Why the HELL are you NOT a Libertarian?

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by hawkiye

 

That describes a primitive tribal/clan council government. Parts of Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan are like that. Their religion also played a major role in their lives. Not my ideal government.

The Celts did not live utopian lives. There are well documented Celtic invasions of Italy and the Balkans in ancient times.

The colonization of Ireland by Celts was the result of multiple invasions and destruction of its aboriginal inhabitants.

Rockpuck in a post above, goes further into Ireland itself. I don't need to repeat it.

I see you failed to read any of the documents. I did not say the Celts lived utopian lives. I said they had maximum freedom. They were the most sophisticated society of thier time. Somalia etc. are nothing like that. They are ruled by Warlord dictators constantly fighting each other. There religion had nothing to do with thier government they were separate.

The wars they had were mear feuds compared to the rest of Europe at tht time an especially the 20th century. AS for the invading the Balkans I don't think it is the same time period so you'll have to give the years that happened

The colonization of Ireland by Celts? Who were the aboriginal inhabitants of Ireland before the Celts?

You would do well to actually read the documents before dismissing it with your preconceived notions.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by hawkiye]

reply to post by Rockpuck


1. Libertarians are nothing like Liberals .. which I think is what you meant.. you were probably fantasizing about bill oreilly in a thong and lost your concentration.



We really need a bbcode that has the soda coming out the nose!

I use to be able to listen to him (not agree just listen), now he just annoys me.

Originally posted by Byrd
A charming but simplistic idea.

Whose rights are you supporting?

As long as my rights/freedoms do not limit others rights/freedoms there is no problem. For all other cases there is Arbitration.

reply to post by Rockpuck

Ireland was a Absolute Monarchy and confederacy of 4 kingdoms (Ulster/Lienster/Munster/connacht Love the Irish and their history, but they were not very "libertarian" .. it was actually more in line with "Enlightened Monarchy" .. based on religious support the citizens could effectively remove the Monarch if he upset "the balance" .. I'd prefer enlightened monarchy over Democracy any day, but in this modern world it's impossible. PS the system you're talking about was a legal system called "Brehon Law".. Libertarian in value, but not so much when it came to the actual governments.

Well you need to provide some documentation for that. They had Kings but they had no political power as I quoted in my post. The articles I referenced show that the system of law was private and a free market. they could choose which brehons they would like to hear thier cases

Politically, however, the king had strictly limited functions: he was the military leader of the tuath, and he presided over the tuath assemblies. But he could only conduct war or peace negotiations as agent of the assemblies; and he was in no sense sovereign and had no rights of administering justice over tuath members. He could not legislate, and when he himself was party to a lawsuit, he had to submit his case to an independent judicial arbiter.

The most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law and courts, however, has been neglected by historians until very recently. And this was also a society where not only the courts and the law were largely libertarian, but where they operated within a purely state-less and libertarian society. This was ancient IrelandÑan Ireland which persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe.

The brehons were in no sense public, or governmental, officials; they were simply selected by parties to disputes on the basis of their reputations for wisdom, knowledge of the customary law, and the integrity of their decisions.

Furthermore, the brehons had no connection whatsoever with the individual tuatha or with their kings. They were completely private, national in scope, and were used by disputants throughout Ireland. Moreover, and this is a vital point, in contrast to the system of private Roman lawyers, the brehon was all there was; there were no other judges, no 'public' judges of any kind, in ancient Ireland. It was the brehons who were schooled in the law, and who added glosses and applications to the law to fit changing conditions. Furthermore, there was no monopoly, in any sense, of the brehon jurists; instead, several competing schools of jurisprudence existed and competed for the custom of the Irish people. How were the decisions of the brehons enforced? Through an elaborate, voluntarily developed system of 'insurance,' or sureties. Men were linked together by a variety of surety relationships by which they guaran?teed one another for the righting of wrongs, and for the enforcement of justice and the decisions of the brehons. In short, the brehons themselves were not involved in the enforcement of decisions, which rested again with private individuals linked through sureties. There were various types of surety. For example, the surety would guarantee with his own property the payment of a debt, and then join the plaintiff in enforcing a debt judgment if the debtor refused to pay. In that case, the debtor would have to pay double damages: one to the original cred?itor, and another as compensation to his surety. And this system applied to all offences, aggressions and assaults as well as commercial contracts; in short, it applied to all cases of what we would call 'civil' and 'criminal' law. All criminals were considered to be 'debtors' who owed restitution and compensation to their victims, who thus became their 'creditors.' The victim would gather his sureties around him and pro?ceed to apprehend the criminal or to proclaim his suit publicly and demand that the defendant submit to adjudication of their dispute with the brehons. The criminal might then send his own sureties to negotiate a settlement or agree to submit the dispute to the brehons. If he did not do so, he was considered an 'outlaw' by the entire community; he could no longer enforce any claim of his own in the courts, and he was treated to the opprobrium of the entire community. There were occasional 'wars,' to be sure, in the thousand years of Celtic Ireland, but they were minor brawls, negligible compared to the devastating wars that racked the rest of Europe.

reply to post by hawkiye


Thanks for this link.www.mises.org...


