Home | Community | Message Board


World Seed Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
OfflineDigitalDuality
enthusiast

Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 354
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Questions about libertarians
    #3146651 - 09/17/04 02:42 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

The more and more I've looked into libertarian-ism, the more it seems to make sense to me. But due to thinking of the consequences of some issues.. i still feel like the social systems we have in place, might not be "just" but are the best we can do.. and to do without, could be horrible for many. (and not just the lazy) and have catastrophic consequences..

I always get turned off b/c i never see a pacifist libertarian. Someone who supports right to bear arms, but hates guns. Someone who hates government agencies such as the EPA, but actively supports environmental causes. Someone who hates welfare, but actually gives to the charity they seem to think will pay help these people help themselves. Or does anything for the poor for that matter. There?s no libertarian news about ?humanitarians?. None. I?ve searched and searched. I might have overlooked a lot of shit, but I haven?t found anything.

I see them downcry the racism of affirmative action, but never see them take an active role at blatant racism. I never heard a libertarian complain about the blacks in Florida (even the ones who weren't felons) being removed from the voter roles.. or cops harassing blacks in voter lines with the threat of arrest or ticket for "loitering". Or standup against any other racism other than affirmative action. I haven?t see racism either, but then again.. I don?t ?see? racism in the republican party. Sometimes silence on the issue is enough to get the point across though.

I know they're pro-big business, small business, and whatever business you chose.. to the point of obsession about "contractual agreements". But i don't see them actively bitching about Hallburton, Enron, and Worldcom or other corporate criminals. It's almost as if they do not wish to announce the mistakes and fuckups of big business when they over-step their boundaries.

I've rarely seen a libertarian stand up for pro-choice legally..even if their morals are pro-life (such as me)--even though that's a party issue stated at www.lp.org.

To me, and excuse me if i'm offending anyone, they always come off as heartless people who want small government, lots of money, and guns. Which to me.. is just a less socialistic form of the republican party with the religion cut out.

Am i getting the wrong perception of libertarians here? To me it would seem somethings need to be downcried.. pointed out, blasted in the media, make the people aware.. for libertarianism to work. Otherwise, the environment will be raped.. no one there to protect it.. and a party (if they every got power) that doesn?t give a shit. I?m not saying act on it. .i?m not saying involve government.. but to give a shit.

The LP?s front page proudly displays a man running for governor b/c under their sponsorship b/c of his take on the 2nd amendment, but where are their articles crying out for the betterment of society, at least in a plea, rather than just continuing on with their constitutionalism and liberty. Where are libertarians fighting for women, blacks, Hispanics, the environment, .. they just mention a philosophy and how it?ll ?fix?things, which it very well might.. but there?s no compassion there. I get excited to watch the Third Party debates.. and Badnarik came off more of a gun nut who wants all the freedom, liberty, and small government he can muster. But I didn?t see a hint that he cared about anyone else other than himself.

With liberty, comes responsibility and not just economically. All I see is a cry for liberty. For libertarianism to work.. people would have to give to charity. People would have to stand up and fight for the environment. People would have to stand up and fight against racism and other forms of discrimination. Not just compulsively quote the Constitution all day. So why isn?t there any kind of ?awareness? pages or even links on the Libertarian webpage? Do they not give a shit? Or am i just no looking in the right places? Am i missing something? Why do i get the feeling that not many libertarians are humanitarian..and just self serving? Surely the government shouldn't force us to help others..so why don't i see them taking it upon themselves to do it with their own free will?

*Edit-- If i am truly missing out on something, a point in the right direction by link for some examples would be appreciated.


Edited by DigitalDuality (09/17/04 03:12 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: DigitalDuality]
    #3146977 - 09/17/04 05:05 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

I always get turned off b/c i never see a pacifist libertarian. Someone who supports right to bear arms, but hates guns. Someone who hates government agencies such as the EPA, but actively supports environmental causes. Someone who hates welfare, but actually gives to the charity they seem to think will pay help these people help themselves. Or does anything for the poor for that matter. There?s no libertarian news about ?humanitarians?. None. I?ve searched and searched. I might have overlooked a lot of shit, but I haven?t found anything.



I don't know what you consider pacifism, but most libertarians I've met are isolationists who oppose interventionist foreign policy. Unless you're against self-defense, I don't know how much more pacifist you'd like us to be. As for guns, while I don't hate them, I don't own one as of yet. And I definitely consider myself an environmentalist. I do not like welfare, but I give what I can to charity(though as a struggling college student, that's not much).

