Libertarian Party Goes Crazy

[scombrid]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

 

[crazyfingers]

Ron Paul

And oldie but a goodie.

 

[Elixir]

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]

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.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Caption this.

View attachment 40910

"AIDS is a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby that will poison the blood supply!"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

People's Front Of Judea, or Judean People's Front?

The Real Liberarians, or theTrue Real Libertarians?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.