What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$45 & up: Huge Hotel Sale view!
travelzoo.com - Great discounts on rooms for the holidays and beyond!
280 Comments
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -4/+54Of course there is. But who decides what it is? You, me, somebody else - who? A libertarian encourages individual rights and not the oppression of another. Running amuck is fine...running amuck when your actions are imposed or oppressive of another, a Libertarian believes, is not fine. You don't need a government telling you what you should and should not do.
As you correctly point out good parents know that, they don't wait for a politician to tell them how to raise their kids. They teach right from wrong just as their parents taught them. There is no need for big government to get involved, even if it does then the state is not an not effective parent figure. In fact the bigger a government, the less accountable it is held and the more IT runs amuck. Current administration being the case in point. It is incidentally quite possible for a Libertarian to be right wing, left wing or central. As such there is nothing that rules Libertarianism from the Republican party. Libertarianism is a measure of authoritarianism versus civil liberty. It is not a factor of left/right wing policy.
http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2 - Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -11/+55I'm an independent with an admitted soft spot for Libertarian ideas, but still, I see in some of these a faulty idealism that ignores the ruthless aspects of human nature.
I agree that individuals should be free to enter into willful contracts, but many Libertarians take it a step much further and suggest the arbitration of such should be severely limited, as well. The implication being that if a person is dumb enough to enter an unfavorable agreement, he or she only got what they had coming to them. To some that might seem copacetic, but I would strongly argue that the freedom to con someone is not a right.
Then we reach the topic of Free Markets. In a democratic-republic, such as that of the U.S., the government exists solely to protect the Rights of the People as guaranteed by their Constitution. But if the government had no control whatsoever of the economy, it would be impotent to protect anything. Money is Power. Everybody knows this.
That in turn is also what's ignored by a majority of socialists. If the government has TOO MUCH control of the economy then IT itself becomes too powerful; and government always, Always, ALWAYS turns excess power on its own people. There's no exception to that rule in all of history.
I really don't at all buy into the claim that Libertarians are against order. I'm calling ***** on that one. They're ardent believers in the ideas of the Constitution. And the Constitution was created with the understanding that men left to their own devices will largely serve only their self-interests, and more times than not do so at the expense of others. All rights hinge on there being the order under which they can be expressed. A uniform civil authority accountable to the People is understood to be essential for the protection of their Rights.
I do believe individuals have a right to their personal biases, prejudices and stupid ideas. But unlike many Libertarians, I don't believe they have an unlimited right to discriminate through markets that are enabled by the People for the benefit of the People.
I do agree with absolute free speech. And I agree that laws meant to enforce morals are stupid, illegal, unproductive and are to be ignored. I also agree that government has no business protecting culture. And when government becomes too big, as it is now, it becomes unwieldy and almost impossible to restrain. Which is why we the People can't even control what wars we fight in anymore. - EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -6/+44Just to clarify, Libertarianism IS NOT Anarchy! We believe that everyone has the right to be protected from harm and the wrongdoing of others.
I believe the fundamental difference is in a Libertarian society, you are free to commit any crime, just once you do you are expected to be punished accordingly. The other view is that the government's job is to take measures to stop crimes before they are committed, thus limiting freedoms inevitably.
Me? I'd rather die free. It is really as simple as that.
I'd rather die knowing the killer will be punished and that I lived my life with the freedom to kill him - but I never did. I would die knowing that I lived my life as though it were a infinite playground rather than a playpen. I wouldn't want to die with the last thought being "how did he get a gun! Guns are illegal! Hacker! Hacker! Admin! Save me! admin ... admin ......". People die in free society. There is pain in free society. There is suffering in free society. It is ignorant to think that we can be free and everyone be equal and happy. Life is a mother ***** roller coaster ride, and you can buckle in, shut your eyes and whine for your mommy the whole way or at the top of the ramp jump the hell off and fly until you hit the ground. - hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -11/+48Libertarianism means ... Tell the government to get the ***** out my bedroom, my bank account, my kids life, my heath, my body, my family and mostly my paycheck. These ***** who think they run us feel that they can best protect us by putting us in jail and/or killing us. Well u know what? I want Ghouliani, Bush, both Clinton's, Pelosi and a whole lot of other people in jail for treason and crimes against humanity. Lets keep it simple, libertarianism means telling these alphabet agency jackasses and turd smugglers with badges and guns to go ***** themselves.