So, Britain and now the US have been trying to destroy Sovereigns and freeman for centuries now?

Will be reading that pdf. Thanks for the nugget of knowledge. Just have to figure out how to change the background to dark on pdf's or convert it to a word document and do it there. I have a hard time reading on the computer with a white background and dark text. I like the ATS format.

i am a conservative leaning liberitarian. I think that our great nation of America has become completely one sided, in the sense that all politicians in the republican party and the deocratic party are all in on the same agenda. I mean c'mon, Obama was all for the stimulus package and bail outs that helped filthy rich corporations and businesses and CEO's keep their jobs. He's JUST LIKE BUSH. Did you know that Obama and Cheney are 8th cousins!! and Bush is his 11th cousin!! Its all R.E.T.A.R.D.E.D. We NEED a third party to rise up out of the ashes of this fake political war, and take the reigns. Will it be the Liberitarians? Wil it be Ralph and the Greens? Or will this Tea Party sweep over the country and become a new face for conservatives?? Who knows. But their r issues right now that need to be dealt with. And a REAL change would be nice. Not Obama's fake #e.

Originally posted by tigpoppa
sounds like anarchy to me.

I am an american[sic] and we dont[sic] have this party here.

Since some of our Founders were classic Libertarians, you may want to reconsider?

FYI -

National Platform of the Libertarian Party

Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado
Preamble

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.
Statement of Principles

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.


2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.


2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.


3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.


3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.

that. was. beautiful. haha

In reading through the responses to this thread, I'm floored by the apparent lack of knowledge about the Libertarian Party. Anarchists? Get real

reply to post by endisnighe


You're welcome. Yep Britain has been at it for millennium. Most people have no clue about this history, their society was pretty sophisticated and disproves all the myths about libertarianism and anarchism not being viable. Libertarianism/Anarchy doesn't mean lawlessness like most think it just means no central government and no force IMO.

It is really Voluntarism. Oppress no one. Harm no one (except in self defense) and keep your agreements. All disputes can be easily judged by applying those 3 principles to the case.

The worst criminal knows it's wrong to lie, steal, cheat, murder, plunder, etc. because it oppresses and harms others, he just doesn't give a damn. It's natural law pure and simple.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by hawkiye]

Originally posted by endisnighe
There is one tenet of Libertarianism.

You have the RIGHT to do anything as long as you do not infringe on someone else's rights of Life, Liberty or Property.

I will always be your friend and benefactor.

You have the right to your own world. You have the right to believe in what you want. You have the right to self determination.

Why the HELL are you not a Libertarian?

I guess I'm a libertarian then.
I've just never liked labels & always considered myself to be an independent. Nobody ever needs a definition when you tell them that.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
In reading through the responses to this thread, I'm floored by the apparent lack of knowledge about the Libertarian Party. Anarchists? Get real

I know right? I was reading through and WOW. i dont mean to be mean, but seriously, America was FOUNDED on liberitarian/Masonic principles. it isnt ANARCHY AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by Byrd


One more

Your first example. If the legislature did steal the land, then they need to compensate the current owner with a legitimate current value of the property, and return the property to the rightful owner.

Mom known to have alcohol problems isn't harming anyone, and chances are that she has a job, and can take good care of her child. This use of known to have alcohol problems is no excuse to deprive anyone of their child. Should we also deprive people who are known to have ego problems of their right to child custody, or numerous other personality problems that are far worse than most supposed alcohol problems? The Dad is in prison, by his actions he has lost his rights. Should he pay his debts to society, then, some sort of custody arrangement should be considered.

Children are not deemed capable of joining into contracts because they are considered to be too inexperienced to make these types of commitments. Therefore no one should be allowed to marry a child. An adult in a position of authority over a child has too much control to allow a sexual relationship to be engaged, because said sexual relationship has been shown to harmful to the child. The guy is a child molester. Some types of risky behavior are not allowed, like driving under the influence. Most convicted of such a safety crime have harmed no one, and thought they were sober enough to drive.

