Libertarianism, a discussion.

edited 10th Jan '13 8:45:48 AM by JosefBugman

What philosophy?

Lulz, libertarianism is taking over - first this wiki then THE WORLD!

edited 10th Jan '13 9:06:14 AM by JosefBugman

He Who Fights Monsters ?

It would be a rare positive example

edited 10th Jan '13 9:09:12 AM by JosefBugman

Left or right libertarianism? If left, does this include anarcho-communism or only free market socialisms? If right, minarchist, anarcho-capitalist, or moderate libertarianism? Deontological or consequentialist libertarianism? And so on. Specify. It's a very broad umbrella term.

edited 29th May '11 4:19:05 PM by LoveHappiness

edited 10th Jan '13 9:12:18 AM by JosefBugman

I think that people who completely understand the goals of Libertarianism, and agree with them, are harbingers of doom.

The libertarian argument might get repetitive, because it's sort of simple.

Still, if a hundred threads spring up that are relative to, say, gun control or drug prohibition, there's no reason for the libertarian argument against those to be considered off-topic.

I'm more of a social issues libertarian. On economic issues, I'm actually rather socialist. Still, I don't trust statist solutions: They're paternalistic, patronizing, and encourage dependence from the same guys that own the jack-booted thugs.

I'm all for revolutionary trade unionism, up to and including the seizure of whole industries by the collective of their workers. I'm a big supporter of the right to unionize and strike, and exercising full personal freedom without being subjected to employer retaliation. The State it's not the solution, it's the problem.

Strike at the root: There are coercive institutions that preserve inequality; namely, the State. With it gone, there's no institution capable of enforcing income inequality, or guaranteeing that the burgeoisie retains the means of production.

edited 29th May '11 4:35:50 PM by SavageHeathen

edited 10th Jan '13 9:14:41 AM by JosefBugman

Who? Am I included?

Its, I think, nzm, savage heathen, major tom, deuxhero, maybe a few others.

Well I'm a libertarian socialist... Anyone care to discuss that?

I think we've got more than one philosophy at work here. Major Tom has little in common with Savage Heathen.

edited 29th May '11 4:53:15 PM by feotakahari

Major Tom is highly plutocratic, while Savage Heathen is violently anti-capitalist. So yeah...

edited 29th May '11 4:55:34 PM by LoveHappiness

my mistake. I was listing people who were sort of similar.

The similarity (on this society, an important one) is people going about their business without infringing on the rights of anybody else should be left the Hell alone by the government and its thugs.

Everything else differs on the libertarian/anarchist spectrum.

^ People don't live in a vacuum. My aunt suffers from at least three different mental disorders that have severely impaired her quality of life. She will never voluntarily get help for these disorders, since any time anyone tries to convince her to do so, she believes they must be plotting against her. One person after another has tried to help her, only to discover that she's beyond any aid that they can provide, and that all they've done is waste their time and money. None of these people have been forced into helping her, so it seems that the Libertarian approach would be to leave her to mire in her own mental decay. (Granted, I don't know what can be done for her, but I don't want to simply abandon her.)

edited 29th May '11 5:56:30 PM by feotakahari

Using force on people that just want to be left alone For Their Own Good is ethically questionable.

There is no easy solution to the problem. Crazy or not crazy, your aunt owns herself and is entitled to be left alone if she so chooses.

There are two things that could be done without violating her right to liberty: First, if she receives some sort of assistance, it might be made conditional on receiving some counseling. If she is able to live without assistance, she is competent enough to run her life, even if she chooses to do things that are harmful.

Second: If she gets in trouble and violates the rights of somebody else, she could be found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity and be given the choice to serve her sentence or receive counseling.

The doom that I see in Libertarianism is the result of combining privatization, deregulation, and the repealing of civil rights laws.

Protip: Not all Libertarians are like Ron Paul. I, for one, think he's a douchebag. I'm pretty libertarian but I believe that all people are entitled to basic public rights which no state can take away. Libertarians favor the freedom of the individual as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. That's why Jim Crow laws and the people who defend them are not consistent with libertarianism AT ALL.

I guess my issue here is two-part: first, I've never heard a good argument for consequentialist libertarianism, and second, I can't believe in deontological libertarianism since I'm a Utilitarian and I don't use deontological ethics.

edited 29th May '11 11:23:29 PM by feotakahari

If you haven't heard a good argument for consequentialist libertarianism, I recommend reading Hayek and other Austrian school philosophers. Also, history seems to validate free market more than socialism but that's a bit YMMV