- hipswiggle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+30"The American Founders created a society based on the belief that human happiness is intimately connected with personal freedom and responsibility." Keyword: responsibility. I doubt some members of our government understand what that means, let alone its citizens.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -4/+32The Roman Empire was never libertarian, but was decidedly authoritarian. It did not fail because it became libertarian, there are many arguments for the fall of the Empire, Libertarianism is not one of them. An economy which became reliant on outside and internal forces beyond their control perhaps (like slavery and mercenaries - none of which empower the individual and so not signs of Libertarian culture). Other explanations suggest the rise of the Roman Christian church, the rise of feudalism, breakdown of free trade, internal factions competing for absolute power: none of these are Libertarian signatures. The Roman Christian Church - Authoritarian, Feudalism - Authoritarian, breakdown of free trade - Statist & Authoritarian, campaigning for absolute power - Authoritarian.
Everything was most certainly not allowed in the Roman Empire, they had a small habit of killing people for doing wrong, fining or imprisoning them. Besides which, government does not dictate culture - where is your head at?
You didn't read the link did you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_the_roman_emp ... - zephc, on 10/10/2007, -13/+37The bulk of the arguments from people who wouldn't know liberty if it was in front of their face:
- What ever shall I DO without my government to feed and clothe me?!?
- Corporations are EVIL! Sure, they have no way to imprison me or otherwise coerce me like the government can, b-b-b-but they're EVIL!
It's sad that so many people can't see beyond the tip of their nose: remove enough governmental power and corporations have no recourse to bribe their way to monopolies like they do now.
Yes monopolies suck, but you can still ignore them if you choose to - you CANNOT ignore the often arbitrary rules (laws) put forth by a powerful government, because it will hunt you down and no one will stand up to it because you're breaking the law, no matter how unjust the law is.
I would choose taking my money elsewhere, or even doing without, instead of compulsory taxation. - Nitroadict, on 10/10/2007, -5/+28Why are people so unflexible to libertarianism? I admit, adhering to an -ism of any sort is no ticket to the gravy train, but many of the *ideas* found in libertarianism are actually quite useful, if not on a personal philosophy level, perhaps on a governmental level. The inevitability of a supposed new world government (or new world order, whichever you believe, but saying NWO once will make people's heads shut down) is almost like expecting blacks will forever remain on the back of the bus (kinda changed at some point in time), or expecting a certain political party to forever remain in power; The Whigs were fragmented & destroyed, Democrats & Republican's philosophies, as parties, were at on point reversed (before civil war, methinks), Republicans are more or less destroyed by the GOP, and it's becoming increasingly clear that corporate powers control both political parties for their own gain, and essentially, both parties are the same. Allowing such complacency, no matter what party your from (unless your from the CORPORATE party, that sounds like an appropriate title) is dangerous to any notions of freedom or any granted & guaranteed freedom and rights we might've had when the constitution was written and signed. Think about this: the constitution almost didn't happen because some of the founding fathers opposed a central bank, but alas, the FED was eventually established under Woodrow Wilson, whom later regretted this in a quote concerning America's future leash to credit, and interestingly, the great depression happened around a decade after the FED was established...
You can digg me down all you want, but I ain't wearing no tin foil hat, nor will I spam about RP over and over again likeI have tourette's. But you can't deny some of libertarianism's ideas, and like many good ideas, such as the bill of rights & the constitution, you can't keep a good idea down. Unless of course, you want to, in which case, please, continue squabbling about left & right when what we should be worried about, in the 21st century, about authority vs. liberty. - Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15"To summarize a summary of the summary: People are a problem."
- Douglas Adams - alvinrod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Unfortunately the word "conservative" when used as a noun has a strong tie to the Republican party, who do not act in a very conservative manner, which is to say your descriptions of libertarianism and conservativism. If my statement is to be contested as false, then why does the Republican Party really give two ***** about whether or not two men want to have a civil union and call it a marriage? Many Republicans would call themselves "conservatives" but it doesn't seem to match up with your definitions. Either that or they're not playing the part very well.
- hisXenocide, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I'm a libertarian but this is the first time I've heard of a market police force. I see many problems with the idea.
A government without a way to enforce its laws would have no power.
who would make sure that the police force didnt' abuse its powers.
poor areas would be ignored by the police.
Maybe I misunderstand. do you mean a police for hire? - GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14He thinks we will still allow corporations to be treated as individuals should Libertarians gain power.
Basically he has taken the current situation and extrapolated what it would look like if you implemented a tiny subset of Libertarian beliefs while ignoring the others. - EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I don't see how you got from "freedom of the individual" to "corporations rule us all".