Basically, from reading this post, it sounds like you haven't read much about libertarians at all. Have you even checked out Michael Badnarik's website?


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: DigitalDuality]
    #3147009 - 09/17/04 05:33 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Excellent, excellent post. :thumbup:

You've outlined most of the problems that I have with libertarianism.  First, that most of are Principled Libertarians in the Nozick fashion who are overtly unconcerned with consequences of social good, happiness prosperity, etc.; if they ever infringe on anyone's 'natural rights' (which is the other problem I have with libertarianism--this concept of rights being 'natural', its something they seem to defend by saying it enough times to make it true).  I simply cannot tear myself away from my disposition as a consequentialist, and I simply don't believe Pragmatic Libertarians, that there would not be extremely difficult poverty for even some non-lazy people--people hit on hard times.  People simply are not generous enough in order for charities to take over that much work.  I find it ridiculous when libetarians try to say that once people are taxed less they'll have more money to use for charity.  People, myself included, can always find a rationalization on how to spend excess money.  Is voluntary charity drastically more here than in Scandinavia? Of course not.

While there might be exceptions, overall libertarians seem to be extremely self-focused, which they think is natural, when really it is cultural and personality-based. When it comes down to it, I've noticed that many libertarians on this board really just want more money to buy things and guns to go shooting and so their principled and noble philosophy appears as a facade over their true selfish position.  Well, im rambling on, but thanks for the post. :thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 2 months
Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: Tao]
    #3147133 - 09/17/04 06:31 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Tao te Ching writes:

First, that most of are Principled Libertarians in the Nozick fashion who are overtly unconcerned with consequences of social good, happiness prosperity, etc.;

Nonsense. It's not that Libertarians are unconcerned with such things -- quite the reverse. That's why they are Libertarians in the first place -- because they realize the best way to achieve the ends you mention is through securing the individual rights of all people.

if they ever infringe on anyone's 'natural rights' (which is the other problem I have with libertarianism--this concept of rights being 'natural', its something they seem to defend by saying it enough times to make it true).
The fact that Tao te Ching rejects the reasoning showing that the initiation of force by humans against other humans is immoral doesn't mean the reasoning is flawed.

I simply don't believe Pragmatic Libertarians, that there would not be extremely difficult poverty for even some non-lazy people--people hit on hard times.

No rational Libertarian denies that some people, through no fault of their own, will have to depend on the efforts of others in order to survive.

People simply are not generous enough in order for charities to take over that much work.

Arbitrary assumption. It assumes without supporting evidence two premises contradicted by existing knowledge:

1) Increased personal freedom brings increased poverty
2) Increased personal wealth brings a reduced inclination to voluntarily assist others

I find it ridiculous when libetarians try to say that once people are taxed less they'll have more money to use for charity.

And I find it ridiculous to say they won't. When I have more money, I give more money away. When times are tight, I give less away. I doubt I'm unique in this.

Is voluntary charity drastically more here than in Scandinavia? Of course not.

Bzzzt!!! Wrong answer. Per capita voluntary donations by Americans are significantly higher than those by Scandinavians.

While there might be exceptions, overall libertarians seem to be extremely self-focused, which they think is natural, when really it is cultural and personality-based.

That's because we really don't care what others do, so long as they're not initiating force against others. Vive tu vida, no la mia. (Live your life, not mine).

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTao
Village Genius

Registered: 09/19/03
Posts: 7,935
Loc: San Diego
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: Phred]
    #3147188 - 09/17/04 07:36 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
Tao te Ching writes:

First, that most of are Principled Libertarians in the Nozick fashion who are overtly unconcerned with consequences of social good, happiness prosperity, etc.;

Nonsense. It's not that Libertarians are unconcerned with such things -- quite the reverse. That's why they are Libertarians in the first place -- because they realize the best way to achieve the ends you mention is through securing the individual rights of all people.





so then i guess you are a pragmatic libertarian so my comments do not apply. I'm referring to those of the Nozick fashion who say that these rights are absolute and cannot be infringed for the sake of maximizing any of the usual social goals.
Quote:


if they ever infringe on anyone's 'natural rights' (which is the other problem I have with libertarianism--this concept of rights being 'natural', its something they seem to defend by saying it enough times to make it true).
The fact that Tao te Ching rejects the reasoning showing that the initiation of force by humans against other humans is immoral doesn't mean the reasoning is flawed.




actually i never said it was flawed--though your right it is. which reminds me that i don't believe you ever responded to my post in the most recent thread about natural rights where i questioned what looks to me to be a glaring hole in your attempt at a logical defense of natural rights:
Quote:


Pinky you say that " if the actions chosen by a human to continue his/her life are thwarted, that human can no longer survive and will cease to exist as a living entity". and that this is an objective fact.

