What is wrong with Libertarianism?

Originally posted by UK Wizard
I'm sort of ignorant of Liberatism being from the UK

,

but isn't Libertarianism a type of 'structured moderate' anarchism????

sorry if i'm way off mark on the ideals of Libertarianism

This might help again..

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose
government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate
diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

Link

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

I'd like your opinion on the concept of a person being a principled libertarian and a born-again Christian; do you believe that these are mutually exclusive? Why or why not?

I'm lookig forward to your views; I'm sure they'll be well thought out and presented!

Off_the_street,

Thank you for your compliments; I have been enjoying your posts also.

I'm not aware of any published statistical correlations between the two groups, but in general, I think most religions can fit into libertarianism well. With respect to christianity in general, I think we can see that nothing biblical or papal prohibits one to be a libertarian, and in fact I can argue decently that those into biblical study might be interested in libertarianism.

One could point out:
1. The christian theist's concept of freewill isn't that far off from the libertarian's concept of liberty. In one case we have God telling us what sin is, yet allows us to sin, and the other we have our personal values/morals telling us what is wrong, yet there is no absolute power (government) to prevent us from doing it. e.x. A libertarian could be morally opposed to drug use, yet will not want a law against it.

2. The christian theist's concept of faith and works ("faith without works is blind") puts into light a fundamental motive for people to give in charity without a higher power forcing them to do so. One's reward for giving should be fulfillment of their own wish to give, and christianity simply does give that motivation.

3. Biblically, theft is wrong. Absolutely a sin. While this is a very touchy subject, I can give witness to that I never consented to pay taxes directly or indirectly. For those who say, "well what about the social contract?!" I suggest you go back and read Hobbes and the subsequent authors with doubt; (a) most social contract theorists go off the horrible premise that man is not a social animal, and (b) most social contract theorists have doubts that any such contract ever existed.


In my experience, most atheists I know are on the left end of the scale: socialists, communists, green, etc. I have been known to stand out from my peers (atheists) in this regard; heated discussions occur daily. An interesting thing I have noticed, though, is that most libertarians that I know are very involved with some subset of engineering: computer sciences, engineering, etc. Perhaps just all the logic gates make sense with libertarianism. :-P

Regards,
Radardog

Originally posted by jsobecky
I just cannot justify the libertarian stand on drugs. Having seen a pcp freak, impervious to TASERs, tossing cops around like rag dolls, and seeing what needles do to people, I just don't think the simple approach of "it's your body, do what you want with it" takes into account the effects on society. It doesn't just hurt the junkie; many are affected.

Just my .02

I think we can both agree that violence in this sense shouldn't occur. However, violence is all we are really talking about, isn't it? Spouses, food, and even water are also known to cause violence in one form or another. Let's follow your reasoning and ban all things that have been known to cause violence. In the end of all violence, we put on trail the person doing it; never the bat he used to swing with, or the cigarette he smoked just before the act.

Let's stop blaming objects for our problems!

When we are honest with ourselves, it is easy to see it is we who make the decisions, and we who are to be responsible for them.

[edit on 25-11-2004 by radardog]

They have very little interest--or none--in creating harmonious social groupings.

Not necessarily predatory, but I've never met a Libertarian who I would consider to be a generous, gracious person.

Meeee first, is the first thing that comes up. My and my beliefs and my values, and my things and my goals and my this and my that .....

They have very little interest--or none--in creating harmonious social groupings.

Have you ever considered that creating harmonious social groupings could be in everyone's best *gasp* self interest? This is a very old misunderstanding that is becoming very well known. For what other reason would a community exist if it wasn't in your interest to be in one?

Not necessarily predatory, but I've never met a Libertarian who I would consider to be a generous, gracious person.

I have had better experiences I suppose. I know many who often give to charity and have express wishes to donate what the government takes out in taxes. Isn't it sad that the government doesn't allow a person to donate to a charity of their choice with all their earned wealth?

Meeee first, is the first thing that comes up. My and my beliefs and my values, and my things and my goals and my this and my that .....

There is actually a large philosophic debate with respect to altruism actually existing. Can every altruistic act be boiled down to self interest? The question is: Is it possible to be altruistic just for the sake of being altruistic? (or is it the case you LIKE to be altruisitc? .. thus self interest pops up again)

you usually find a person who has no sense of accountability to a Higher Power.

Libertarians seldom take God seriously. So the dictim,

"Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourselves"

simply has no meaning in their minds.

It wouldn't occur to them, to serve as "their brother's keeper."

My family was full of them--independent, self-serving iconoclasts.

Phooey. No fun to be around at all.

Couldn't even laugh at themselves. Heaven forbid.

Their faces would crack. They might miss out on something.

Whatever.

