Will Ron Paul Win In 2012?

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

Why are you still dragging Dutch Politics into a discussion about a Libertarian US Presidential candidate?

I didn't mention dutch politics and have no idea what you are talking about.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

There's a thing called property rights. Blacks only stores could also appear. It is a shop's own loss if they won't allow blacks in.

Segregated shops sounds great can't see why this libertarianism thing hasn't taken off :rolleyes:

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

Segregated shops sounds great can't see why this libertarianism thing hasn't taken off :rolleyes:

No true libertarian would ban blacks from their shop and we don't think that the government should practise segregation but we respect property rights.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

I didn't mention dutch politics and have no idea what you are talking about.

Geert Wilders? A Dutch Politician? You dragged him and his policies into this debate. Neither of which have any bearing on US Politics. You say that nobody would care if you placed restrictions on muslims yet you seem to fail to recall an incident from last year involving the construction of a Mosque several blocks away from Ground Zero. Strange, because it was headline news for weeks. Especially as similar mosque projects arose to controversy around the same time last year. So where do you justify the statement:

If I issued a press release saying that islam is a sexist, violent and intolerant religion based around a rapist who was a "prophet" (all fact by the way) I will appear in a court of law yet no one cares if I decide to place dress restrictions on them.

?

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

No true libertarian would ban blacks from their shop and we don't think that the government should practise segregation but we respect property rights.

Better hope all business owners and landlords are true libertarians then. Do property rights take precedence over human rights?

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

Better hope all business owners and landlords are true libertarians then. Do property rights take precedence over human rights?

It's not a human right to go on someone else's property. So one can't take precedence over the other. Any businessman with any sense would allow anyone into their shop.

Overheal wrote: »

Geert Wilders? A Dutch Politician? You dragged him and his policies into this debate. Neither of which have any bearing on US Politics. You say that nobody would care if you placed restrictions on muslims yet you seem to fail to recall an incident from last year involving the construction of a Mosque several blocks away from Ground Zero. Strange, because it was headline news for weeks. Especially as similar mosque projects arose to controversy around the same time last year. So where do you justify the statement:
?

I didn't mention him in that last post. Forget I ever mentioned him. Let's get back to the main point. Why can't you distinguish between calling someone a N***** and racist murder? Restricting free speech would do nothing about actual crimes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

InTheTrees wrote: »

If you beat up someone weaker than you are and take all their possessions...

They are exercising their free choice not to defend themselves adequately. And I would be exercising my free choice to beat them up and take their stuff.

Praise the lord! Its an American libertarian Utopia!

This cutting insight has literally enriched my day in every possible sense. Do you have any more insane caricatures for me to chuckle at?

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

Why can't you distinguish between calling someone a N***** and racist murder? Restricting free speech would do nothing about actual crimes.

I do distinguish. One is Hate Speech. One is Hate Crime. The only thing I do however, that you seemingly do not, is acknowledge the relationship between the two.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

I do distinguish. One is Hate Speech. One is Hate Crime. The only thing I do however, that you seemingly do not, is acknowledge the relationship between the two.

I don't think removing hate speech will destroy hate crime. If you were about to commit racist murder, would not being able to go on a racist slur in public change anything?

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

I don't think removing hate speech will destroy hate crime. If you were about to commit racist murder, would not being able to go on a racist slur in public change anything?

You're not selling libertarianism very well. So far discrimination will be legal and hate speech. Whats the up side? (for the non racists).

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

You're not selling libertarianism very well. So far discrimination will be legal and hate speech. Whats the up side? (for the non racists).

Being allowed to say what you want, the government not stealing your money, not being forced to buy health insurance, being allowed to do what you want with your property, no government discrimination against gays or any other minority, a less intrusive government, the government not acting like a nanny and telling you need to smoke substances and power to the people.

Don't act like a neutral bystander who is actually judging my arguments on their merits either, as it's clear you're not and that you dislike libertarianism and the free market.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

Don't act like a neutral bystander who is actually judging my arguments on their merits either, as it's clear you're not and that you dislike libertarianism and the free market.