But on the contrary, this is simply not true in its current form. It is missing a key qualifier in that it should say either "if ALL actions chosen are thwarted..." or "if ALL ACTIONS CONCERNING AIR, WATER, AND/OR FOOD chosen are thwarted...". With these new qualifiers one can say it is thefore not necessarily immoral to initiate force upon other decisions of the person (or one could even initiate force on those actions but not so much that the person would be unable to survive--stealing some bread from the rich for instance, or taking a percentage of someone's income that would leave them with enough to survive with).





Quote:


People simply are not generous enough in order for charities to take over that much work.

Arbitrary assumption. It assumes without supporting evidence two premises contradicted by existing knowledge:

1) Increased personal freedom brings increased poverty
2) Increased personal wealth brings a reduced inclination to voluntarily assist others




pinky, i know that you know very well that those points do not logically flow from what i said. it is based on the assumptions that increased economic freedom does not decrease poverty and increased personal wealth does not sufficiently increase the inclination to voluntarily assist others.
Quote:


I find it ridiculous when libetarians try to say that once people are taxed less they'll have more money to use for charity.

And I find it ridiculous to say they won't. When I have more money, I give more money away. When times are tight, I give less away. I doubt I'm unique in this.

Is voluntary charity drastically more here than in Scandinavia? Of course not.

Bzzzt!!! Wrong answer. Per capita voluntary donations by Americans are significantly higher than those by Scandinavians.





source? what is 'significantly'. something analgous is that those scandenavian governments give a higher percentage of their revenue for foreign aid than the u.s., so even though the u.s. taxes less, they give less percentage for foreign aid.
Quote:


While there might be exceptions, overall libertarians seem to be extremely self-focused, which they think is natural, when really it is cultural and personality-based.

That's because we really don't care what others do, so long as they're not initiating force against others. Vive tu vida, no la mia. (Live your life, not mine).




yeah, i think there's a level of agreement with this last statement.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: Phred]
    #3147813 - 09/17/04 12:51 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

And I find it ridiculous to say they won't. When I have more money, I give more money away. When times are tight, I give less away. I doubt I'm unique in this.

Amusing to hear you say this, I recently read a newspaper article exposing 14 millionaire soccer players visiting a brothel. They each paid ?50 for their ?45 "service", none of them gave tips and every single one of them waited for the ?5 change. The ladies said they earn far more in tips from ordinary people earning a fraction of what the soccer players earn.

You may not be unique, but there's certainly no evidence that people give away more money the more they have. There is however a ton of evidence showing people buy themselves larger houses and more expensive cars.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: DigitalDuality]
    #3147825 - 09/17/04 12:53 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:


With liberty, comes responsibility and not just economically. All I see is a cry for liberty. For libertarianism to work.. people would have to give to charity.



Americans are already the most charitable people on the planet. Do you see any reason to believe that if the income of each American family became 125%-150% of what it is now charitable donations would not increase similarly?

Quote:

To me it would seem somethings need to be downcried.. pointed out, blasted in the media, make the people aware.. for libertarianism to work. Otherwise, the environment will be raped.. no one there to protect it.. and a party (if they every got power) that doesn?t give a shit. I?m not saying act on it. .i?m not saying involve government.. but to give a shit.




Yeah, sorry but you're so off it's ridiculous. Libertarians are human beings too -- we're not mindless liberty-loving robots that upon achieving the required amount of individual freedom will completely stop giving a shit about the world. There are many libertarians that love the environment more than the average American, with Silversoul as a local example and Aaron Russo, Hollywood Director and near-LP Presidential Candidate, as a national example. That Libertarians want to sell off land owned by the federal government, such as National Parks, will be extremely beneficial for the environment if people love it as much as they say they do. Groups like the Sierra Club will have a chance to purchase acres(or the whole thing) of the parks they love and cherish.

Quote:


The LP?s front page proudly displays a man running for governor b/c under their sponsorship b/c of his take on the 2nd amendment, but where are their articles crying out for the betterment of society, at least in a plea, rather than just continuing on with their constitutionalism and liberty.



