has a platform of meaningless platitudes, it can never be a big tent party because factions will always splinter off once specific policies are put into place in the platform.
"benefit of the group" vs. "strict individualism"

This is a problem for Absolutist libertarians, which they've not solved. Maybe not even addressed.

But there's a strict Libertarian solution to this, as long as it's joined to the Utilitarian idea of "greatest good for the greatest number" -- which everyone really does accept, even though most people hate this phrase and nominally reject "Utilitarianism". The Libertarian version of this might be "greatest freedom for the greatest number" -- meaning to maximize the total amount of freedom to all the individuals in the group.

The COLLECTIVE group good, or benefit, is really nothing more than a summation of all the individualistic goods or benefits, or adding-up of all the goods/benefits to each individual in the group. There is no such thing as a "collective" or "group" benefit which is not really a summing-up of all the individual goods/benefits of each of the individuals in the group.

Without INDIVIDUAL members, there is no "group" -- so any benefit to the "group" is a total of all the benefits to all the individual members, and this total has to be maximized. So there is no "good" other than to individuals.

And the strict realistic Libertarian goal is to maximize the individual good, or goods, meaning maximizing freedom to all the individuals, or freedoms to them.

And this means no individual freedom can be curtailed unless it infringes onto some other individual's freedom. So whenever there is a conflict between this individual's freedom and that individual's freedom, the resolution of that has to be to favor whichever way leaves the maximum freedom to all, or whichever takes away less freedom.

So in a conflict, calculate how much individual freedom is left over if solution A prevails, and how much if solution B prevails. And whichever of A or B leaves in place the greater amount of individual freedom (or freedoms) is the right solution.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
29,524
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Without INDIVIDUAL members, there is no "group" -- so any benefit to the "group" is a total of all the benefits to all the individual members, and this total has to be maximized. So there is no "good" other than to individuals.
Without INDIVIDUAL cells, there is no "human" -- so any benefit to the "human" is a total of all the benefits to the individual cells, and this total has to be maximised. So there is no "good" other than to cells.

We can therefore conclude that the pinnacle of human achievement is that of Henrietta Lacks, and that the best thing that could happen to anyone is to get cancer.

Either that, or this form of argument is utter nonsense.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That's true of people, and of societies.

Libertarian denial of this demonstrable and unequivocal fact is a major reason why serious thinkers laugh at libertarian "philosophy".
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,308
Basic Beliefs
---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Without INDIVIDUAL members, there is no "group" -- so any benefit to the "group" is a total of all the benefits to all the individual members, and this total has to be maximized. So there is no "good" other than to individuals.
Without INDIVIDUAL cells, there is no "human" -- so any benefit to the "human" is a total of all the benefits to the individual cells, and this total has to be maximised. So there is no "good" other than to cells.
You're right -- I said it wrong.

I should have said: Without good to the INDIVIDUAL members, there is no good to the "group".

or better: Without good to INDIVIDUAL humans who are members of the society, there is no good to the society.

There is no social good, no collective good, other than the good to the individual (human) members. And these individual goods all added up constitute the collective good.

The "good" means nothing outside of the consciousness or the experiences of the individuals who make up the society or collective.

On the other hand, the "good" of a human individual is not dependent on the "good" experienced by the individual cells in one's body, or by the atoms or molecules, or subatomic particles, etc. -- or the heart, stomach, and other organs. These parts have no "good" or interests or experiences or consciousness which add up to something which the individual "good" is based upon. These parts are unimportant in themselves and have no value other than to serve the body, and nothing is lost when they individually die off, except in the case where the body suffers from it, because it's only the conscious entity that matters, not something with no consciousness like body tissue or cells or organs.

The individual human good was understood by humans, far back in history, even before there was knowledge of the particular body parts or organs or cells. The latter were discovered by science, but the human good became known as the consciousness developed even before there was science.

So the value of a conscious individual human in society is an inherent good independent of the collective which has no value independent of the individual conscious members.