If thats your attitude, frankly what is the point of having a discussion with you?

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

Being allowed to say what you want, the government not stealing your money, not being forced to buy health insurance, being allowed to do what you want with your property, no government discrimination against gays or any other minority, a less intrusive government, the government not acting like a nanny and telling you need to smoke substances and power to the people.

Don't act like a neutral bystander who is actually judging my arguments on their merits either, as it's clear you're not and that you dislike libertarianism and the free market.

There's no such thing as a free market the two terms contradict each other.
True I do dislike libertarianism its a silly childish ideology which has never worked anywhere ever. It pretends to be about individual freedom but is actually about corporate freedom to run roughshod over people.

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

There's no such thing as a free market the two terms contradict each other.
True I do dislike libertarianism its a silly childish ideology which has never worked anywhere ever. It pretends to be about individual freedom but is actually about corporate freedom to run roughshod over people.

It's never really been tried except it used to be tried in the USA. How do the words "free market" contradict eachother? One is an adjective, on is a noun, no? Corporations create jobs and provide services rather than run roughshod over people. The government runs roughshod over people.

Jelle1880

matthew8 wrote: »

It's never really been tried except it used to be tried in the USA. How do the words "free market" contradict eachother? One is an adjective, on is a noun, no? Corporations create jobs and provide services rather than run roughshod over people. The government runs roughshod over people.

Because a market isn't free, it has to adhere to rules.

matthew8

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Because a market isn't free, it has to adhere to rules.

Alright then, the "free from government regulation market".

Jelle1880

matthew8 wrote: »

Alright then, the "free from government regulation market".

I get your point, but it's still the governments of the respective countries that make up the rules for markets.
And that has to happen, otherwise an economy will destroy itself.

InTheTrees

Valmont wrote: »

This cutting insight has literally enriched my day in every possible sense. Do you have any more insane caricatures for me to chuckle at?

Just drawing attention to the fact that libertarians consistantly avoid the darker effects of their batty ideas.

They expect us to be over joyed at the removal of pretty basic government protections of citizens.

matthew8

InTheTrees wrote: »

Just drawing attention to the fact that libertarians consistantly avoid the darker effects of their batty ideas.

They expect us to be over joyed at the removal of pretty basic government protections of citizens.

I wouldn't call forcing people to buy insurance basic government protection of citizens. Also, many libertarians believe that the role of government is purely the basic protection of the citizens.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I get your point, but it's still the governments of the respective countries that make up the rules for markets.
And that has to happen, otherwise an economy will destroy itself.

Yes, some form of regulation helps. The best regulation is that when businesses fail they go out of business, including banks.

Memnoch

matthew8 wrote: »

I wouldn't call forcing people to buy insurance basic government protection of citizens. Also, many libertarians believe that the role of government is purely the basic protection of the citizens.


Yes, some form of regulation helps. The best regulation is that when businesses fail they go out of business, including banks.

All right, remove government regulation, let businesses do what they will.

What happens then when a business gets too big? And keeps going. When it becomes a total monopoly and wipes out all competition. Then it starts taking over other businesses and becomes a mega-comglomorate. Other businesses have to do the same to compete and in the end, you're left with a few mega-conglomorates that use their infinite wealth and power to crush anyone that even begins to resemble a threat to their size and position.

What happens then when these businesses suddenly decide that they don't like the idea of people criticising them in any way because that might mean less profit?

This isn't a fantasy doomsday scenario. Take a look at the news media around the world. It's increasingly consolidated and controlled by a handful of powerful corporate interests.

The Murdoch clan own Fox News in the states, the Star network in Asia, the Fox network in Australia, Sky in the UK, and I'm not sure what else in the rest of Europe. + a LOT of newspapers and other publications.

Even if they were entirely decent, honest and trustworthy people I would be deeply uncomfortable with ONE person or organisation having this level of influence.

What happens to your cherished libertarian principles of freedom and democracy now?