Libertarians correctly believe that the betterment of society is contingent upon restoring liberty, peace, constitutional government, and capitalism. Do you believe the end of American militarism and imperialism would be good or bad for society? Do you believe decimating the leviathan government has become would be good or bad for society? Do you believe a working middle class family struggling to put kids through school would be better off or worse off were they able to keep 100% of Mommy and Daddy's paychecks? Liberty leads directly to the betterment of society -- would you argue against that?

Quote:


With liberty, comes responsibility and not just economically.



From www.LP.org :
The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:

individual liberty and personal responsibility
a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.

Quote:

For libertarianism to work.. people would have to give to charity.



As they already do.

Quote:

People would have to stand up and fight for the environment.



As they already do.

Quote:

People would have to stand up and fight against racism and other forms of discrimination.



As they already do.

Quote:

Not just compulsively quote the Constitution all day.



Even the libertarians on this message board do not simply quote the Constitution all day. I have no idea where you get your, for lack of a better word, assinine perceptions from. Libertarians care about other humans AT LEAST as much as Democrats, Republicans, whatever.

Quote:

So why isn?t there any kind of ?awareness? pages or even links on the Libertarian webpage? Do they not give a shit? Or am i just no looking in the right places? Am i missing something? Why do i get the feeling that not many libertarians are humanitarian..and just self serving? Surely the government shouldn't force us to help others..so why don't i see them taking it upon themselves to do it with their own free will?




Maybe you think it because the philosophy of libertarianism "is to good to be true -- these people have to all be self-serving introverts with no concern for there fellow man." Do you expect there to be some libertarian charities and libertarian anti-racism groups and libertarian environmentalist groups? Go to any non-denominational charity, anti-racist group, environmental organization, whatever, and you will find libertarians there. I know you did not mean to be condescending in your posts, but really, you came across as a true jackass. Libertarians are not selfish, diabolical businessmen who care for nothing but the bottom line.

And you'd do well to check out libertarian literature besides just www.lp.org . I STRONGLY recommend www.LewRockwell.com -- you'll find articles there on topics all over the place. I really hope you'll continue looking into libertarianism and discover what many of us discovered, that freedom and liberty are always the answer. I apologize if I come across as something of a dickhead in this post, just not a fan of people lumping an extremely diverse group of people together and calling them out as selfish individuals who will be cackling counting their dollars and cents as people drop dead of hunger in the streets.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3147852 - 09/17/04 12:59 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Libertarians correctly believe that the betterment of society is contingent upon restoring liberty, peace, constitutional government, and capitalism

Libertarians for capitalism? Not really. The word libertarian has been hijacked in america by a tiny group of right-wing capitalists. Most people around the world recognise libertarians as being on the far left economically. The bulk of libertarian history comes from the extreme left.

Libertarians are not selfish, diabolical businessmen who care for nothing but the bottom line.

Most of the libertarians of the far-right american sect tend to be that way tho. Badnarik and his diabolical "Let the church run welfare". Give colossal power to the fundamentalist christian right - yep, that's really gonna result in freedom and liberty for everyone.

I really hope you'll continue looking into libertarianism and discover what many of us discovered, that freedom and liberty are always the answer.

Freedom and liberty yes - extreme capitalism No.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: DigitalDuality]
    #3147905 - 09/17/04 01:10 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

I posted this before, but got no replys. Here is what Michael Badnarik has to say about the environment:



Thirty years of competition between undue alarmism and unthinking skepticism have confused environmental issues in the minds of most Americans.

On the one hand, we have those who are convinced, despite the evidence, that environmental catastrophe is imminent and, without a drastic change of human lifestyle, unavoidable.

On the other hand, we have those who are convinced, also despite the evidence, that human life has no discernible impact on the ecosystems within which it thrives.

Neither group serves humanity well. It's time for clear thinking on environmental policy, and it's time for the federal government to become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

The first thing that we have to realize is that property rights and free markets are essential protectors of, not detrimental to, a clean, sustainable environment.

Although the phenomenon was most pronounced in Eastern Europe during the heyday of the Soviet Union, it is also discernible in America: Government is the biggest polluter, and the biggest facilitator of pollution.

If we're going to preserve and redeem our environment, we must first understand that pollution is not mitigated by policies which legitimize it and even facilitate the trade of "pollution credits" -- a quantified, qualified "right to pollute." Pollution, properly understood, is an offense against the property rights of those whom it affects, and should be considered an actionable tort to be adjudicated by the legal system.

