|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 9 days
|
Libertarian Debate
#5235819 - 01/28/06 04:36 PM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
In another thread, Ancalagon said:
"The fact that almost every new debate that occurs requires me to go through the whole corpus of libertarian arguments is really bad for both the threads and my well being."
So I'd like to debate the merits of Libertarianism. I like their philosophy on personal freedom. However, I strongly disagree with their philosopy on corporate freedom. And I also strongly disagree with their philosophy that Government should be reduced to the extent they would like.
I'll start with privitization of roads, since Ancalogon mentioned that in the "Persecuting the sick and disabled" thread. If roads are privatized, what is to prevent the owners from jacking up the prices from say $5 to $50? Most people would probably have no choice but to pay this amount, since people need to get to work to make money and feed themselves, and it would take a long time for a competitor to construct another set of roads. Not to mention, roads are a "natural monopoly". It doesn't make a lot of sense for private companies to construct five different sets of roads all going to the same destination.
Can anyone explain how this situation would be handled in a Libertarian society?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
|
Don't get so caught up in the Libertarian label thing. We are not nearly as homogenous as you might think. For instance, I can see compelling arguments for general taxation to fund roads, specific taxation to fund roads (gas tax), and fee for use to fund roads. It's not really a litmus issue and arguing over it is a distraction and basicly navel gazing.
--------------------
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater
Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
|
My fairly ignorant view is that the strictest Libertarianism wouldn't realistically work in a diverse country, simply because I don't think more than five or six percent of people would want or be able to handle that level of responsibility. I, like most people, am more than willing to give up certain defined freedoms in order to insure a bit of defined coddling for whoever needs it.
I do like the idea though. And if they could consolidate and get their shit together and gather, they could probably get something good going. I also like a lot of the Libertarians here, especially Ancalagon. And I was extremely impressed with their 2004 presidential candidate, who I almost regret not voting for. I don't really care for the clear-as-day Liberals and Conservatives who take some comfort in calling themselves Libertarians. It makes the party look like a confused joke.
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: Libertarian Debate [Re: Gijith]
#5236028 - 01/28/06 06:01 PM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Libertarians are more conservative than Republicans
--------------------
|
wilshire
free radical
Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
|
libertarianism is not a complete, comprehensive plan for an ideologically consistent government. the logical conclusion of the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism is anarchy - that no government is legitimate. unfortunately, government is inevitable, and libertarians would like to see as little of it as possible.
often opponents make statements like, "even you recognize that there must be some taxation. doesn't that conflict with your views of taxation?". they are right in asking these questions. a "libertarian government" is at odds with itself... it's a contradiction in terms. libertarianism is anti-government.
questions are often asked of libertarians that go "how would a libertarian government do ______". answers very often involve rather non-libertarian solutions. aha! an inconsistency, they say. of course it's inconsistent. there is no "libertarian society", and of course it doesn't work in reality. it's a direction to move in. the best arrangement, anarchy, is unattainable.
Edited by wilshire (01/28/06 06:25 PM)
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: Libertarian Debate [Re: zappaisgod]
#5236142 - 01/28/06 06:56 PM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Libertarians are more conservative than Republicans
Not socially more conservative.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: Libertarian Debate [Re: Redstorm]
#5238090 - 01/29/06 10:33 AM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Social conservatism is leaving people alone to mostly act as they see fit. Social fascism is a liberal posture of the Republican Party
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: Libertarian Debate [Re: zappaisgod]
#5238271 - 01/29/06 11:42 AM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Perhaps the Repub's should start practicing that ideal then?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: Libertarian Debate [Re: Redstorm]
#5238343 - 01/29/06 12:12 PM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'd like to see it. A true conservative party. I have always thought that Repubs were only halfway there, at best. Out of expedience they have to get my support though because the Dems are a fucking train wreck
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: Libertarian Debate [Re: zappaisgod]
#5238352 - 01/29/06 12:15 PM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
If they would get the fuck out of people's business, I would actually consider voting for them. I might be able to handle their foreign policy if, the the same time, my rights were secure.
|
newuser1492
Registered: 06/12/03
Posts: 3,104
|
Re: Libertarian Debate [Re: wilshire]
#5238476 - 01/29/06 12:53 PM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
wilshire said: often opponents make statements like, "even you recognize that there must be some taxation. doesn't that conflict with your views of taxation?". they are right in asking these questions. a "libertarian government" is at odds with itself... it's a contradiction in terms. libertarianism is anti-government.
As far as I know LVT isn't at odds with Libertarianism.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Libertarian Debate [Re: Redstorm]
#5238944 - 01/29/06 03:05 PM (18 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said: If they would get the fuck out of people's business, I would actually consider voting for them. I might be able to handle their foreign policy if, the the same time, my rights were secure.
If they actually practised what they preach when it came to fiscal conservatism, adopted a more isolationist stance in foreign policy matters, and stopped kissing ass to the Christian nutcases...I would vote for the Repubs.
Edited by RandalFlagg (01/29/06 03:06 PM)
|
|