Take a look at Italy. The PM is also an incredibly wealthy and powerful businessman who controls much of the media. Is he really a democratically elected leader? Look at the kind of crap he has gotten away with an continues to try to get away with?

What people on the 'right,' seem to continually fail to understand is that the ENTIRE PURPOSE of democracy is to allow individuals to BAND together and stand up against the powerful and the rich so that they are not exploited and abused. This means regulation, be it of business or whatever.

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

I wouldn't call forcing people to buy insurance basic government protection of citizens. Also, many libertarians believe that the role of government is purely the basic protection of the citizens.

You haven't been forced to buy Insurance though. And you won't be forced to buy insurance, either. Well, maybe. If Democrats can remain in majority through 2014. Indecision 2012 should be interesting.

InTheTrees

Memnoch wrote: »

What happens to your cherished libertarian principles of freedom and democracy now?

"freedom and democracy"?? I havent heard those words used much by libertarians. All i hear is small government and no regulations.

As far as I can tell they want to encourage monopolies.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

You haven't been forced to buy Insurance though. And you won't be forced to buy insurance, either. Well, maybe. If Democrats can remain in majority through 2014. Indecision 2012 should be interesting.

The general jist of obamacare was essentially forcing people to buy health insurance, including corporations for their workers (Most companies had health and dental anyway though).

Memnoch wrote: »

All right, remove government regulation, let businesses do what they will.

What happens then when a business gets too big? And keeps going. When it becomes a total monopoly and wipes out all competition. Then it starts taking over other businesses and becomes a mega-comglomorate. Other businesses have to do the same to compete and in the end, you're left with a few mega-conglomorates that use their infinite wealth and power to crush anyone that even begins to resemble a threat to their size and position.

What happens then when these businesses suddenly decide that they don't like the idea of people criticising them in any way because that might mean less profit?

This isn't a fantasy doomsday scenario. Take a look at the news media around the world. It's increasingly consolidated and controlled by a handful of powerful corporate interests.

The Murdoch clan own Fox News in the states, the Star network in Asia, the Fox network in Australia, Sky in the UK, and I'm not sure what else in the rest of Europe. + a LOT of newspapers and other publications.

Even if they were entirely decent, honest and trustworthy people I would be deeply uncomfortable with ONE person or organisation having this level of influence.

What happens to your cherished libertarian principles of freedom and democracy now?

Take a look at Italy. The PM is also an incredibly wealthy and powerful businessman who controls much of the media. Is he really a democratically elected leader? Look at the kind of crap he has gotten away with an continues to try to get away with?

What people on the 'right,' seem to continually fail to understand is that the ENTIRE PURPOSE of democracy is to allow individuals to BAND together and stand up against the powerful and the rich so that they are not exploited and abused. This means regulation, be it of business or whatever.

If sky is the worst that the de-regulated market can throw at us then bring on more deregulation.

You mentioned Berlusconi's media control. Media control by the government goes against everything libertarians stand for and it would not happen.

The purpose of democracy is that people choose their leaders. If people don't want to band together against the rich and the powerful they shouldn't be made to. The people can choose not to have regulation. Would the POWERFUL people really have taken on democracy if the entire purppose was to overthrow them? Believe it or not, many people feel that they aren't exploited or abused by the rich and powerful and like their lives as they are. They democratically elect people who don't want to take all this away from them and will let them be. Of course some people for some bizarre reason feel it is their right to have someone else's money, and it is their right to vote for someone who will do this.

But right now, democracy isn't overthrowing the rich because the people don't feel they need to.

You really have a strange definition of democracy.

Ellian

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Out of idle, how does he tie off all the problems that might arise from full faith and credit. Or does the word values apply only to judgements and not to actual laws??

Memnoch

matthew8 wrote: »

If sky is the worst that the de-regulated market can throw at us then bring on more deregulation.

Actually, Fox is the worst, and this is WITHOUT a de-regulated market. As for Sky. It is my opinion that were it not for the Murdoch Media Machine, David Cameron would not be prime minister of Britain. Maybe you are comfortable with what is an obvious subversion of democracy, I am not.

