• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Libertarians On the Rise

RJKarl said:
Rand Paul's version of Libertarianism includes gutting the Civil Rights Act. Many other "libertarians" use this philosophy to justify bigotry against people of color, gay people and immigrants as being party of their "liberty" and "freedom".

It's a catchall philosophy that can be perverted very easily.
Click to expand...

No fair, this post is a winner on any "Lib Knee-jerk Objections to Ideas They Didn't Think Of" Bingo card ever printed. Don't spoil the game, Karl.
 
PhDeac said:
So if Libertarians don't agree at all about the role of government, why should we expect them to organize to run for political office and govern effectively once they get there. The Constitution is a good start. We also have 225 years of amendments to the Constitution and evidence of government working under that Constitution to work from in forming a basically philosophy.
Click to expand...

We also have plenty of evidence of government failing miserably under the same structure. People concerned about all of our unfunded, impossible promises and $17T of debt understand the reasons to try new things.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Balance budget, tax in accordance with our needs, spending in accordance with our receipts. Things adults do with real money.
Click to expand...

and a balanced budget is somehow a "libertarian" virtue?

i'm genuinely interested in actual ideas that will improve our country and protect the rights we all enjoy. RJ's 'knee jerk' point is true; libertairans often talk of dismantling the protections of the big, bad "nanny state". I don't see how those laws fit into the philosophy
 
I'm willing to bet that the majority of posters here haven't been on any given website.
 
Shorty said:
I'm willing to bet that the majority of posters here have never been on the libertarian party website. If you want to know what libertarians think is the proper role of government:

http://www.lp.org/platform
Click to expand...

I see a lot of what government shouldn't do and very little of the proper role of government aside from national defense.

This bit is curious:
"No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government."

Explain how that is enforced. How would a Libertarian government prevent someone who initiate force against another? How would they stop someone from infringing on someone else's rights?
 
Shorty said:
I'm willing to bet that the majority of posters here have never been on the libertarian party website. If you want to know what libertarians think is the proper role of government:

http://www.lp.org/platform
Click to expand...

It's a ridiculous platform that cannot exist in a modern, industrialized/information society.

Their self-defense is ludicrous. It would allow felons, crazy people and anyone else to own machine guns and all other weapons. It would ban any regulations on firearms. That is a great way to create more killings and crime.

Their concept that eminent domain cannot exist would have stopped our economy's greatest expansions including things like the interstate highway system.

As conservation, go to the Texas border. Look at the Mexican side. Go to South America, Africa, India and other places to see what happens when "the market" determines safety measures for water, air and land.

To show how ludicrous their position on energy is, go to WV or other places where strip mining has happened. Without government regulation, oil spills would simply be "a cost of doing business".

Abolishing the IRS and not having anything in its place ensures we have no national defense or any infrastructure.

It's useless to continue. Their platform is insane and has no chance of ever succeeding in the modern world.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
and a balanced budget is somehow a "libertarian" virtue?

i'm genuinely interested in actual ideas that will improve our country and protect the rights we all enjoy. RJ's 'knee jerk' point is true; libertairans often talk of dismantling the protections of the big, bad "nanny state". I don't see how those laws fit into the philosophy
Click to expand...

Requiring a government that doesn't need an unbalanced budget certainly is, so by the only logical extension, yes.

If not, then you're not giving those ideas a fair hearing.

Our original constitution was much more line with libertarian thinking that what either party would foist upon us today without the other serving as a check.
 
PhDeac said:
I see a lot of what government shouldn't do and very little of the proper role of government aside from national defense.

This bit is curious:
"No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government."

Explain how that is enforced. How would a Libertarian government prevent someone who initiate force against another? How would they stop someone from infringing on someone else's rights?
Click to expand...

There is a very complicated analysis in Libertarian ideology behind the word "initiate". That word packs a big punch in the sentence quoted. It's all about figuring out who the first person was to initiate force, because that then justifies a forceful response, so the person or group responding is OK but not the initiator. When you really get into it, though, it's turtles all the way down.

I am sympathetic with a lot of Libertarian ideas but that particular ideology doesn't work for me. At some point, there has to be a government with a monopoly on the lawful use of force and rules on when private citizens can justifiably use force. The pure Libertarians hate that idea and are forced into all kinds of mental gymnastics to get around it.
 
Deacon923 said:
There is a very complicated analysis in Libertarian ideology behind the word "initiate". That word packs a big punch in the sentence quoted. It's all about figuring out who the first person was to initiate force, because that then justifies a forceful response, so the person or group responding is OK but not the initiator. When you really get into it, though, it's turtles all the way down.

I am sympathetic with a lot of Libertarian ideas but that particular ideology doesn't work for me. At some point, there has to be a government with a monopoly on the lawful use of force and rules on when private citizens can justifiably use force. The pure Libertarians hate that idea and are forced into all kinds of mental gymnastics to get around it.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing most people are attracted to Libertarianism as a reaction to the nanny state we can't afford over an affirmative preference for unregulated force. That's my hunch, anyway.
 
923, it goes way, way, way beyond that. It's platform cannot exist in a modern economy.
 
"Nanny state" is a term used to deride the role of government in protecting the rights of people who don't have the means or resources to defend themselves.

Libertarians and many conservatives willingly ignore how people pursue their own rights while infringing on the rights of others.

The concept of equal rights means nothing without a way to enforce them. Otherwise rights will be trampled as people pursue their own self-interests.

The platform posted above talks about what government shouldn't do but says little about how private citizens shouldn't do those things as well. What can I do in a Libertarian society if a large corporation takes over my property?
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
"Nanny state" is a term used to deride the role of government in protecting the rights of people who don't have the means or resources to defend themselves.

Libertarians and many conservatives willingly ignore how people pursue their own rights while infringing on the rights of others.

The concept of equal rights means nothing without a way to enforce them. Otherwise rights will be trampled as people pursue their own self-interests.

The platform posted above talks about what government shouldn't do but says little about how private citizens shouldn't do those things as well. What can I do in a Libertarian society if a large corporation takes over my property?
Click to expand...

How do you propose the large corporation would just step in and take over your property in a Libertarian society?
 
PhDeac said:
"Nanny state" is a term used to deride the role of government in protecting the rights of people who don't have the means or resources to defend themselves.

The platform posted above talks about what government shouldn't do but says little about how private citizens shouldn't do those things as well. What can I do in a Libertarian society if a large corporation takes over my property?
Click to expand...
It's not a platform, it's a statement of principles which in part form a platform (along with other policy positions). I certainly wish Dems and Reps had such statements of principle, because it's really hard to tell what those are. What does the Constitution say if a large corporation "takes over your property", whatever that actually means?

The "Nanny State" policies are not needed to protect the rights of people who don't have the means or resources to defend themselves, are they? One doesn't have to spend lots and lots of money to do that. "Nanny State" policies promote a postmodern Liberal view of fairness IMO. The principle seems to be all about equality of material gain, not equality of opportunity which formed the original set of New Deal policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top