Suppose there is a "society" of some kind, or collection of humans, but none of these humans has any consciousness, because they are all brain-dead (or whatever -- all those humans are without any consciousness). But they're alive, and maybe there are some movements or activity, the functioning of their organs, maybe some spasms, some vocalizations, maybe even something causing some hand motions, sitting up, kicking, etc. But all with no consciousness of it.

In that case there is no "good" for that society of humans. The only "good" that is possible would be for others somewhere who are conscious, maybe outside humans who know of these unconscious ones and have some interest in them, or even some animals who might care about them (maybe wanting to eat them). But for this collection of unconscious humans themselves there is no "good" or "evil" or anything that matters. Just the collection of humans per se has no "good" or "evil" without any "good" or "evil" for the individual humans in the group who experience something they care about.


We can therefore conclude that the pinnacle of human achievement is that of Henrietta Lacks, and that the best thing that could happen to anyone is to get cancer.
How does this case show that there is any social good outside the good for the individual members of the group? The good of a medical benefit is a good for individuals who are cured. Outside the individuals who are treated and made healthier, what good is there in any medical benefit? How can "society" or the "collective" benefit from something medical unless it's the individual members of that society who are benefiting?

The cells per se are not benefiting because they are not conscious entities capable of experiencing good or evil. But individuals in the society are each capable of experiencing good or evil, being conscious and having experiences, and this good or evil to individuals is the only good or evil the society can experience. Outside these conscious experiences of the individual members, there is no social good or social evil. The case of Henrietta Lacks doesn't change this.


Either that, or this form of argument is utter nonsense.
Not if the wording is corrected thus: Without good to the INDIVIDUAL members there is no good to the "group" -- which is correct and applies to all examples of medical benefit and of illness vs. health and well-being, also to infrastructure, the commons, -- any examples of good produced by government, or good for the public, the nation, etc.


The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That's true of people, and of societies.
That might mean something legitimate, but it does not change the fact that the only good for society is the good of all the individual members of the society. Yes there is some "collective good" which can't be performed by only one individual alone but requires "collective action" or cooperation from many individuals. But the good they produce doesn't mean anything other than good for the individual members, each one, added up, to produce the net sum total of good.


Libertarian denial of this demonstrable and unequivocal fact is a major reason why serious thinkers laugh at libertarian "philosophy".
"the sum of its parts"?

What are the "parts"? If the "parts" are the individual members of the society and the society is the "sum" of those parts, then the good for the society is nothing more than the good (or goods) of all those individual members.

Or if you mean there is someone OUTSIDE the "society" who benefits also, then maybe the total "good" is greater than the "good" to only those members. But actually in such a case the real "society" or "collective" is expanded to include those outsiders also. So there is still no "good" other than the good which benefits all individuals, or all conscious entities who experience whatever good is being produced.
 
Last edited:

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,872
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Good to know you support him.
Really? Can you walk me through how you arrived at that conclusion from"He's a partisan competing for the conservolibertarian voters." It's quite unclear.
WTF is this "conservolibertarian" you keep mentioning?
Already explained multiple times.

 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,532
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
Don2 - so it is your position that he is trying to recruit Alex Jones? That one person seems to be the only definition you can come up with.

Zipr - since you think that there are only and ever two sides, and think that a third side is a heretical concept, consider this: Premise 1: Don2 hates the libertarian ideology and opposes everything it stands for. Premise 2: Stephen Miller hates the libertarian ideology and opposes everything it stands for. Therefore, Don2 and Stephen Miller agree on this, therefore they are on the same of the only two sides that can possibly exist.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,259
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
There are Libertarians, and then, there are Libertarians and then there are Libertarians. As long as I can remember Libertarians have been arguing among themselves just what is Libertarianism, and what are essential Libertarian policies.

Think Judean Peoples Liberation Front. Splitters!
 

Patooka

Contributor
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
5,579
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
There are Libertarians, and then, there are Libertarians and then there are Libertarians. As long as I can remember Libertarians have been arguing among themselves just what is Libertarianism, and what are essential Libertarian policies.