You mentioned Berlusconi's media control. Media control by the government goes against everything libertarians stand for and it would not happen.

Please read this back again. You seem to have completely missed the point. Berlusconi does not control the media because he is the leader of the government. He is the leader of the government BECAUSE he controls the media, and this is exactly the kind of thing libertarianism would result in. Rule of the wealthy and the elite with erosion of democracy and justice.

The purpose of democracy is that people choose their leaders.

And how can they make an informed choice if the media is controlled by a few wealthy and powerful people?

If people don't want to band together against the rich and the powerful they shouldn't be made to.

No one is made to do anything. I'm simply trying to explain to you why democracy exists and why it is a good thing. Before democracy, you had dictatorships and monarchies. The reason these existed was because INDIVIDUALS were too wealthy and powerful and their wealth and power was unchecked.

In a democracy, individuals who are weak or do not have a lot of wealth and power can join together and the result is that their COMBINED strength is greater than that of the powerful. This is what allows and protects freedoms for those of us who are not born into the class of the wealthy or powerful. We elect leaders to protect us and serve us. That is the most basic function of democracy.

The people can choose not to have regulation. Would the POWERFUL people really have taken on democracy if the entire purppose was to overthrow them?

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Believe it or not, many people feel that they aren't exploited or abused by the rich and powerful and like their lives as they are.

That's because there are people with sense and intelligence fighting against the subversion and destruction of democracy that is taking place every day. But it is a losing battle.

You complained about the banks being bailed out. This is a PERFECT example of unchecked corporate power. Our corrupt leaders who are in the pockets of the wealthy bankers, tax us to the ground to cover the bankers losses. This would still happen in a libertarian system because corporations with unchecked power will change the rules to suit them.

They democratically elect people who don't want to take all this away from them and will let them be. Of course some people for some bizarre reason feel it is their right to have someone else's money, and it is their right to vote for someone who will do this.

It's not someone else's money. It's far more complicated than that, but that's another thread and another discussion (i.e. taxes).

But right now, democracy isn't overthrowing the rich because the people don't feel they need to.

Yes, ignorance is bliss.

You really have a strange definition of democracy.

And you have no understanding of what democracy really is. The rule OF the people, BY the people FOR the people.

matthew8

Memnoch wrote: »

And you have no understanding of what democracy really is. The rule OF the people, BY the people FOR the people.

There is no way in a million years that libertarians would have bailed out the banks. Unless they were very corrupt. Which applies to all political systems. You don't seem to understand that people choose their leaders.

Democracy is the people choosing their leaders, nothing more, nothing less. It is absolutely laughable that you think that a government-controlled media can make for a more balanced media. That idea is ridiculous.

You try to paint libertarianism as some sort of dictatorship. Ron Paul in particular with his policy of less power for the president represents the opposite of this while Obama sends the troops to Libya without asking congress, which was like what Hitler used to do when he ruled by decree.

You said you didn't understand what I meant about powerful people taking on democracy. What I meant by that statement was that powerful people made the rules in the first place. Why would they make a rule if the whole point was to overthrow themselves. And don't say "the people" made democracy either. When the people rise up, there tends to be a dictatorship soon after.

Memnoch

matthew8 wrote: »

There is no way in a million years that libertarians would have bailed out the banks. Unless they were very corrupt. Which applies to all political systems. You don't seem to understand that people choose their leaders.

They would be corrupt because that is what the libertarian system will result in. Unchecked power of corporations that will use that power to make sure the 'elected' leaders are there to do their bidding. (This already happens a lot, it's called lobbying. An another example of the subversion of democracy by unchecked corporate power.)

Democracy is the people choosing their leaders, nothing more, nothing less. It is absolutely laughable that you think that a government-controlled media can make for a more balanced media. That idea is ridiculous.

I do not want a government controlled media. But I also do not want a media controlled by a handful of powerful corporate interests. I want INDEPENDENT media, PRIVATELY OWNED AND Owned by the government and in fierce competition and with a huge amount of plurality. This can only happen through strong pro-competition regulation.