- toogle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13I agree with everything you have said expect for your blurb about contracts. Conning someone is not something that Libertarians agree with, in fact they are very much opposed to it. Assuming that both parties were fully informed and in sound mind, if someone is stupid enough to say sign over $20000 for a pencil, then 1) he's an idiot and 2) the unbalanced nature of the agreement would warrant investigation, but if that is what he really wants to do, then by all means let him do it. To take a case from Boston Legal, if someone wanted to donate a certain body part/organ to someone upon his death then let him, it is his to give.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Most market failures come about because of fractional reserve banking which most Libertarians recognise as counterfeiting and embezzlement. It is a misappropriation of a persons property that would be illegal in a Libertarian system. A specie backed currency would be less linked to the welfare of the banks in such a circumstance and the threat of a bank run would likely be enough to keep private banks in line.
As for collective action problems. If something is useful it has a value. If it has value it could make a profit. It it can make profit then someone will fill the need. Give me an example of collective action problems that would occur under a Libertarian system. - eichenlaub, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I've been a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party for years, and I can't believe the ignorance being displayed here on Digg. Just as every Democrat doesn't wish to hand over our private businesses to the State for rigid social control, not every Libertarian wants anything near anarchy. There are moderates and ideologues for each and every political inclination out there. I happen to be pretty moderate. Considering what I've been reading, I'm going to assume that the douchebags who've posted here also believe that every liberal cheered on 9-11 in an America-hating frenzie, and every conservative out there throws a party whenever a baby dies in Iraq. Since it's obvious to me that most of the posters here believe everyone, everywhere is a raving fanatic.
- happytron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Only so they can vote in the primaries...
- tehnico, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10What does it mean? It means that my rights end when my fist reaches your face. In other words, so long as I am not harming you, leave me the ***** alone.
- positron, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13I get sick and tired of seeing people spout off about how libertarians love corporations. That's absolute *****. Libertarians DESPISE corporations because they are government sponsored entities which have artificially been given the rights of personhood and their owners are allowed to take no responsibility for their company's actions.
- sharpfork, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13I'm surprised she didn't post the exact same long assed troll comment about liberals and the roman empire as she did like 10 other times... http://digg.com/users/TruthLady
- lohphat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"whereas conservatives try to keep government out of the lives of the people."
Tell that to people of the same sex who want to get married. - AbsurdParadox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12How can you say that? Libertarians believe in exerting no force on others. What could be more moral?
- alvinrod, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13What exactly do we "need" a large federal government for in your opinion? The Federal government, over the last several decades has created problems resulting in several undeclared wars resulting in great expense to the citizens of this country. I think that for a Federal government to govern best it is necessary to strip it of the ability to create and cause such problems. In other words, to withhold the ability to govern in several areas.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Yeah Libertarians are simultaneously to the right of conservatives and to the left of liberals.
- govsucks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Right on! Never seen walmart put a gun to someones head and force them to use resources to buy something. For instance, I don't want to participate in Social Security, to me, its a pyramid scheme with a negative return. But do I have a CHOICE? Am I FREE to decide how MY retirement is planned? Oh no, I am forced to purchase. SS provides less return than ANY private retirement plan in the market, in other words, you would be better of going with ANY private option rather than SS, but we can't can we fellow slaves and cattle?
- anarchytv, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14I'm a hardcore anarchist, probably one of the hardest core, and there is nothing dangerous or chaotic about anarchy. In fact, I'm a whirlwind when it comes to cleaning, I create order on a massive scale. My house, my cars, my yard, my computer files, my world is incredibly clean and ordered and beautiful and peaceful. I don't even think about it, I just do it, in every second of every moment of my life. In fact, I'm cleaning a crackhouse right now, which a disaster on the most unimaginable scale, and I'm about half way through. The contrast is amazing... The half I've done so far looks like a palace... the half that's still left that I have to go, looks like a nightmare of the trashiest sort.
You give me 4 years driving your country, I'd whip out my mexican cleaning lady skillz so fast and reset everything thats screwed up, the U.S. would experience a second Rennaisance. The military budget would get slashed to the bone. All that money formerly wasted would be pumped into the country. U.S. reputations abroad would be repaired. Mandatory minimums would be on the chopping block and crimes of non repeat non violent offenders more easily forgiven. Drugs would be legal, but come with severe warnings attached. Health care would be socialized, including treatment for drug users. The debt would start getting paid off. Investment would be put into research to compete with other countries. Sanity and rationality and common sense would prevail. And so on... just as soon as I got done kicking Congresses butt..