Think Judean Peoples Liberation Front. Splitters!
And yet for some reason political parties that people actually vote for have to be treated as homogenous according to libertarians. Weird.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,259
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The big question now is, to what form will Libertarianism mutate from here on out? With the Mises Caucus take over will Libertarians fade away like the Communist Party USA? Or will old school Libertarians be able to engineer a comeback? Or will something even more bizarre come out of all of this? Could this be the death throes of American Libertarians?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,979
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Don't be a dick.
Zipr - since you think that there are only and ever two sides, and think that a third side is a heretical concept, consider this: Premise 1: Don2 hates the libertarian ideology and opposes everything it stands for. Premise 2: Stephen Miller hates the libertarian ideology and opposes everything it stands for. Therefore, Don2 and Stephen Miller agree on this, therefore they are on the same of the only two sides that can possibly exist.
Straw man.

Coma back when you can do better.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,267
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Zipr - since you think that there are only and ever two sides, and think that a third side is a heretical concept, consider this: Premise 1: Don2 hates the libertarian ideology and opposes everything it stands for. Premise 2: Stephen Miller hates the libertarian ideology and opposes everything it stands for. Therefore, Don2 and Stephen Miller agree on this, therefore they are on the same of the only two sides that can possibly exist.
Straw man.

Coma back when you can do better.
Well, that's an example of the impossible dream.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,259
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I just had a horrible thought. If the batshit insane Mises Caucus destroys the Libertarian party as a national party, the Libertarians will no longer be on national election ballots. The 2% - 3% votes they take, helping split conservative votes in close races disappear. Horrors!
 

scombrid

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
907
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Good to know you support him.
Really? Can you walk me through how you arrived at that conclusion from"He's a partisan competing for the conservolibertarian voters." It's quite unclear.
WTF is this "conservolibertarian" you keep mentioning?
Ron and Rand Paul. The "No Compromise Gun Movement" founded by the Dorr Family. Alex Jones. etc... Conservative Authoritarians that put on a freedom façade.
 

scombrid

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
907
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

And this means no individual freedom can be curtailed unless it infringes onto some other individual's freedom. So whenever there is a conflict between this individual's freedom and that individual's freedom, the resolution of that has to be to favor whichever way leaves the maximum freedom to all, or whichever takes away less freedom.

So in a conflict, calculate how much individual freedom is left over if solution A prevails, and how much if solution B prevails. And whichever of A or B leaves in place the greater amount of individual freedom (or freedoms) is the right solution.
All economic exchanges are supposed to be between fully informed and consenting parties too. But most professed libertarians ignore negative externalities all over the place, favoring the freedom to pollute over the freedom to not be polluted upon. Many decry as "regulatory takings" anything that restricts use of private property even when the activity on the private property causes negative economic consequences to neighbors or to natural commons such as air and water. There are for real regulatory takings that often should be compensated, when a lawful ongoing activity is curtailed by a change of the rules but I've run across an awful lot of "libertarians" that feel that if you hold fee simple title to a property or own a business that you should be able to do whatever you want with it that brings you benefit.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
29,524
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
So in a conflict, calculate how much individual freedom is left over if solution A prevails, and how much if solution B prevails. And whichever of A or B leaves in place the greater amount of individual freedom (or freedoms) is the right solution.
That's an interesting rule. But as "rule" is the diametric opposite of "freedom", applying your rule tells us we must ignore your rule.

I seriously doubt that you know what "freedom" is; Freedom is the absence of constraints, and it's opposite is rules, or in a political context, law.

Any demand to maximise freedom as the primary and most overriding political principle isn't libertarianism, it's just anarchism.

Libertarianism is 'anarchy for me; rules to be obeyed by you', which is why any sane adult is forced to reject it.

It's the political equivalent of the preschooler who wants everyone to play their new game, whose rules vary from moment to moment, with the only consistent rule structure being that they are always the winner. Nobody wants to play with that kid, but that's not because they're all meanies.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
22,446
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
elsewhere in these threads is the very best description of libertarians. Paraphrased:

”Housecats. They are completely convinced of their own fierce independence, while remaining utterly dependent upon systems they neither appreciate nor understand.“
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,259
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist

And this means no individual freedom can be curtailed unless it infringes onto some other individual's freedom. So whenever there is a conflict between this individual's freedom and that individual's freedom, the resolution of that has to be to favor whichever way leaves the maximum freedom to all, or whichever takes away less freedom.