BTW, the BBC is the most independent and fair minded media organisation I can think of in the world today. It is government owned.

You try to paint libertarianism as some sort of dictatorship. Ron Paul in particular with his policy of less power for the president represents the opposite of this while Obama sends the troops to Libya without asking congress, which was like what Hitler used to do when he ruled by decree.

Godwin'ed. Anyway, unchecked power of a few wealthy individuals WILL result in a dictatorship. Of that I have no doubt.

I agree with you about Ron Paul and Obama. The libya debate is an interesting one. On a more general point, the reason this kind of stuff (foreign invasions for profit - not necessarily libya) happens is because democracy isn't working as it should right now. It is continually subverted by powerful corporate interests.

You said you didn't understand what I meant about powerful people taking on democracy. What I meant by that statement was that powerful people made the rules in the first place. Why would they make a rule if the whole point was to overthrow themselves. And don't say "the people" made democracy either. When the people rise up, there tends to be a dictatorship soon after.

Powerful people made democracy? What are you talking about? Which powerful people made democracy?

matthew8

Memnoch wrote: »

They would be corrupt because that is what the libertarian system will result in. Unchecked power of corporations that will use that power to make sure the 'elected' leaders are there to do their bidding. (This already happens a lot, it's called lobbying. An another example of the subversion of democracy by unchecked corporate power.)



I do not want a government controlled media. But I also do not want a media controlled by a handful of powerful corporate interests. I want INDEPENDENT media, PRIVATELY OWNED AND Owned by the government and in fierce competition and with a huge amount of plurality. This can only happen through strong pro-competition regulation.

BTW, the BBC is the most independent and fair minded media organisation I can think of in the world today. It is government owned.



Godwin'ed. Anyway, unchecked power of a few wealthy individuals WILL result in a dictatorship. Of that I have no doubt.

I agree with you about Ron Paul and Obama. The libya debate is an interesting one. On a more general point, the reason this kind of stuff (foreign invasions for profit - not necessarily libya) happens is because democracy isn't working as it should right now. It is continually subverted by powerful corporate interests.



Powerful people made democracy? What are you talking about? Which powerful people made democracy?

All systems result in corruption.

Example of powerful people making democracy: 1911, British king takes a lot of the house of lords' power away because they were obstructing democracy and he wanted more.

Governments can't create competition. Take RTE and TV3 for example. TV3 is run by advertisements because it faces competition. RTE faces no competition because they can just take ridiculous license fees while taking money from the communications dept. and they also run ads and have poor shows. They can afford to do this because with government backing they don't have to compete.

With all your points about balanced media, that will never happen.

The thing is, Ron Paul wants far more democracy than the democratic party. If California wants to run itself into the ground, let it run itself into the ground. It's the people's choice. One big problem with private monopolies is companies being privatised and sold as one. Multiple companies need to be created out of a privatised company except where there is no demand and competition will already happen without splitting them up (RTE).

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

All systems result in corruption.

Hence why government is there to balance out systemic corporate corruption.

matthew8

Overheal wrote: »

Hence why government is there to balance out systemic corporate corruption.

And then the government gets more corrupt than the corporations.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

Alright then, the "free from government regulation market".

I presume a market requires some basic features such as property rights, copyright, currency and some rules re trading. This stuff needs to be agreed upon and enforced.
Who does that in the Libertarian country?
Also if you have all those rules how can it still be called free?

Overheal

matthew8 wrote: »

And then the government gets more corrupt than the corporations.

So we remove the government and leave the corrupt corporations to it?

Memnoch

matthew8 wrote: »

And then the government gets more corrupt than the corporations.

If the government is not working correctly to stop corporate corruption, then the solution is not to remove government and allow corporate corruption to go completely unchecked.

The solution is to fix government and make it more robust to withstand corruption. This can not be accomplished in a libertarian system.

My points about balanced media will not happen only as long as people follow stupid ideas that somehow unchecked business dominance is a good thing and that all regulation of business is fundamentally bad.