Now that I've said that, let me switch back into Anarchist mode. Laws are not order. A justice system has nothing to do with justice. And your Consitution was written by dead men long since gone... there's not a damn thing holy about it. I didn't vote on it, you didn't vote on it, nobody alive today voted on it. It is a contract without your signature, or anybody's signature on it breathing, and its null and void. I didn't agree to be part of any 'country', I don't recognize any artificial lines in the dirt, and you're enemies are not my enemies just because someone tells me so.
I want to remind everybody of one thing everyone seems to have completely forgotten. Your original founders of your Constitution and country, were hardcore into sedition and revolution. They were criminals and lawbreakers and insurgents on a scale you can't phathom today. Every one of them flipped off johnny law, the police, the taxmen, and the military of England. They took potshots at the military and the police, and tarred and feathered the taxmen when they came to their doors. Literally. They poured tar on him and dumped feathers on him and ran him out of town. Do you have the balls to do that to an IRS man? Right now after all the taxes you pay are added up, you pay roughly 40% of your income one way or another in taxes... mainly for 'protection money' which goes to the parasitic military... the original pioneers would of never stood for that, ever. - BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I accidently gave this person's comment a digg. Can someone help me fix this?
- EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11"Educated people tend not to like Libertarians" - fallacy.
"if you believe in it, you're a sap" - fallacy.
Therefore I will address the only legitimate statement you made, which was the example of the fire department. To counter your statement about the fire departments "squabbling" about who will pay, I bring up the current-day ambulance industry which is successfully privatized without people "squabbling". - JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The Roman Empire was a very long lived empire, relatively speaking.
- 30thElement, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You're confusing Libertarian and Anarchist. Libertarians do promote minimal government, but that it's only role should be protection of rights. If you eliminate all the excess in our government, such as victimless crimes and welfare programs, you would have a libertarian government. Libertarians would have child labor laws, they would have enforcement of contracts, and they would have laws. But of course, Libertarian does not mean one can't be liberal or conservative. If you asked a conservative libertarian, maybe they would give you a different answer on what would be kept, but it fits the ideology.
- Beakerz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I am Libertarian and am registered as Republican. And the only thing that Libertarians have in common with Republicans is that they want a free market but MUCH less government intervention on ALL things. I like to think that Libertarians take the best half of both main parties, put them together and then take the ideas slightly more extreme for most cases. Much as jmpeagle said of social issues.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9>>>"No Libertarian has ever come up with a convincing riposte to these basic economic truths."
Really, I'm on a coffee break, let me give it a go....
CORPORATE PERSONHOOD - YOU REMOVE IT.
There, done! That way you can regulate business which would otherwise force its consequences on another without encroaching on anybody's rights.
Nowhere is it written and conceived that a libertarian cannot have regulations but that those regulations should not be forced on another. Stop affording corporations and commerce human rights and you can legislate away without encroaching on any body's rights. Libertarianism does not necessarily exclude regulation - especially those that would prevent oppression of others - economic reform. Controlling the impact of big business without introducing subsidy or contract. There would be no need for any regulation on a business that did not force its consequences to be felt by others.
A libertarian's business may be affected but then he has chosen to that line of business. Libertarians drive on the correct side of the road. They have not had their right to drive on the wrong side infringed up on. As an individual they accept a regulation when they get in a car, they accept another by keeping to the speed limit - none of which infringes on their rights because they didn't have to drive - it was their individual choice to do so.
The term social contract is often banded about without people truly realising what it is - but this is it in the purest Lockean sense. It does not infringe on rights and it does not rule out any seemingly opposed Rousseau libertarian traits. - GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Very true. It's worth noting that people die in a statist society, there is pain in a statist society and there is suffering in a statist society. The real difference is in a free society there is at least freedom and we won't lie to you that there will be some problems. The real difference is propaganda, the state says 'everything will be alright' and people believe it in spite of the evidence all around them and the weight of history.
- AbsurdParadox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8If you're interested in the basic concepts of liberty and freedom, check out http://www.libertyradiounderground.com for a nice primer. Short sub-10 minute concise episodes to listen to. No, I'm not affiliated with that site. Nor would I want to be with its 1993 layout. The mp3s are worth averting your eyes, though.
- patch6, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Corporate personhood doesn't have to exist; in fact, it should be abolished. It grants corporations more rights than living citizens for no good reason.
There's nothing "libertarian" about advocating governmental collusion with business, beyond preventing fraud and coercion. - NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11TruthLady... Libertarianism does not equal anarchism... -_-
And there is such a thing as a Libertarian Republican, or any number of combinations lol... - GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9It doesn't require regulation as such. Simple class action suits will keep both in line. What we need is to remove the protections given to corporations to minimise the amount of damage done to them, and their owners, by the force of legal action.
