Finally a place for INGO libertarians

[D-Ric902]

 

[jdmack79]

 

[dusty88]

Good. ALL INGO 'libertarian' types should now, immediately, be shipped off to that 'land of milk and honey'. Voluntarily, or by force.

Why is everyone so scared of libertarians? Need the government to boss people around for you?

 

[Bill of Rights]

OK.

I've not read the story about the new country. Don't need to to say what I want to say here.

There seems to be much trolling, if not baiting, of libertarians (small or large L, unimportant). All I can say is that there seem to be quite a few people on here who, for whatever reason, respect or otherwise like my approach to things. It's not about smoking pot. I don't and won't. It's not about purity or ethical discussions to no purpose; I enjoy the discussions, but they're an intellectual exercise for me, considering the society in which we all live, controlled by the twin facets of the same party.
What it's about, for me, is a "live and let live" motto. What you do that affects no one but you is your business. What you do that affects me, to the extent that it does, is at least in part, my business. That said, I may respond to force initiated, but won't do so myself. I may not agree with someone's approach to a problem, (example: "There oughta be a law!" (I disagree. We have too many of those.)) but I don't have to agree with you. I will probably oppose the law you want to pass, given that approach to it.

I don't want government protecting businesses. I don't want it targeting them, either. I don't want government in my home, in my bedroom, on my computer, or in peoples' bodies. I want my government as small and inefficient as possible, except when it comes to protecting the rights of the citizenry.

This is my approach to libertarianism (small L only; it has nothing to do with the organized party.)

Perhaps I'm still one of the people some of you would not want to have anything to do with; perhaps I'm still one that some of you would cheerfully ship off somewhere.

So I have to ask... What's so objectionable about either libertarians or libertarianism? Is it that difficult to fathom the idea of people living with mutual respect for each others' rights?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[D-Ric902]

 

[dusty88]

There have been plenty of attempts before.

The closest thing to a libertarian form of government was the first few decades of the US. Unfortunately, the Commerce Clause was not spelled out clearly enough for preventing the growth of central power.

 

[D-Ric902]

OK.

I've not read the story about the new country. Don't need to to say what I want to say here.

There seems to be much trolling, if not baiting, of libertarians (small or large L, unimportant). All I can say is that there seem to be quite a few people on here who, for whatever reason, respect or otherwise like my approach to things. It's not about smoking pot. I don't and won't. It's not about purity or ethical discussions to no purpose; I enjoy the discussions, but they're an intellectual exercise for me, considering the society in which we all live, controlled by the twin facets of the same party.
What it's about, for me, is a "live and let live" motto. What you do that affects no one but you is your business. What you do that affects me, to the extent that it does, is at least in part, my business. That said, I may respond to force initiated, but won't do so myself. I may not agree with someone's approach to a problem, (example: "There oughta be a law!" (I disagree. We have too many of those.)) but I don't have to agree with you. I will probably oppose the law you want to pass, given that approach to it.

I don't want government protecting businesses. I don't want it targeting them, either. I don't want government in my home, in my bedroom, on my computer, or in peoples' bodies. I want my government as small and inefficient as possible, except when it comes to protecting the rights of the citizenry.

This is my approach to libertarianism (small L only; it has nothing to do with the organized party.)

Perhaps I'm still one of the people some of you would not want to have anything to do with; perhaps I'm still one that some of you would cheerfully ship off somewhere.

So I have to ask... What's so objectionable about either libertarians or libertarianism? Is it that difficult to fathom the idea of people living with mutual respect for each others' rights?

Blessings,
Bill

now that​ is Libertarian.

 

[dusty88]

OK.

....
Perhaps I'm still one of the people some of you would not want to have anything to do with; perhaps I'm still one that some of you would cheerfully ship off somewhere.

So I have to ask... What's so objectionable about either libertarians or libertarianism? Is it that difficult to fathom the idea of people living with mutual respect for each others' rights?

Blessings,
Bill

Bill,

I think objections often result from the usual confirmation bias. As soon as you oppose somebody's program, their politicians sing out that the result will be apocalyptic.

Have you also noticed that the strawman of utopia is often used when a libertarian concept is presented?

My perspective is that the purpose of government is to preserve individual liberty: this includes a person's life, liberty, and property. If you use direct harm as the metric for liberty, it is very rare that rights conflict. And it is then very rare that people are shown favoritism. That basis (or the basis that you discussed) are rarely presented as the libertarian viewpoint by those who think they should fear libertarian concepts. They instead use a bad example like Somalia, which is really a case of tyrannical government, albeit in a different form than we are used to.

This isn't surprising. It's always been easier to get people outraged in a mob-mentality format than to get people to discuss realities.

 

[jamil]

The whole point of this thread is to troll libertarians, I'm just having fun with it. We're a lot less snarky in real life than on the Internet, I swear. No one wants to have an honest discussion anyway, it's just utopia this and pot smokers that...

Me too. On this subject there can't be too much fun had. And I know some libertarians IRL and they seem pretty down to earth.

BTW, I threw in the utopia thing because it sounded good, and .

all you did was post a link. No opinions or commentary. Maybe your intentions were pure, but judging by the post quality in this thread, it was just troll bait.

Possibly you and I aren't the only ones having fun with it.

If you wanted freedom and liberty, and a smaller, more fiscally responsible government you would surely vote for it. Right?

Since you vote against that I have to assume it's not what you want despite all you might say here on INGO.

I have to agree with whoever said that's a false dichotomy. You said "if you want freedom and liberty". How much freedom are you talking about, anyway? 73%, 94%? No. You stated it in absolute. That means you want 100% liberty. What the hell does that even mean? At least it makes it easy to claim only the purists really want liberty. I'm basically told if I don't vote for 100% liberty, I am 100% statist. WTF?