Like I said, the UK has a much more balanced media than the US. But with the rise of Sky this is being threatened. But it cannot be stopped if people keep voting in the Murdoch flusies.

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

I presume a market requires some basic features such as property rights, copyright, currency and some rules re trading. This stuff needs to be agreed upon and enforced.
Who does that in the Libertarian country?
Also if you have all those rules how can it still be called free?

It can still be called free because people in countries where murder and stealing are illegal are also free. Basic rules.

Soldie

20Cent wrote: »

I presume a market requires some basic features such as property rights, copyright, currency and some rules re trading. This stuff needs to be agreed upon and enforced.
Who does that in the Libertarian country?
Also if you have all those rules how can it still be called free?

Why don't you take the time to read up on libertarianism instead of asking silly questions and creating crude caricatures? That way it can be discussed both maturely and civilly. You take what you obviously believe to be a cheeky jab at the ideology at whatever chance you get, but all you're doing is showing that you have no understanding of that which you're trying to criticise.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

It can still be called free because people in countries where murder and stealing are illegal are also free. Basic rules.

The question was who makes and enforces the rules?

20Cent

Soldie wrote: »

Why don't you take the time to read up on libertarianism instead of asking silly questions and creating crude caricatures? That way it can be discussed both maturely and civilly. You take what you obviously believe to be a cheeky jab at the ideology at whatever chance you get, but all you're doing is showing that you have no understanding of that which you're trying to criticise.

I am trying to understand the reasoning why anyone would think that libertarianism would be a good idea. Yet whenever I think about it all I see is less freedom and a handing over of power to unelected people instead of citizens.

We have had this conversation before and every libertarian has different views about what it actually means.

Maybe describing what a libertarian society would be like would be helpful.

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

The question was who makes and enforces the rules?

The government and police. We're not anarchists you know.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

The government and police. We're not anarchists you know.

So you have a government and police enforcing rules yet you say there is no government interference in the market. Doesn't make sense.

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

So you have a government and police enforcing rules yet you say there is no government interference in the market. Doesn't make sense.

Little government interference in the market.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

Little government interference in the market.

You've gone frome "free market" to "free from government regulation market" to a little interference in the same thread now. Whats a little interference?

matthew8

20Cent wrote: »

You've gone frome "free market" to "free from government regulation market" to a little interference in the same thread now. Whats a little interference?

Copyright for instance is important but you also mentioned currency as being important. Really, we'd be better off if the government did nothing about currency and let currencies develop themselves, gold always comes out on top which is brilliant news for the common man because there is little inflation.

Soldie

20Cent wrote: »

I am trying to understand the reasoning why anyone would think that libertarianism would be a good idea. Yet whenever I think about it all I see is less freedom and a handing over of power to unelected people instead of citizens.

We have had this conversation before and every libertarian has different views about what it actually means.

Maybe describing what a libertarian society would be like would be helpful.

Instead of trying to understand whether or not your warped interpretation of libertarianism is a good idea, perhaps you should instead focus your efforts on understanding what libertarianism is in the first place, as that is an area in which you appear to encounter great difficulty. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that you ought to familiarise yourself with what you're attempting to criticise, but I dare say you have no interest in doing so, choosing instead to re-visit the straw men you wheel out every other month.

This stuff needs to be agreed upon and enforced.
Who does that in the Libertarian country?

I think the above quote from you best elucidates what I'm saying. Although there are different strands of libertarianism (as there are with every ideology), no strand wishes to abolish the state. Some Googling might help you with some other basics.

matthew8

When discussing the benefits of libertarianism I forgot to mention the gold standard. That is the best thing about libertarianism. A gold-backed currency cannot be devalued by the government, unless they find some massive heap of gold somewhere. The federal reserve has enough gold for a gold-backed dollar. Of course people on wall street want inflation so their stocks go up so they hate the gold standard.