Secondly, we must do away with corporate welfare and its kissing cousin, "public property." When we vest control of our forests and other wild lands in government, why are we then surprised when politicians turn around and sell timber and mining "rights" -- at lower than market prices, and with taxpayer-subsidized roads to facilitate exploitation thrown in -- to the corporate interests which support their aspirations to greater power and longer political careers?

The fact is that when an individual or a business owns property, there's a built-in incentive to steward that property. When "the public" owns property, the only incentive is for everyone to "get theirs" -- and the corporations wield more influence in deciding how much is "theirs" than you or I do.

As your President, one of my first priorities would be ending corporate welfare and federal regulation that facilitates, rather than fights, pollution.

In tandem with ending that regulation, I'd work to ensure a strong judicial system for handling tort claims relating to the real damage that real pollution does to real people and their property.

Finally, I'd work to get "public" lands into private hands. Our environment has been harmed, not helped, by the movement to keep environmentally significant lands under the control of politicians.

If organizations like the Nature Conservancy and the Sierra Club are serious about preserving wilderness areas, I want to give them the opportunity to do so -- by selling those areas to them. It is my considered opinion that Americans value these lands -- from Yosemite to Yellowstone, from Allegheny to Winema -- enough to care for them rather than trusting them to a government that has failed to do so properly.

The main objection I've heard to this idea is that these lands are "priceless."

Experience has proven that conjecture false. Everything has a price, and our politicians have sold our environment out from under us at bargain-basement rates.

The real question is whether those who claim to care about the environment are willing to put their money where their mouths are -- to pay the price -- or whether they'd prefer to continue playing the losing game of trusting politicians not to act like politicians. The latter is a really bad bet -- and the stakes are


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 1 month
Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: Xlea321]
    #3148231 - 09/17/04 02:32 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Libertarians for capitalism? Not really. The word libertarian has been hijacked in america by a tiny group of right-wing capitalists. Most people around the world recognise libertarians as being on the far left economically. The bulk of libertarian history comes from the extreme left.



The term 'liberal' was unfortunately hijacked here in America so we were left with 'libertarianism.' This is really irrelevant to the topic, as you know Alex, considering DigitalDuality is explicitly referring to the American creed of Libertarian.

Quote:

Most of the libertarians of the far-right american sect tend to be that way tho. Badnarik and his diabolical "Let the church run welfare". Give colossal power to the fundamentalist christian right - yep, that's really gonna result in freedom and liberty for everyone.




Keep misrepresenting his position Alex, you're not fooling anybody.

Quote:


Freedom and liberty yes - extreme capitalism No.



Capitalism, the absence of force and coercion in the economy, is simply the extension of liberty into the marketplace. A juxtaposition we have brought up MANY times that you have never adequately responded to: In a libertarian society, you and your socialist buddies are completely free to set up a commune and live equally as you wish. On the contrary, in a socialist society, me and my libertarian buddies COULD NOT live as we wish under a system free of violence -- instead we, like the rest of the populace, would be forced to live in despair under the iron fist of government.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: Xlea321]
    #3148450 - 09/17/04 03:30 PM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Amusing to hear you say this, I recently read a newspaper article exposing 14 millionaire soccer players visiting a brothel.

what's amusing is that you answer a common sense assertion with some trite anecdote about soccer players and brothels.

there's certainly no evidence that people give away more money the more they have.

actually there is. hopefully pinky can come through with the stats. they've been posted here before.


Edited by Anonymous (09/17/04 04:03 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDigitalDuality
enthusiast

Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 354
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3150588 - 09/18/04 02:32 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

I, by no means, wished to come off as an asshole landblasting libertarians. Nor to be condescending in anyway. I?m not meaning to turn this into a flame fest, and I don?t mean to be offensive towards libertarians, I?m truly and sincerely curious.

I'm just saying, from face value.. i can look at groups such as Democrats and Greens.. and see this blatant compassion for various groups of society and the environment. When i go to the Libertarians webpage stuff like "peace", environment, and equality by citing examples of homosexuals, blacks, women, or even affirmative action doesn't seem to be all that prevalent. Why is there no news articles about environmentalism on www.lp.org?

I'll admit, i don't know that many libertarian public figures. And i haven't read alot of libertarian literature. I truly thank you for the www.LewRockwell.com link, I?ll read up when the time arises.

I'm not saying they're heartless by any means, but it's just the aura i see at face value that's a turn off. Kinda like going to the webpage of the NRA, and they seem to care much more about gun freedom than gun responsibility and gun safety. I'm fine with that freedom, but i'd like to see a balance in the preaching. Not just for liberty and freedom for the right to bear arms, but to see them preach just as much about safety with weapons. And there truly is a lack of balance from the NRA.