So in a conflict, calculate how much individual freedom is left over if solution A prevails, and how much if solution B prevails. And whichever of A or B leaves in place the greater amount of individual freedom (or freedoms) is the right solution.
All economic exchanges are supposed to be between fully informed and consenting parties too. But most professed libertarians ignore negative externalities all over the place, favoring the freedom to pollute over the freedom to not be polluted upon. Many decry as "regulatory takings" anything that restricts use of private property even when the activity on the private property causes negative economic consequences to neighbors or to natural commons such as air and water. There are for real regulatory takings that often should be compensated, when a lawful ongoing activity is curtailed by a change of the rules but I've run across an awful lot of "libertarians" that feel that if you hold fee simple title to a property or own a business that you should be able to do whatever you want with it that brings you benefit.

Podunkville used to be nice little village until Agripork inc moved in and set up a massive industrial scale pig farm.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
38,209
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So in a conflict, calculate how much individual freedom is left over if solution A prevails, and how much if solution B prevails. And whichever of A or B leaves in place the greater amount of individual freedom (or freedoms) is the right solution.
That's an interesting rule. But as "rule" is the diametric opposite of "freedom", applying your rule tells us we must ignore your rule.
Disagree. If freedom is the only objective his rule is correct. However, in the real world we need to balance freedom with a functioning society--there are many cases where you need rules simply for the sake of having a rule (for example, which side of the road to drive on. Which way to go is a pretty narrow distinction, but it is very important that one or the other be the law of the land) and many others where you must balance the freedom of A vs the potential harm for B (for example, what is the speed limit?) There are also cases where you need to avoid tragedy of the commons problems.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
29,524
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
So in a conflict, calculate how much individual freedom is left over if solution A prevails, and how much if solution B prevails. And whichever of A or B leaves in place the greater amount of individual freedom (or freedoms) is the right solution.
That's an interesting rule. But as "rule" is the diametric opposite of "freedom", applying your rule tells us we must ignore your rule.
Disagree.

Do you? With what part of my post?
If freedom is the only objective his rule is correct.
If freedom is the ONLY objective, NO rule is acceptable, much less 'correct'.

Rules are the opposite of freedom, freedom is the opposite of rules.
However, in the real world we need to balance freedom with a functioning society--there are many cases where you need rules simply for the sake of having a rule (for example, which side of the road to drive on. Which way to go is a pretty narrow distinction, but it is very important that one or the other be the law of the land) and many others where you must balance the freedom of A vs the potential harm for B (for example, what is the speed limit?) There are also cases where you need to avoid tragedy of the commons problems.
Yes. Anarchy has a number of problems.

Libertarianism has all those problems, but with the added problem of a bunch of stupid, unworkable, and poorly thought out rules that appear workable only to simpletons, and which fall apart if exposed to all the complexities that exist outside the minds of libertarians.

And of course totalitarianism has a number of problems too.

It appears that you don't disagree with my post at all - we both agree that societies need a balance between rules and freedoms.

Which leaves me wondering why you prefaced your expansion of my stated position with the word "disagree", which doesn't appear to fit the rest of your reply at all.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
22,446
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
And of course totalitarianism has a number of problems too.

Disagree.
Totalitarianism is perfect. It only depends on having a perfect Supreme Ruler. One problem instead of many. It doesn’t get any better than that.
That’s why Orange Jesus as “President For Life” is such a great idea. He’s perfect. Just ask him.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,619
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So in a conflict, calculate how much individual freedom is left over if solution A prevails, and how much if solution B prevails. And whichever of A or B leaves in place the greater amount of individual freedom (or freedoms) is the right solution.
That's an interesting rule. But as "rule" is the diametric opposite of "freedom", applying your rule tells us we must ignore your rule.
Disagree. If freedom is the only objective his rule is correct. However, in the real world we need to balance freedom with a functioning society--there are many cases where you need rules simply for the sake of having a rule (for example, which side of the road to drive on. Which way to go is a pretty narrow distinction, but it is very important that one or the other be the law of the land) and many others where you must balance the freedom of A vs the potential harm for B (for example, what is the speed limit?) There are also cases where you need to avoid tragedy of the commons problems.
The problem with such "Libertarian" views of freedom is that it ignores the fact that some things people wish to seek as "valid freedoms" are asymmetrical, or unilateral. They end up treating the individual considering it as "special", and this ends up promptly towards a nonfunctioning result.

