Finally a place for INGO libertarians

[Libertarian01]

To All,

On a serious note, it is my opinion that we should always strive for a better world, a better government, a better way of life - knowing that in our quest the holy grail will NEVER be found.

Perhaps God or the Devil are "pure", but as for the rest of mere mortals impurity is as regular as the setting sun. There are parts of every -ism, whether it is capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism that are good, and another part that are bad. Which are good and which are bad? Well, that my friends, depends upon your point of view. And therein lies the trouble with trying to make anyplace "pure."

History has shown us that extremely well meaning people of a like mind can work together without need for many rules, for a time. Throughout the history of the United States groups have tried, for a time been successful, then faded away for various reasons. One need only look at Pullman's town, the Harmony Society, or Brookfarm to see that as groups of humans may agree today, over the years people change. Our thoughts and viewpoints evolve and expand, and then we have less in common with ourselves from 10, 20, or 30 years ago than some may want to admit.

This Liberland won't allow formerly convicted criminals to become citizens. Why not? After all, I am willing to bet a good beer or three that many convicted criminals were convicted of breaking laws that these "Libertarians" don't believe should exist in the first place! How is it just or fair to say that while we don't believe the personal use of drugs should be a crime, yet if you were convicted of this in the past you can't join our club? This logic eludes me.

Actually, it doesn't. This is probably their attempt at being pragmatic while in reality they achieve only hypocrisy. Not that there is anything completely wrong with hypocrisy mind you, we are all likely hypocrites on some issue or another.

That there are people out there striving to find a better way, a more efficient way, a less intrusive way of governing themselves and each other should be praised. If, however, they are deluded in thinking any any one, pure system will work in every situation all the time, mockery can be a gentle way of pointing out that there is no singular, perfect solution to every problem.

Of course, that is just my opinion.

Regards,

Doug

 

[rhino]

Why do you all hate liberty?

 

[jamil]

Why do you all hate liberty?

Why do you post so tiny? I couldn't read it on my phone with my bifocals. Had to expand so I could see. The problem with that is it takes both hands.








Hey. It's not what you're thinking. I'm having breakfast and had to put the spoon down.

 

[KG1]

Well this thread has sure gone to crap. I saw the article and recalled people always saying things about the INGOtarians, figured it would be funny to post that the libertarians are forming a country. I was going to put it in the breakroom but the "no politics" thing applied. This was meant to be a light-hearted discussion of forming a new country. Yeesh.


leeson learned.

Hey, lightheartedness has no place in the GP sub forum.

 

[jamil]

Most people are not equipped to accurately or effectively mock or ridicule anyone who falls outside the limits of the typical left/right political designation

Yet they try ...oh do some of them try!

I guess the question is why?

Must be envy, I suppose. No rational reasons come to mind.

It makes me wonder if that's just a common symptom of being ruled... hmm...

C'mon, ATM, your imagination must be better than that. I'll give you a hint. It's not envy.

Well this thread has sure gone to crap. I saw the article and recalled people always saying things about the INGOtarians, figured it would be funny to post that the libertarians are forming a country. I was going to put it in the breakroom but the "no politics" thing applied. This was meant to be a light-hearted discussion of forming a new country. Yeesh.


leeson learned.

I have no idea who leeson is. I have a feeling he is very learned.

Is THAT lighthearted enough. Man I dunno. I've been having a LOT of fun with this thread. And I am taking it very lighthearted. I thank you for posting it. I hope the fun doesn't end.

Heck, we might even get ram to tell a joke.

C'mon, ram, I dare you. Tell a "statist" joke. You guys must have them. There must be a million variations on, "how many statists does it take to screw in a light bulb?"

BTW, I have an answer for that.

Hey, lightheartedness has no place in the GP sub forum.

I'm trying. Really.

 

[dusty88]

. To me, it's probably the absolute language that I find obnoxious. I think libertarians tend to think speaking in absolutes makes them consistent, and it does, but not in the way they think it does.

It's obnoxious to prioritize personal liberty? If you see it as simple language or philosophy, I suppose it is.

This is a wonderful piece of irony. You say confirmation bias is why the petty unenlightened people might disagree with the perfection that is libertarianism. I just find that delightfully entertaining.

Yup, there it is again. If libertarianism wouldn't produce utopia, then it must be invalid as a standard to hold government to.