I see a lot of "tax is theft", and "guns are great" A good example was Badnarik at the Third Party debates, as was mentioned in a previous thread, he was speaking of socialized healthcare.. as ?theft?, b/c of the taxation. He made a joke about if you came to steal money from him, you?d need that healthcare b/c he?d shoot you. Now, come on, while that may be true.. is that the attitude that needs to be taken. Is that the message a politician running for president needs to display.. some gun happy attitude? Guns rights and gun happy, I find are two different things. I realize it?s all in good fun, but imagine the media shit storm if Kerry or Bush had said this.

I do know that America is the most charitable on the planet. And I?m have great pride in my country because of that fact. But is it enough? If we drasticly knock down social system after social system in order to put money back into people?s pockets, would selfishness or compassion prevail? That to me is why the morality to ?give? and to help, should be side by side with the removal of these systems. Something about humanity and our virtues has to change. Our responsibility to ourselves, our community, has to grow tremendously for libertarianism to work. I see how libertarians promote the rise in responsibility to the self, very blatantly and I support that. Just from what I?ve read and seen, there seems to be very little about responsibility to your community and your country, and furthermore, to this very planet. But like I said, this is just from what I?ve read.

I believe that American militarism and imperialism is bad for society, as do Greens, and maybe not Democrat politicians, but a lot of their supporters. You ask if Liberty would be good or bad for society, and where as my morals and my values say yes, I?m honestly not so sure. Surely I agree on civil rights issues (non-special interest civil rights that is), but when it comes to the economic systems we have in place, I have nothing to compare by. There has been no libertarian society. It?s, for the most part, theory. And I hate to make these drastic comparisons, but socialism, communism, and even anarchism are all fairly theoretical.. or were at one point.. and whenever these theoretical systems get acted out, promising a ?fix it all?.. it seems to fail horribly and do more damage than what it was worth. Where there?s plenty of examples to site of why socialism and communism don?t work.. there?s little or none for libertarians. So I gotta take a step back? and my conclusion was, there has to be a common ground morality to some degree. There has to be a moral message promoted side by side with all this political liberty in the form of freedom from social systems.. And maybe it is and I?m just not seeing it. Like I said, I?ll read up and hopefully I?ll find what I?m looking for.. I hope I find the libertarian world in which you paint, b/c www.lp.org, and the media coverage I?ve seen of badnarik (including his homepage) doesn?t give me that.


I?ll read up on the link you gave me, and if you have anymore, I?m open to receive them, and again, I apologize if I offended you or other libertarians on this board.


Edited by DigitalDuality (09/18/04 06:00 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: ]
    #3150742 - 09/18/04 03:15 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

what's amusing is that you answer a common sense assertion with some trite anecdote about soccer players and brothels.

Simply a real world example showing just because you earn more money does not mean you are more charitable.

actually there is

So if you had more money you would give it to people on welfare? After telling me that it would be a good idea if people who won't work starved to death along with their families? Sorry if I find you a little unbelievable.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,186
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Questions about libertarians [Re: Xlea321]
    #3150995 - 09/18/04 07:44 AM (12 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

After telling me that it would be a good idea if people who won't work starved to death along with their families?



Care to show us where he said that? Or to be more direct.... are you ABLE to show us where he said that?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* An interview with Michael Badnarik
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Ancalagon 5,754 124 08/23/04 06:09 PM
by Anonymous
* (True) Libertarians Battle the Corporate State Evolving 1,134 4 04/10/04 07:16 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Serious question - Why is the right so popular on this board?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
ZeroRadius 10,278 172 01/17/07 09:16 PM
by zappaisgod
* Libertarian, Green party candidates to debate in New York DigitalDuality 802 12 09/04/04 10:29 AM
by Ancalagon
* Badnarik article
RandalFlagg
259 0 10/29/04 10:41 AM
by RandalFlagg
* Are any of you voting for Badnarik?
( 1 2 3 all )
Libertarian 2,280 40 09/03/04 05:11 AM
by fastfred
* Libertarian pioneer endorses Bush
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 3,376 39 11/02/04 05:11 PM
by Phluck
* Badnarik and Libertarians "Sickos"? JesusChrist 1,745 14 09/10/04 03:20 PM
by Ancalagon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,177 topic views. 3 members, 1 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.173 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 15 queries.