Maybe that's not your intent, but the language many libertarians use essentially means that. At least you're allowing relative terms in your above declaration about government. I want smaller government than we have now. I want a more fiscally responsible government than we have now. And I do vote as close as I believe is possible for that.

I do want to address these points. First off no one promised utopia, that's a weak strawman. Second, it's not about purity, it's about consistency. Republicans and democrats are all about "freedom for me, but not for thee". Libertarians support freedom for all even if means freedom to do things we don't like. That consistency is one of the things that differentiates us from the statist parties.

The "utopia" is a metaphor for how libertarians would like to see the world. And it's also a bit of . But it was not intended as a manufactured monster for me to attack. And, as noted above, if it were just about consistency, libertarians wouldn't present so many false dichotomies.

I beleive you just proved Jamil's point

Yeah. He kinda did.

Meh, I have my own patch of woodland. Here my subjects are the squirrels, raccoons, birds and deer, it's good to be the king.

I am quite certain that you are a just woodlands King who administers justice according to the Non-Aggression Principle.

I don't go out of my way to talk to politics outside of INGO, so I've only met and discussed politics with one Libertarian (that I'm aware of) in person. He was as obnoxious as many of those I've met online here. And no, I would not vote for you either.

I'm pretty sure if he ran for office in my district, I'd vote for him.

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

Obviously this hater of liberty was the initiator of force and a just decree was rendered.

Well I have good news. I'm not running for office. It's okay if you don't want freedom. It's okay if you don't want liberty. It's okay if you don't want smaller, more responsible government. You're not voting for it, so you're consistent in that at least.

Seriously, I would totally vote for you. We have some disagreements, which usually revolve around absolutes, but I typically agree with all but that. I think you know how to say "no". And given our fiscal crisis, we need more, not less of "no".

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Concerning the OP: I wonder, if they're successful in their venture, how long it will be until some bigger polity will attempt to take them over by force.

 

[D-Ric902]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jamil again.​

somebody rep this guy for me

 

[Libertarian01]

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

 

[Woobie]

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

Im not looking for freedom from disagreement. I'm looking for freedom from government intrusion into my life.

 

[churchmouse]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jamil again.​

somebody rep this guy for me

Got him...

 

[jamil]

The fact that you didn't quote anyone, but your post was directly after mine and was seemingly related to what i posted.

I took it that he was referring to both sides, that perhaps conservatives are as obnoxious. Or I could be wrong and he meant that only conservatives are obnoxious and libertarians are precious flowers.

OK.

Perhaps I'm still one of the people some of you would not want to have anything to do with; perhaps I'm still one that some of you would cheerfully ship off somewhere.

So I have to ask... What's so objectionable about either libertarians or libertarianism? Is it that difficult to fathom the idea of people living with mutual respect for each others' rights?

Blessings,
Bill

Someone stated early on that it's not libertarianism that is so objectionable, it's that many libertarians come off as obnoxious. 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.

I don't find you objectionable or obnoxious at all, and I don't recall you ever using that kind of absolute, "you either support 100% liberty or you are 100% statist". And, honestly, I don't find our libertarian INGOers all that objectionable. Philosophically, I agree with much more than I disagree with.

Bill,

I think objections often result from the usual confirmation bias. As soon as you oppose somebody's program, their politicians sing out that the result will be apocalyptic.

Have you also noticed that the strawman of utopia is often used when a libertarian concept is presented?

My perspective is that the purpose of government is to preserve individual liberty: this includes a person's life, liberty, and property. If you use direct harm as the metric for liberty, it is very rare that rights conflict. And it is then very rare that people are shown favoritism. That basis (or the basis that you discussed) are rarely presented as the libertarian viewpoint by those who think they should fear libertarian concepts. They instead use a bad example like Somalia, which is really a case of tyrannical government, albeit in a different form than we are used to.

This isn't surprising. It's always been easier to get people outraged in a mob-mentality format than to get people to discuss realities.

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.

I have no delusions about why I tend to poke fun at you guys. Doesn't apply to others who disagree with libertarianism. The traditional type republicans are just ideologically opposed to it. They have some overlapping areas of agreement, like favoring smaller government, lower taxes, free enterprise, etc. But those overlapping areas are not absolute. And society has a right to set standards of social behavior.

But for me, I am not ideologically opposed to libertarianism. I think most of what you guys believe is very logically sound. What's not logically sound are some of the typical talking points against dissenters. Maybe you've seen some of my posts talking about all-or-nothing. On/off. Yes/no. What I call binary thinking. Etc. It is how many of you come off. It is that absolutist thinking and language that you tend to use.

And I don't think the binary thinking is a byproduct of libertarianism. I think binary thinkers are attracted to libertarianism much like people with adult ADD are attracted to fields like software engineering. An amazing number of software developers I know have some degree of adult ADD. Coding just fits the attributes of ADD people. Likewise, I think binary thinkers are attracted to the radical consistency of libertarianism. And, as with software engineering, where not all coders have ADD, not all libertarians are binary thinkers. Bill does not strike me as a binary thinker. I suppose some binary thinkers, though, might think Bill isn't a "real" libertarian.

So I guess what I'm saying is that libertarianism didn't turn all you guys into *******s. You were probably already *******s to start with. And I think I may be attracted to libertarianism because I'm also an *******. But I'm not a binary thinking *******. I'm just a regular one. So that's probably the real reason I pick on you guys.

 

[rambone]

Finally a place for INGOtalitarians

 

[jamil]

Finally a place for INGOtalitarians

*******.

 

[ATM]

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...

 

[rambone]

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!

It's pretty interesting getting called a libtard and a right-wing nut in the same day.

Say.. where is that island, anyway?

 

[hoosierdoc]

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.