20Cent

Soldie wrote: »

Instead of trying to understand whether or not your warped interpretation of libertarianism is a good idea, perhaps you should instead focus your efforts on understanding what libertarianism is in the first place, as that is an area in which you appear to encounter great difficulty. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that you ought to familiarise yourself with what you're attempting to criticise, but I dare say you have no interest in doing so, choosing instead to re-visit the straw men you wheel out every other month.

I have read a bit about it. But if there is no such thing as a free market and libertarianism is all about having a free market whats the point in exploring further?

Soldie wrote: »

I think the above quote from you best elucidates what I'm saying. Although there are different strands of libertarianism (as there are with every ideology), no strand wishes to abolish the state. Some Googling might help you with some other basics.

Wikipedia says anarchism is a branch of libertarianism as does libertarianism.com.


Maybe describing what a libertarian society would be like would be helpful?

Soldie

20Cent wrote: »

I have read a bit about it. But if there is no such thing as a free market and libertarianism is all about having a free market whats the point in exploring further?

*Hits head against wall*

Thanks for proving my point.

Wikipedia says anarchism is a branch of libertarianism as does libertarianism.com.

If you had bothered to read further than the second paragraph on the wikipedia page for libertarianism you would see that it merely draws similarities between anarchism and libertarianism in that both ideologies concern themselves with the scope of the state. However, where libertarians wish to reduce the competencies of the state, anarchists wish to abolish the state altogether. You could at least try to be a bit more subtle about your agenda; you have just said that your own understanding of libertarianism is limited, yet instead of trying to develop your understanding you relentlessly create straw men and inaccurate caricatures. It's disingenuous in the extreme; you've got an axe to grind - we get it.

Maybe describing what a libertarian society would be like would be helpful?

In other words: You paint the picture and I'll try to poke holes in it. :rolleyes:

Memnoch

It seems like a valid question to ask what you think a libertarian society will look like.

Because there isn't really a consistent philosophy of what constitutes the movement. (like any other movement really) Communism for example can sound great in theory, but has failed to work in its implementation. I also believe we are rapidly approaching the point where society will acknowledge the failure of representative democracy and transition to some form of more direct democracy, though it may take a couple more centuries for this to happen.

Look at Ron and Rand Paul. Both claim to be libertarians but espouse quite different views. I have great respect for the father but find the son totally intolerable.

At the end of the day, if you are advocating libertarianism as a philosophy to be embraced you shouldn't be afraid to to discuss it openly and be challenged upon it.

People have legitimate concerns about these. To you these are 'holes,' to be poked. If their concerns are based on a misunderstanding, you'll have the opportunity to clarify. If their concerns are justified then maybe you should rethink your position. But pushing your head into the sand and running away from debate you're not going to convince anyone that this is a good idea.

Soldie

Memnoch wrote: »

It seems like a valid question to ask what you think a libertarian society will look like.

Because there isn't really a consistent philosophy of what constitutes the movement. (like any other movement really) Communism for example can sound great in theory, but has failed to work in its implementation. I also believe we are rapidly approaching the point where society will acknowledge the failure of representative democracy and transition to some form of more direct democracy, though it may take a couple more centuries for this to happen.

Look at Ron and Rand Paul. Both claim to be libertarians but espouse quite different views. I have great respect for the father but find the son totally intolerable.

At the end of the day, if you are advocating libertarianism as a philosophy to be embraced you shouldn't be afraid to to discuss it openly and be challenged upon it.

People have legitimate concerns about these. To you these are 'holes,' to be poked. If their concerns are based on a misunderstanding, you'll have the opportunity to clarify. If their concerns are justified then maybe you should rethink your position. But pushing your head into the sand and running away from debate you're not going to convince anyone that this is a good idea.

This thread is not about me; it's about Ron Paul. I see little point in debating with people who repeatedly resort to deliberate misrepresentation and caricature [in this case I'm referring to 20Cent]. As evidenced by his failure even to understand the basics of libertarianism, it's clear to me that 20Cent has no interest in debating the topic honestly; he's more interested in taking pot shots, and I know this because he does it all the time (recent example). Some people have patience and will take the bait; I'm not one of them, so I'll leave it there.