Finally a place for INGO libertarians

[MisterChester]

Here? Yes, I'll lampoon the statists, it's entertainment which is what most of INGO wants.

If INGO wants more, there are better threads, better resources.

Your illogical fool's errand is not adequate bait here, at least not for me. I hate typing.

The founders knew what would cause this failure and set the means in motion. They've been proven correct... again ...shocking, I know.

They knew government was evil. Their only mistake was in believing it necessary.

Hence why it is a necessary evil. They were smart men but they weren't infallible. People as a whole cannot be trusted to respect the rights of others. We don't trust our politicians, but there is still a system that at least attempts to protect rights. Many fall through the cracks and push legislation that limits those rights. Sure it can be done better but to leave it to the mob to protect rights and hand out justice is an incredibly bad idea.

 

[dusty88]

I don't think you're a cult. I do think you're part of what is effectively not much more than a club.

When the rhetoric and drink are both flowing really well, I can make a case that we libertarians are pretty much like the Jedi protecting everyone else from the dark side.


You are welcome. Happy to serve.



.... and some days ready to go into exile while the dark side rules.

 

[ATM]

When I called you on your illogical fool's errand, I took your word for it that was not your intent. I'll leave you the option to take my word for it this wasn't mine.

I get it that you hate government. "Government is evil" is an opinion. It is not a fact. That you present it as a given fact indicates to me why you view people who don't hate government as much, or for the same reasons as you, with such contempt. Eh, probably accusing you of being a cult probably doesn't help. Sorry for that. I got carried away. I don't think you're a cult. I do think you're part of what is effectively not much more than a club.

It is a fool's errand to make any attempt at bringing a product to market which most of the populace believe they would despise, that attack the very concept of the product in defense of a notion that what they currently have is, while flawed, absolutely necessary and wholly irreplaceable.

The fact that the "product" is intangible makes things a bit more complicated to explain to materialists. Attempts do exist, for those truly interested, but that would never fly here. Panem et Circenses

I didn't coin the idea that government is evil, of course, nor is it mere opinion; history is replete with evidence. Thomas Paine is attributed with the endearing phrase, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

I do hate evil. It's a rather exclusive club/cult.

My politics do not entail laboring to get non or lesser evil people into evil positions so I am at odds with most people's politics. meh, I will continue to agitate for non-evil.

 

[ATM]

Hence why it is a necessary evil. They were smart men but they weren't infallible. People as a whole cannot be trusted to respect the rights of others. We don't trust our politicians, but there is still a system that at least attempts to protect rights. Many fall through the cracks and push legislation that limits those rights. Sure it can be done better but to leave it to the mob to protect rights and hand out justice is an incredibly bad idea.

You're welcome to try supporting its necessity, but you've made no attempt here. Attempting to do something is not support that the attempted method was necessary, especially when that method fails and becomes the primary mechanism for depredation of the citizens and the greatest threat to the very rights it was erected to protect.

If you think libertarians suggest leaving it to the mob, you should familiarize yourself with their basic philosophies and suggestions on the topic. You've obviously adopted a fallacious straw man.

Here you go: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general-political-discussion/381624-new-liberty.html

 

[jamil]

I didn't use the word fascist earlier by accident. I think that's the best description of our current system.

I'd say a neo-socialist / crony capitalist, populist, oligarchy is how I'd describe it. Oligarchy HAS to be in there somewhere.

You say libertarians would be more effective if they worked from the center. I say we would just be more blissfully ignorant.

There is of course no "perfect" position to work from. You are correct that if someone's only stance was perfection, there would be no usefulness in such a stance.

Now hold on. I specifically did not say that.

I said this:

we can get pragmatic and get a plan to move the hump such that we're in the middle. Notice I didn't advocate YOU moving TO the hump.

 

[jamil]

Its simple math. There are exponentially more statists in politics, and in this country, than there are people who care about liberties. Its easy to pitch greater security, welfare giveaways, and patriotic support of the state. Their argument is heavily emotion-based, which gives them a huge advantage at winning politically.

It's an issue of how tall and wide the bell curve is and how many of what viewpoint are in it. But given people's greed, yes, I think pop culture would tend to gravitate more towards voting for security rather than liberty.

You might as well state the question this way: "How can we reverse a fascist economic system and make it libertarian?"

I'm not aware of any society that has pulled it off peacefully. Are you? Does that invalidate the cause? Should we mock libertarians?