By understanding that while some people wish to claim certain freedoms, if we actually let them, we would promptly end up in a shitty world where we couldn't do anything but fight as violently as possible to reproduce and then die, we come to a question of identifying symmetry of goals.

There is clearly a math which is more functional than "everyone for themselves".

When it is "everyone for each other in a way optimized for the maximized availability of selfish goal satisfaction", it would be obvious that everyone gets more satisfied goals, as long as we identify goals which impede that optimization.

It turns out that whenever we see such a goal, it's always asymmetrical in some apparent way, where one side does not consent, cannot consent, or is not consulted for consent.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,495
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Libertarianism is the desire to have high levels of freedom, along with strict rule of law.

I'm going to express this more broadly and apply it to the Party itself:
A strict view of individualistic freedom is contrary to a collective group imposing structure to the benefit of the group. The strict individualism allows for secession even at an individual level but the collective group tries to agree on a structure through mutual consent such as majority voting. Mutual consent (or contract) is an important facet of group dynamics and to both allow it and promote that it has no term of enforcement is immature and impractical in the real world. Therefore, unless the Libertarian Party has a platform of meaningless platitudes, it can never be a big tent party because factions will always splinter off once specific policies are put into place in the platform.

I also find it hard to understand Libertarianism. We end up arguing against "straw man" versions.

But the Board is fortunate to have a genuine Libertarian. @ Jason — I hope you have the grace to set us straight. What are the practical steps that Libertarians would take if suddenly given control of the country? What are the specific differences between the Mises Caucus and the Non-Caucus (or whatever it's called)?

Please be specific. Repeal of the Civil Rights Act is certainly high on the Libertarian agenda: businesses will be to free to discriminate based on race, religion or anything else they choose. Do Libertarians embrace this openly? Or do they leave the return to segregation buried inside platitudes about "Liberty ... liberty ... freedom ... liberty"? Do Libertarians ever ponder the contradiction between an innkeeper's liberty to choose his customers and a hungry family's liberty to buy dinner?

Cannabis will be legalized. What about meth and heroin?

What will be used for money? I realize the Magic of the Market will choose among gold, bitcoin and whatever — during transition, customers will seek accommodations that accept their particular variety of cryptocurrency — but if any government persists and collects tariffs what will it accept as legal tender? The FedRes will be abolished, right?

"Right to work" will be the law of the land. Mandatory SocSec will be abolished, with workers having the liberty to plan their own pensions.

Will there be any way to regulate, tax or pay for pollution? Child vaccines for pertussis, etc. will no longer be mandated, right?

How do Libertarians feel about police? Some disciples of Ludwig von Mises imagine that police will be privatised or wither away altogether, while another (Rothbard?) gives police the right to torture suspects into confession. (If found innocent, the torturee will have the right to sue his torturers in Rothbard's utopia, but I'm not sure how he'll be acquitted given his confession under duress.)

Women have liberty over their own bodies, but what about their unborn fetus' body? Do Libertarians use the same 3rd trimester demarcation as Roe v Wade? Some Libertarians give parents total control of their children until age of majority; is this a common stance?

@ Jason — Thanks in advance for helping us understand modern American Libertarianism. Nobody wants to argue against straw men.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,259
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
And of course totalitarianism has a number of problems too.

Disagree.
Totalitarianism is perfect. It only depends on having a perfect Supreme Ruler. One problem instead of many. It doesn’t get any better than that.
That’s why Orange Jesus as “President For Life” is such a great idea. He’s perfect. Just ask him.

The problem with removing most of what we call goverment with all its rules and regulations is that we will still have governments. We call them gangs and oligarchs and mafias.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
22,446
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Libertarianism is the desire to have high levels of freedom, along with strict rule of law.