Libertarianism will not rid the world of evil, disease, poverty, etc.

However, I'd like you to give me an example of when violating the standards of protecting life, liberty, and property is a beneficial way for government to be allowed to behave.

It is that absolutist thinking and language that you tend to use.

I don't know if we are thinking about the same examples. But in the examples I can think of, one leaves the standard of personal liberty when it seems more "practical" to them or when that particular liberty doesn't apply to what they grew up with.

Sometimes, it's just a question of context. Because we already have laws A, B, and C we then want to apply laws X, Y, Z in an attempt to minimize the damage of A B and C. That's OK, but it's important to discuss and understand that it's really the ABC laws that are causing most of the problem (not natural market forces) because government is ever-changing, usually ever-growing and this particular government won't last forever.

That may be what you call "binary thinking". I think it's a necessary analysis because I've found that the standard of personal liberty are the only ethical way to support laws that govern. They require a person to respect other viewpoints outside of their own social and familiar circles. And it turns out they are also practically the most effective limits for the long term.

 

[ATM]

C'mon, ATM, your imagination must be better than that. I'll give you a hint. It's not envy.

I'm going to need better hints from the 'statist quo', then. Are they purposely attempting to disguise their underlying disdain by employing what appear to be primarily emotional self-defense mechanisms so that rational people will arrive at wrong conclusions?

Are they only pretending to not understand libertarian thought, preferring for the most part to attack only adherents as they so commonly must do within the left/right politics of the state?

heh. Fooled me! Clever tactic! However, I still can't fathom why, and that disturbs me. Envy satisfied the why.

I have much to discover yet bout these anti-liberty folk and their motives...

 

[jamil]

I'm going to need better hints from the 'statist quo', then. Are they purposely attempting to disguise their underlying disdain by employing what appear to be primarily emotional self-defense mechanisms so that rational people will arrive at wrong conclusions?

Are they only pretending to not understand libertarian thought, preferring for the most part to attack only adherents as they so commonly must do within the left/right politics of the state?

heh. Fooled me! Clever tactic! However, I still can't fathom why, and that disturbs me. Envy satisfied the why.

I have much to discover yet bout these anti-liberty folk and their motives...

I'm guessing you were born libertarian then and have never experienced life as a mere mortal.

 

[D-Ric902]

 

[BogWalker]

Let's say that it goes over well and they become a small and fairly well off nation. Now, fast forward a few generations. In any free market situation, you're going to have some poor people. That's an inevitability, and it always has been. Now, let's say those poor decide to vote in candidates that support a welfare program.

Now what? Does Liberland allow political change that would be contrary to their belief system, or do they start deportations and arrest of the "anti-liberty" traitors? A choice between losing the very purpose of their nation, or allowing personal freedom enough to vote for candidates that do violate that purpose. Would Liberland value self-preservation or stick to the ideology of free speech and democratic elections? Some on these boards have suggested that candidates attempting "anti-freedom" legislation should be arrested for it, but that doesn't seem very democratic or free to me.

Or do we just assume that this will never happen because by some magic of Libertarian thought nobody would ever commit such thoughtcrime in the glorious nation?

 

[jamil]

Presumably there would be some kind of constitution that prohibits "statism".

 

[SirRealism]

It hurts to find out I'm obnoxious. :sadface:

 

[rhino]

I'm proud to be obnoxious and recognized for my efforts! You don't get this way in just 50 years without a lot of work.

I think we need to find something to unite Libertarians, libertarians, classical liberals, conservatarians, genuine conservatives, and regular people.

We do all have a common enemy (the real socialist-statists/progressives) and regardless of the difference in the minutiae of their respective socio-political worldviews, they always seem to band together to get things done. They seem to bond over common themes of spending someone else's money, emotion over reason, envy, instigating class warfare, wealth dispersal for other people, elimination of personal responsibility and accountability, perpetuating genuine racism while branding all who disagree with their agenda "racists," ends always justifying the means regardless of the costs, and the eradication of the individual.

 

[KG1]

I'm proud to be obnoxious and recognized for my efforts! You don't get this way in just 50 years without a lot of work.

I think we need to find something to unite Libertarians, libertarians, classical liberals, conservatarians, genuine conservatives, and regular people.