I don't know if fascism is the most descriptive term. It seems it has a different meaning depending on the whim of the source. But I'm okay with restating it your way if it helps clarify meaning.

 

[dusty88]

I don't know if fascism is the most descriptive term. It seems it has a different meaning depending on the whim of the source. But I'm okay with restating it your way if it helps clarify meaning.

Fascism has been twisted and misunderstood to be equivalent to the nazi behavior.

The economic term "fascism" refers to an economy where the resources are largely privately owned, but where the government is closely integrated with and in control of business. As this country largely privatizes profits and socializes losses, I think it's the closest word to describe our economic system.

Definitely agree with the "oligarchy" though as currently being relevant to the power structure.

 

[ATM]

Don't bring economics into a "political" discussion, it's like cheating - not at all fair to the non-libertarians who'd like to keep playing.

 

[jamil]

Fascism has been twisted and misunderstood to be equivalent to the nazi behavior.

The economic term "fascism" refers to an economy where the resources are largely privately owned, but where the government is closely integrated with and in control of business. As this country largely privatizes profits and socializes losses, I think it's the closest word to describe our economic system.

Definitely agree with the "oligarchy" though as currently being relevant to the power structure.

That's how I view fascism, but I'd rather use words how I think people understand them. When I see definitions that start assigning "wings", I just wanna roll my eyes and move on. I wouldn't want people to infer that I mean that a government is left or right wing. That just muddles things more.

 

[rambone]

It's an issue of how tall and wide the bell curve is and how many of what viewpoint are in it. But given people's greed, yes, I think pop culture would tend to gravitate more towards voting for security rather than liberty.

I don't know if fascism is the most descriptive term. It seems it has a different meaning depending on the whim of the source. But I'm okay with restating it your way if it helps clarify meaning.

OK, so I think we both acknowledge that our system is trending towards fascism. And I think we acknowledge that the majority of the people vote for it.

I think we both know that to peacefully reverse the direction of this country would require a fundamental shift in cultural values and education, plus a miracle.

 

[indiucky]

When the rhetoric and drink are both flowing really well, I can make a case that we libertarians are pretty much like the Jedi protecting everyone else from the dark side.


You are welcome. Happy to serve.



.... and some days ready to go into exile while the dark side rules.

^^^^^^^^This is an honest Libertarian.......I always suspected that Libertarians thought of themselves as mythical science fiction knights who protect the rest of us from evil....Now I know it's true....Rep incoming...That had to be embarrassing to admit....When I vote Libertarian I just think of myself as wasting a vote...

Maybe I need to watch "Star Wars" again and dust off my old light saber.....

 

[D-Ric902]

Libertarians are Jedi?

now I know why Jamil fights with then so much (he's Sith you know)

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This is an illustration of why both sides of the abortion argument have merit. It is not logical to allow destruction of a fetus likely old enough to breathe and survive outside the womb, while at the same time charging a woman who would dispose of a newborn baby. (I'm not advocating either; just agreeing with the dichotomy Woobie points out). Woobie is however not being logical to claim a toddler is the same; a toddler is more akin to a disabled person. There ARE biological definitions of survival outside the womb in terms of basic bodily function. Whether or not that individual can obtain its own sustenance and protect itself falls into other definitions of dependence. The more science is able to assist the survival outside of the womb, the harder the question is to answer of when one becomes an "individual". Again, you can present a very valid argument to oppose all abortion. You can present a valid argument to allow a woman to choose the fate of the fetus while it is still within her body. But neither side carries a 100% scientifically valid argument that trumps the other side. It is perhaps why even staunch libertarians disagree on the issue. There is no way, based on current scientific knowledge to have a perfect answer. One could say that this is a rare case where the rights of the fetus might conflict with the rights of the mother. There are a lot of people who oppose abortion but nonetheless think that government regulation of it is not helpful anyway. This is another valid point. All of these views can still exist from people who respect each other's rights and liberty. I would question their logic only if they choose NOT to consider the actual consequences of any laws they support regarding the subject (not just the "intended" consequences). Another area where rights may conflict is in disease management. There is sometimes not a way for science to clearly define the "right" limitation on allowing free travel of a person who carries an infectious disease. The choice of "how" deadly or how contagious the disease is may be somewhat debatable. Yet, these conflicts are very few and can generally be managed in a free society if people respect each other's rights and thought process rather than inserting biases and emotion.