I'm going to express this more broadly and apply it to the Party itself:
A strict view of individualistic freedom is contrary to a collective group imposing structure to the benefit of the group. The strict individualism allows for secession even at an individual level but the collective group tries to agree on a structure through mutual consent such as majority voting. Mutual consent (or contract) is an important facet of group dynamics and to both allow it and promote that it has no term of enforcement is immature and impractical in the real world. Therefore, unless the Libertarian Party has a platform of meaningless platitudes, it can never be a big tent party because factions will always splinter off once specific policies are put into place in the platform.

I also find it hard to understand Libertarianism. We end up arguing against "straw man" versions.

But the Board is fortunate to have a genuine Libertarian. @ Jason — I hope you have the grace to set us straight. What are the practical steps that Libertarians would take if suddenly given control of the country? What are the specific differences between the Mises Caucus and the Non-Caucus (or whatever it's called)?

Please be specific. Repeal of the Civil Rights Act is certainly high on the Libertarian agenda: businesses will be to free to discriminate based on race, religion or anything else they choose. Do Libertarians embrace this openly? Or do they leave the return to segregation buried inside platitudes about "Liberty ... liberty ... freedom ... liberty"? Do Libertarians ever ponder the contradiction between an innkeeper's liberty to choose his customers and a hungry family's liberty to buy dinner?

Cannabis will be legalized. What about meth and heroin?

What will be used for money? I realize the Magic of the Market will choose among gold, bitcoin and whatever — during transition, customers will seek accommodations that accept their particular variety of cryptocurrency — but if any government persists and collects tariffs what will it accept as legal tender? The FedRes will be abolished, right?

"Right to work" will be the law of the land. Mandatory SocSec will be abolished, with workers having the liberty to plan their own pensions.

Will there be any way to regulate, tax or pay for pollution? Child vaccines for pertussis, etc. will no longer be mandated, right?

How do Libertarians feel about police? Some disciples of Ludwig von Mises imagine that police will be privatised or wither away altogether, while another (Rothbard?) gives police the right to torture suspects into confession. (If found innocent, the torturee will have the right to sue his torturers in Rothbard's utopia, but I'm not sure how he'll be acquitted given his confession under duress.)

Women have liberty over their own bodies, but what about their unborn fetus' body? Do Libertarians use the same 3rd trimester demarcation as Roe v Wade? Some Libertarians give parents total control of their children until age of majority; is this a common stance?

@ Jason — Thanks in advance for helping us understand modern American Libertarianism. Nobody wants to argue against straw men.

I'm sure Jason will be pleased to set us all straight on these questions. You can expect a thorough response by the 12th of NEVER.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
29,524
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
And of course totalitarianism has a number of problems too.

Disagree.
Totalitarianism is perfect. It only depends on having a perfect Supreme Ruler. One problem instead of many. It doesn’t get any better than that.
That’s why Orange Jesus as “President For Life” is such a great idea. He’s perfect. Just ask him.

The problem with removing most of what we call goverment with all its rules and regulations is that we will still have governments. We call them gangs and oligarchs and mafias.
To be fair, if they're the only government, we generally call them barons, kings, or warlords.

And, if we want to remain in one piece, "Sir".
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,532
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
Zipr - since you think that there are only and ever two sides, and think that a third side is a heretical concept, consider this: Premise 1: Don2 hates the libertarian ideology and opposes everything it stands for. Premise 2: Stephen Miller hates the libertarian ideology and opposes everything it stands for. Therefore, Don2 and Stephen Miller agree on this, therefore they are on the same of the only two sides that can possibly exist.
Straw man.

Coma back when you can do better.
Are you saying a third option is possible?
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,532
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
That one person seems to be the only definition you can come up with.
Untrue and you ought to know considering how we've discussed Ron Paul and others belonging in the set. One wonders why you would conveniently leave those people out.
Yes, you have made it clear that if Ron Paul and Rand Paul were the same person (which they aren't) then you'd have a conservolibertarian. Therefore the only one person who actually exists who fits your definition is Alex Jones.

That makes your point about that tweet more interesting. You say he is tweeing to partisan compete for one person.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,532
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
Libertarianism is the desire to have high levels of freedom, along with strict rule of law.