We do all have a common enemy (the real socialist-statists/progressives) and regardless of the difference in the minutiae of their respective socio-political worldviews, they always seem to band together to get things done. They seem to bond over common themes of spending someone else's money, emotion over reason, envy, instigating class warfare, wealth dispersal for other people, elimination of personal responsibility and accountability, perpetuating genuine racism while branding all who disagree with their agenda "racists," ends always justifying the means regardless of the costs, and the eradication of the individual.

I think it would behoove many of us to focus on the things that we have in common.

 

[cce1302]

Notice the maligned promised "utopia" is only promised by the anti-libertarian crowd...

 

[Woobie]

Let's say that it goes over well and they become a small and fairly well off nation. Now, fast forward a few generations. In any free market situation, you're going to have some poor people. That's an inevitability, and it always has been. Now, let's say those poor decide to vote in candidates that support a welfare program.

Now what? Does Liberland allow political change that would be contrary to their belief system, or do they start deportations and arrest of the "anti-liberty" traitors? A choice between losing the very purpose of their nation, or allowing personal freedom enough to vote for candidates that do violate that purpose. Would Liberland value self-preservation or stick to the ideology of free speech and democratic elections? Some on these boards have suggested that candidates attempting "anti-freedom" legislation should be arrested for it, but that doesn't seem very democratic or free to me.

Or do we just assume that this will never happen because by some magic of Libertarian thought nobody would ever commit such thoughtcrime in the glorious nation?

Well, first of all, in a true free market society, I doubt you'll have enough poor to vote in those types of politicians anyway. I'm always amused at this argument that you have to use force to preserve a free society. I understand you've always lived in a society like that (America) and that's all you understand, but that's really just being purposefully unimaginative in order to malign what you don't understand. The Catholic Church killed a lot of round earth types too.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

To All,

Moving someplace where the majority of people agree with me would be boring! I much prefer a good, well-mannered debate to a church choir that sings only to itself.

Besides, there is much work to do out here in the real world to ever consider moving to Utopia.

Regards,

Doug

Don't know if I'm playing "Devil's Advocate" or just making a life observation: I doubt that even a place like that envisioned by the folks in the OP would be like "singing to the choir" all the time. Freedom of thought brings with it all sorts of nuance, wouldn't you agree? If anything, disputes about where my nose begins and where your fist ends would be lively enough in that sort of society. And really: "First World problems" as opposed to real life-threatening problems between folks.

 

[BogWalker]

Well, first of all, in a true free market society, I doubt you'll have enough poor to vote in those types of politicians anyway. I'm always amused at this argument that you have to use force to preserve a free society. I understand you've always lived in a society like that (America) and that's all you understand, but that's really just being purposefully unimaginative in order to malign what you don't understand. The Catholic Church killed a lot of round earth types too.

I see you missed freshman US history...

 

[Woobie]

I see you missed freshman US history...

Lol, personal attacks. Nice. The last resort of a lost argument. The U.S. was not a free market for very long. We had our poor early on, but one could attribute almost all of those to many other factors. They were in fact numerous enough to rid us of our free market. There was also a lot of government experimentation with banking policy at the time, hardly a formula for a real free market. But if you don't like the idea of free markets, give socialism a shot, or maybe communism, or hey, how about fascism!

 

[BogWalker]

Lol, personal attacks. Nice. The last resort of a lost argument. The U.S. was not a free market for very long. We had our poor early on, but one could attribute almost all of those to many other factors. They were in fact numerous enough to rid us of our free market. There was also a lot of government experimentation with banking policy at the time, hardly a formula for a real free market. But if you don't like the idea of free markets, give socialism a shot, or maybe communism, or hey, how about fascism!

So you admit that the free market collapsed due to the numbers of poor. Of course you say that they were poor because of other reasons. I'll say that's true. We had massive amounts of poor coming in from other nations. A truly Libertarian society (in the theory of several members here) believes highly in the ability of people to move freely between nations, however, so it's not like that's going to go away.

So, when that happens to Liberland, what's the solution?

Hey, I hope Liberland happens though. The society they've dreamt up has never successfully existed. I want to see what happens when sheer idealism meets the real world. Almost makes me think of Communists discussing the benefits of Communism. Oh, how great they say it will be, and how they'll correct all the flaws of the other failed Communist regimes! The difference is Libertarianism hasn't actually been tested as a form of government.

(No, I don't think Libertarianism and Communism are the same thing. I'm comparing the idealism of the two groups.)