I know you're trying to be reasonable, but - and here's the point - I don't think you can make a reasonable argument for abortion on libertarian "non-aggression" grounds; a baby, whether still in its mommy or not, hasn't harmed anyone and isn't in a position to knowingly harm anyone - even mommy - therefore any attempt to end its life, whether it's "viable" outside mommy or not, is "aggression" against it. And the way abortions are performed on viable babies can't be looked at as anything but "aggression." Having said this, I'll not say anything else on this thread about abortion and its relationship to libertarian principles.

 

[ATM]

I know you're trying to be reasonable, but - and here's the point - I don't think you can make a reasonable argument for abortion on libertarian "non-aggression" grounds; a baby, whether still in its mommy or not, hasn't harmed anyone and isn't in a position to knowingly harm anyone - even mommy - therefore any attempt to end its life, whether it's "viable" outside mommy or not, is "aggression" against it. And the way abortions are performed on viable babies can't be looked at as anything but "aggression." Having said this, I'll not say anything else on this thread about abortion and its relationship to libertarian principles.

There are sound abortion arguments which don't violate the NAP. No human has any right to reside within the property of any other human, their own body. Expulsion, while I would find it immoral, is logically no different than eviction of a tenant from a dwelling you own. It would differ from murder, even if the eviction removes a means of life and death occurs.

There. Done.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There are sound abortion arguments which don't violate the NAP. No human has any right to reside within the property of any other human, their own body. Expulsion, while I would find it immoral, is logically no different than eviction of a tenant from a dwelling you own. It would differ from murder, even if the eviction removes a means of life and death occurs. There. Done.

Okay, breaking my promise: logic has no part in the argument where you knowingly plant the "interloper" in your body, then decide it has to leave. The "tenant" (to use your analogy) didn't ask to be planted in your body, YOU took the action that placed the tenant there, and the tenant has no option to vacate the premises on its own.

 

[Woobie]

There are sound abortion arguments which don't violate the NAP. No human has any right to reside within the property of any other human, their own body. Expulsion, while I would find it immoral, is logically no different than eviction of a tenant from a dwelling you own. It would differ from murder, even if the eviction removes a means of life and death occurs.

There. Done.

Wow, that's some real mental gymnastics there. And you willfully ignore some blatant realities. Sheesh.

 

[Woobie]

Okay, breaking my promise: logic has no part in the argument where you knowingly plant the "interloper" in your body, then decide it has to leave. The "tenant" (to use your analogy) didn't ask to be planted in your body, YOU took the action that placed the tenant there, and the tenant has no option to vacate the premises on its own.

Thank you for pointing out what should have obvious.

 

[Beowulf]

The king dispenses justice on the unruly. This one was caught stealing my vegetables.

Holy crap! You are lucky to be alive. That thieving raccoon was wielding a 12ga. Man, those critters are meaner than I thought.

 

[indiucky]

No human has any right to reside within the property of any other human, their own body.

That is settled law??? I am not doubting you but who decided what rights humans have??? The child didn't move in there. He/she just kind of opened up it's eyes one day and there it was floating around...Does this mean if one sees some Bald Eagle eggs in a nest they can just toss them out because they have no right to be in that nest??? I guess female birds toss eggs out of their nests all of the time...It's her choice but do we as humans have the right to try and save that baby eagle or at least argue it's case?????

I know you used the word "logically" but it seems comparing an unborn child to a tenant not paying rent and getting evicted seems illogical to me.....The tenant can find another apartment...An infant is not "evicted" but killed...Seems a little more harsh than an eviction....

I never thought of a human body as "property"...It just seems so 19th century to think of a humans that way. Oh well...Brave New World and all that...

Maybe you are right...I need to head to the john and "evict" the biscuits and gravy I had this morning from my "property"....

 

[Woobie]

That is settled law??? I am not doubting you but who decided what rights humans have??? The child didn't move in there. He/she just kind of opened up it's eyes one day and there it was floating around...Does this mean if one sees some Bald Eagle eggs in a nest they can just toss them out because they have no right to be in that nest??? I guess female birds toss eggs out of their nests all of the time...It's her choice but do we as humans have the right to try and save that baby eagle or at least argue it's case?????

I know you used the word "logically" but it seems comparing an unborn child to a tenant not paying rent and getting evicted seems illogical to me.....The tenant can find another apartment...An infant is not "evicted" but killed...Seems a little more harsh than an eviction....

I never thought of a human body as "property"...It just seems so 19th century to think of a humans that way. Oh well...Brave New World and all that...

The same logic is used today as it was in the 19th century. They aren't really human beings, so it's ok to do with them as you please.