[mutter mutter mutter]

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
They have very little interest--or none--in creating harmonious social groupings.

Wrong we are not the ones forcing Democracy down another country's throat at gun point. We believe in live and let live not everyone must do it THIS way. We want the most harmonious society, unless of course you believe everyone has to obey YOUR values

Not necessarily predatory, but I've never met a Libertarian who I would consider to be a generous, gracious person.

How many have you met? I know hundreds and they they are no less generous than any other group. We just believe more in teaching a man to fish than giving him our fish every day till he dies

Meeee first, is the first thing that comes up. My and my beliefs and my values, and my things and my goals and my this and my that .....

Now which group doesn't act like this? The difference is we would allow you do act as you wish whereas YOU think we must act like YOU think we should

[edit on 25-11-2004 by Amuk]

Emily_Cragg,

Even though you didn't respond to my previous post, I will note a few more things. Most theists I know want to go to heaven because of the promises of heaven. That is, it is in their self-interest to go to heaven. This is fine and dandy with me. I would like you, however, to look into more ethical theories.

God command ethics are not the only ethics that exist, and in fact the ethic that gives the human being the most worth is actually a secular ethic (See Kant), wherein Kant asserts it is always immoral to use a human as a means. Mills and Bentham look closely to human suffering with their ethics, as it focuses on happiness and pleasure as the basis of what is good and bad.

In summary, a God is not required to have feelings of being ethical, and charity can exist without God as its basis.

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
you usually find a person who has no sense of accountability to a Higher Power.

Libertarians seldom take God seriously. So the dictim,

So everyone must worship YOUR God?

It wouldn't occur to them, to serve as "their brother's keeper."

You are right about this it doesnt occur to use that EVERYONE must act only in a way that WE choose

Everyone must accept responsibility for the effects he or she creates in time by behavior and speech.

Everyone must be accountable to principles of stewardship, community, the propagation of literacy, "JUST" Law and Mercy.

"Just" Law merely means that a good person doing a good or benign act should get a good outcome; and a person of malign intent, harming someone or something, should be halted, prevented from doing further harm and either corrected or expelled.

What all this has to do with God is that God follows these rules Himself; so it's reasonable that we should be familiar with and be able to relate to the way the Universe runs, out there without our help.

So much for you guys reading my mind.

Please stop identifying me with Fundamentalists. Remember, I'm part Cherokee, part Jewish and part Christian; so in my mind I have to envelope all those perspectives in order to speak from a coherent line of thought.

The Bible is not the only "inspired" book I have in the house. Communion is not the only sacred ceremony I go to. Persons LIKE MYSELF are not the only friends I have.

You know, I wouldn't get after you so much if you would just read more carefully and stop putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I just cannot justify the libertarian stand on drugs. Having seen a pcp freak, impervious to TASERs, tossing cops around like rag dolls, and seeing what needles do to people, I just don't think the simple approach of "it's your body, do what you want with it" takes into account the effects on society. It doesn't just hurt the junkie; many are affected.

Just my .02

And having people in the military go on lsd and god knows whatever else is justifiable? Having someone ingest something that they may not do in their regular life is ok? I get it, it's ok if authoritarian people get subordinates to ingest drugs to see if it will make them "super human" but to do it on your own accord is criminal... thanks for clarifying....



[edit on 25-11-2004 by TrueLies]

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
They have very little interest--or none--in creating harmonious social groupings.

Not necessarily predatory, but I've never met a Libertarian who I would consider to be a generous, gracious person.

Meeee first, is the first thing that comes up. My and my beliefs and my values, and my things and my goals and my this and my that .....

And Genine Garafalo and Michael Moore come bearing frankenscnece and murr?? God, get over this caregiver type attitude...
There are other ways to be "generous and gracious" without shovelling money to the less then fortunates of society...

Why is it all about money with you guys... god... It's now a crime to try and make ends meet without shovelling your hard earned money to peope we don't even know of where it's going?? I guess food drives and donating clothes and what not are less important necessities then money???

What have you done that wins you the generous and gracious person of the year award?? what a joke.

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
you usually find a person who has no sense of accountability to a Higher Power.

Libertarians seldom take God seriously. So the dictim,

"Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourselves"

simply has no meaning in their minds.

It wouldn't occur to them, to serve as "their brother's keeper."

My family was full of them--independent, self-serving iconoclasts.

Phooey. No fun to be around at all.

Couldn't even laugh at themselves. Heaven forbid.

Their faces would crack. They might miss out on something.

Whatever.

[mutter mutter mutter]

You got one thing right... mutter mutter mutter, thats all your doing...
You have no idea about what your talking about.. Making generalizations and pulling # out of your ass like it's a common fact... keep going, i'm enjoying your uneducated commentary... why don't you get a job with bill o'reilly...