I'm going to express this more broadly and apply it to the Party itself:
A strict view of individualistic freedom is contrary to a collective group imposing structure to the benefit of the group. The strict individualism allows for secession even at an individual level but the collective group tries to agree on a structure through mutual consent such as majority voting. Mutual consent (or contract) is an important facet of group dynamics and to both allow it and promote that it has no term of enforcement is immature and impractical in the real world. Therefore, unless the Libertarian Party has a platform of meaningless platitudes, it can never be a big tent party because factions will always splinter off once specific policies are put into place in the platform.

I also find it hard to understand Libertarianism. We end up arguing against "straw man" versions.

But the Board is fortunate to have a genuine Libertarian. @ Jason — I hope you have the grace to set us straight. What are the practical steps that Libertarians would take if suddenly given control of the country? What are the specific differences between the Mises Caucus and the Non-Caucus (or whatever it's called)?

Too subtle for you to hope to follow.

Please be specific. Repeal of the Civil Rights Act is certainly high on the Libertarian agenda: businesses will be to free to discriminate based on race, religion or anything else they choose. Do Libertarians embrace this openly? Or do they leave the return to segregation buried inside platitudes about "Liberty ... liberty ... freedom ... liberty"? Do Libertarians ever ponder the contradiction between an innkeeper's liberty to choose his customers and a hungry family's liberty to buy dinner?

There is a myth that without government people would start acting racist, sexist, whatever-ist all over the place. I don't buy that myth. I don't think we need force of law to force people to do the right thing. If people were as overwhelmingly racist as you suppose, it would be easy to elect overwhelmingly racist politicians ... well, now I have to eat crow because we did that in Nov 2020. Maybe you have half a point.

Seriously, though, wouldn't you want to know which businesses are run by bigots so that you could avoid them?

Cannabis will be legalized. What about meth and heroin?

Yes.

What will be used for money? I realize the Magic of the Market will choose among gold, bitcoin and whatever — during transition, customers will seek accommodations that accept their particular variety of cryptocurrency — but if any government persists and collects tariffs what will it accept as legal tender? The FedRes will be abolished, right?

Yes, abolish the Federal Reserve. It is not only unnecessary it destroys the value of currency. Mankind has used money for over 4 millennia and never needed fiat. Since we've had it for over a century people actually have come to think the aberration is normal. You don't need it.

"Right to work" will be the law of the land. Mandatory SocSec will be abolished, with workers having the liberty to plan their own pensions.

The second half is correct. The first half isn't. "Right to work" laws are a government reaction to a government created problem. In a free market the government favors neither the business nor the union. If a union can successfully negotiate for a closed shop (without the government's help) then more power to them.

Will there be any way to regulate, tax or pay for pollution? Child vaccines for pertussis, etc. will no longer be mandated, right?

Pollution will be treated as a property right. If you pollute my property you pay. Yes, the available vaccines won't be mandated. You will still be free to choose them.

How do Libertarians feel about police? Some disciples of Ludwig von Mises imagine that police will be privatised or wither away altogether, while another (Rothbard?) gives police the right to torture suspects into confession. (If found innocent, the torturee will have the right to sue his torturers in Rothbard's utopia, but I'm not sure how he'll be acquitted given his confession under duress.)

Mixed. The Minarchists see them as a necessary evil that must be tightly controlled, the Anarchists see them as something to abolish. I like your question marks, you are honest enough to say "I think a libertarian said it" instead of outright accusations.

Women have liberty over their own bodies, but what about their unborn fetus' body? Do Libertarians use the same 3rd trimester demarcation as Roe v Wade? Some Libertarians give parents total control of their children until age of majority; is this a common stance?

By and large libertarians are pro-choice. Meanwhile, what part of "government staying out" do you think is "government getting involved"?

@ Jason — Thanks in advance for helping us understand modern American Libertarianism. Nobody wants to argue against straw men.

On this forum they do. Just look at Don2 or Zipr. If they didn't have straw men to argue against they'd never have anything to post. By the way, bilby is wrong about "strictest rule of law" part.
 
Top Bottom