People forget that capitalism would work a bit differently as well under Libertarianism. Corporatism as a firewall certainly would not be allowed. A person is made ultimately responsible for their own property, whether that is a car, gun or a corporation.
In any case. With GW there would eventually be some sort of ruling that pollution is a coercive assault on the property of others and respective compensation would have to be paid to offset that. How the exact break down of this would happen is open to debate, maybe it would be a necessary evil to involve government (after all, this is an issue of defending property rights and that is one area government is likely necessary) but we should at least try other alternatives first. The problem is no one has tried anything. - hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7No, thats what I tell myself it is. Thats what I want to tell these agencies. Basically what Ron Paul would do when he shuts down the CIA/FBI and the other alphabet terror agencies.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Not every Libertarian believes the police should be done via the market. Also government failure is a far bigger problem than market failure ever will be.
This isn't an argument against Libertarianism en block. It is an argument against Anarcho-Capitalism. - hisXenocide, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I won't digg you down. promise. but you misunderstand libertarianism. no one has the right to go and shoot 100 people at the mall. not even in a libertarian society. Secondly I don't see why the world shouldn't be "every man for himself". maybe I'm just selfish but I want to keep the money that I work for. I shouldn't have to give it to some bum on the street. And if under a libertarian society you felt inclined to donate half your salary to help the poor you are more than welcome too. And I'm only slightly being sarcastic. funding for social causes should come from donations and not be mandatory. I'm guessing that most people wouldn't donate anything significant. Its silly and hypocritical to want an entire nation to fund social projects yet not voluntarily give. If I'm wrong and everyone does donate than we are no worse off than before.
- almiteycow, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Heh. A hardcore anarchist that wants to give us socialized health care. Interesting. You seem to have somewhat done some research, but I'll be impressed if you're over 25. I've only met a couple of anarchists that truly understood what they were saying, believed it, and were beyond the whole "Anarchy in the UK" teen angst thing. There's a chance I may be pleasantly surprised here, so don't assume I'm bashing you.
- Tiak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I'm sure it had nothing to do with being F'ing invaded by several different groups at once....
- hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6A lot of libertarians just don't want to see their tax dollars spent funding the war on drugs, which is 100% out-of-line with the principles of a libertarian. The war on drugs is as much a failure as prohibition, it wastes billions of dollars every year, it's been around for decades without showing any signs of achieving its goals, it infringes on a citizen's right and responsibility to choose what they put in their own body, it violates a citizen's constitutional rights protecting them against unreasonable search and seizure of property, and it violates the 9th and 10th amendments in that it gives this power of "drug-control" to the federal government, when the constitution clearly states this is a states' rights issue.
- almiteycow, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Without government regulation, there's no such thing as a corporation. Business owners themselves would take responsibility for their business actions, through market process. Without government meddling in business, telecom monopolies, auto industry subsidies, import tariffs prohibiting imports of superior or cheaper goods are gone, the megacorp as you know it wouldn't be able to lobby anyone to force their business practices on consumers, and consumers would be free to switch to a favorable alternative.
- oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Thats just not true. I don't know how many libertarians you know or have talked with or whose works you have read, but that's a blatant misrepresentation. Nearly all american libertarians believe in "limited, constitutional government".
- OnlyShawn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6you're oversimplifying. just as a libertarian need not be an anarchist, a conservative need not be a fascist, and a liberal need not be a socialist.
there are extremes, and in your effort to discredit everyone, you've pushed them all to the extreme. - 0xception, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The Middle Way:
"Monks, these two extremes ought not to be practiced by one who has gone forth from the household life. (What are the two?) There is addiction to indulgence of sense-pleasures, which is low, coarse, the way of ordinary people, unworthy, and unprofitable; and there is addiction to self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy, and unprofitable."
-- Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (words of the buddha) or so says Wikipedia ;) - almiteycow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Why wouldn't families care for these people? Doctors would still exist, cures could be found without the government banning important research. No one's stopping charity. You can still help less fortunate people. Without a safety net, you could more easily see who needs to receive help as well, and you could easily just help them or give directly to them, big corporate "non-profit" entities would be a thing of the past.
If you don't want to do business with people you're prejudiced against, that's fine. Remember though, your neighbor might, and he just happens to be in the same business, and he's producing goods cheaper than you since he will make deals with them. All of a sudden, you're losing money due to your prejudice. If you're the person being discriminated against, no one should be able to stop you from leaving to seek a better lifestyle. - lnf69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Hi There,
I dugg down the "hide from the" Truthlady for you. -
Show 51 - 100 of 285 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is