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg

Meeee first, is the first thing that comes up. My and my beliefs and my values, and my things and my goals and my this and my that .....

yeah it's called survival...


[edit on 25-11-2004 by TrueLies]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
jsobecky says:

�I just cannot justify the libertarian stand on drugs.�

Krazy Jethro says:

�Well, no one said that Libertarians are about legalizing everything.�

Let me address Brother Jethro�s point first. He�s right; Libertarians are not about legalizing everything, such as child molestation, murder, assault, trespass, damage of property, theft, and fraud. (Rape, of course, is a particular degrading form of assault, and pollution can be considered an insidious form of trespass and property damage.)

Now what does that have to do with drugs?

Don't muddy the waters. We're not talking about rape, etc.We're talking about L's stance on drugs, which is? That any adult should be allowed to ingest whatver they want, with the usual disclaimer of not hurting anyone else in doing so.

My point is that I�ve been there, done that, and have the t-shirt -- before most of you were born.

I probably sold you the tee shirt.

If you look at the crimes caused by drug-takers (not counting the actual possession or use of the drug itself), you�ll realize that they fall into three categories

The first is the murder and violence that is part of the illegal distribution network. Think of the robberies, murders, and wholesale wars that are carried out by narcotraficantes such as the Medell�n Cartel in Colombia, the Escobar Brothers in Mexico, and all the associated domestic Bad Guys, such as the Mafia.

The second is the robberies and associated crimes carried out by users in an effort to raise money for their fix.

The third is the violence that is caused / exacerbated by the chemical changes in the brain from the drug itself.

There are social costs, much heavier than the cost of the product, which are conveniently being ignored.

Drug crimes aren�t usually caused by drugs per se; they�re caused by the drug laws!

So are all crimes. If there is no law against it there is no crime. So let's just do away with all laws, right?

And finally, here are two interesting things to think about:

First, the United States spends billions and billions of dollars a year on prisons and jails. Twenty percent of the people in those jails are there because of illicit drugs �offenses�, and about half of the 49 percent who are there on violence charges are there because of the drug laws �inciting� them to violence --

You could give the drugs away, and it still would not stop the violence and misery caused by hard drugs. Drug laws don't incite violence; drug usage does. Much the same as gun laws don't kill people.

Hard drug usage destroys your soul. It's not just a matter of economics.

Originally posted by TrueLies

And having people in the military go on lsd and god knows whatever else is justifiable? Having someone ingest something that they may not do in their regular life is ok? I get it, it's ok if authoritarian people get subordinates to ingest drugs to see if it will make them "super human" but to do it on your own accord is criminal... thanks for clarifying....

I sincerely hope you were being facetious here, since I never said or condoned anything of the sort and have no idea where the hell that line of tripe you just tried to sell came from.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I sincerely hope you were being facetious here

Maybe I was, but first you have to tell me what the hell facetious means..

since I never said or condoned anything of the sort and have no idea where the hell that line of tripe you just tried to sell came from.

I know you didn't say it, i did... I know you don't condone it, I said you did... I've been drinking... See what happens when you drink too much?? It's easy to misinterpret... My apologies.

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
They have very little interest--or none--in creating harmonious social groupings.

Not necessarily predatory, but I've never met a Libertarian who I would consider to be a generous, gracious person.

Meeee first, is the first thing that comes up. My and my beliefs and my values, and my things and my goals and my this and my that .....

Perhaps this is true to some degree, but really, I think it to be more of a difference between how we think our government and country to run, and how we live our lives.

I'd say more often than not (me included), I feel taxed out, and would love nothing more than to have a good portion of MY money back so I could be free to give my kids the best life I can give.

It gets discouraging when you make 72,000 this year, and gotten to take home 32,000 after taxes and expenses ONLY related to my job.

Some people's jobs cost money, and merely giving me back a portion of what I have pumped into this economy is not enough to do anything but keep us down.

Home ownership is up, but that is with the addition of some great loan packages that have developed over the past 10 years. Money is the real problem, not credit. I think the credit industry has grown and become extremely complex and life threatening, that we need to get back to money by allowing people to pay with their own money.

Waste is what this governments most consistent feature (as are all governments when they become a certain size). We want to stem the problem by returning rights to the states otherwise taken by the federal government to bribe the states into other legislation. The 21 year old drinking age for one.

It may be about me, but we think everyone should look out for themselves, and there are many me�s out there to think about. If more people were ok, then more people would give.

TL

Facetious in this case now means, have another one on me. Sorry to jump on you.

Happy Holidays!

After reading into this thread and reading the numerous comments, i was inspired to do some research into Libertarianism and i must say that i became more and more interested in Libertarianism and how it works. To be honest, Libertarianism is probably how you would define my political view