I don't see these cases as that vague. The harm no one concept is broadened to include risky behavior that is recognized by all as being too likely to allow, due to the high risk of someone being harmed. This is the area where things get harder to define.

@poet 1b
They happen anyway. Do u honestly think they'll happen MORE?!

reply to post by Byrd

Whose rights are you supporting?

Conquerors always win.

Whose rights do you support?

That's a state issue, not a Federal issue.

Whose rights do you support?

IMO he has every right to marry however many peoples he so chooses.. so long as it's voluntary and doesn't infringe on their rights as people. Age of consent and so forth is a State issue .. technically, so would polygamy.

Whose rights do you support?

I'd support the Gays.

What about the rights of the GITMO detainees?

Gitmo is a MILITARY base, and the people inside are there because of a war.. be it a war of aggression or not, their rights are restricted to military tribunal. The Constitution does not say enemy combatants deserve public trials under constitutional protection.

not protection of women from rape and abuse

I don't really understand what you are even implying? Libertarians enjoy the idea of women being raped?

equal pay for equal work no matter your race or sex or age

I don't believe any Government has the right to say that a business privately owned must hire X amount of whites/blacks/hispanics/asians etc. Nor do I believe they have the right to dictate how much someone should be paid (minimum wage) or equal wage rights. However all of this is STATE issues.. not Federal.

regulation to shut down computer trading and preventing a stock market panic

Nope, not the Governments business. If the economy tanks for a while, that's the way it's supposed to happen. If computers can tell us that the economy is so bad it needs to collapse.. perhaps we should stop tinkering with the economy.

I think the biggest misunderstanding about Libertarianism is the definition of State and Federal rights... most of the issues you bring up are really STATE issues, not FEDERAL. So many because the States should be left to determine their own way of life, without interference from the Feds. The Fed has a very simplistic job and job duties.. hence why you feel Libertarianism is so simplistic, simply because most issues can be answered as "states problem, states problem, states problem" and so forth.

Originally posted by Byrd


A charming but simplistic idea.

Brilliant and very common sensical(just made that one up) as well.

A Native American tribe comes in and says (with documentation) that the land we own is theirs and was stolen from them. Again, they have documentation showing that the legislature (this is a true case, by the way... in California) met in secret session during the lifetime of the person who is making the claim and made laws to steal his land. I bought the land legally 30 years ago.

Whose rights are you supporting?

Who stole the land? If by evidence of the contract can be given, the one who caused the harm must pay recompense. Did you steal the land, no so you also cannot be held liable for the problem. You could also be considered to be a victim of fraud. If a jury of your peers finds these facts to be relevant and true, then there must be payments made for the injustice. If I were a sitting judge on this case, I would issue bench warrants for any and all legislators that voted for the criminal endeavor.

A mom (who is known to have alcohol problems) and a dad (in prison for rape and car theft) are fighting over custody of a 6 year old girl. No other relatives want the child because she's autistic. Neither of the parents is infringing on someone else's rights of Life, Liberty or Property.

Whose rights do you support?

If a person is in prison for rape and car theft, do they still have parental rights? The child shall go to the mother, as far as I know, imbibing alcohol has no relevance to the case.

A religious group claims that their deity told them that it's okay for the founder to have multiple wives and marry 12 year old girls (another case snatched from the headlines a few years ago) and have sex with 12 year old boys. He isn't imprisoning the children and the girls appear to have married him voluntarily. His community of followers approves of him and say he isn't infringing on someone else's rights of Life, Liberty or Property.

Whose rights do you support?

This here is a TRICKY one. Very tricky. At what age is a person able to exert their rights has a very old and historic lineage. One has to consider all aspects of said claim. (This one you threw into trying to shake my position-I accept the challenge)

First, the rights of marriage has nothing to do with government. They have to do with two or more individuals in this case. If 20 women wanted to be married to one man, who am I to say they are wrong.

If confronted with such a position as of the age. First, I would have to ask if the parents of said children agree. Second I would have to ask the children some basic questions to see if they understand what they are agreeing to. If the children agree and they seem to be knowledgeable enough to enter into it, I guess I would have to allow said marriages.

That is me. I find it wrong but what am I to judge. You bring up marriage, what say you to 18 year olds going to war yet not allowed to drink alcohol? What is the age now that people can marry? 16 in some states? This of course would have to be determined per state. Where it is now.

A group of gays are suing the military to let them live as openly gay and they want spousal recognition and rights.

Whose rights do you support?

The military is not a part of society. It is a system that is used for war. In a Libertarian society, the use of the military is for war, not policing the world for said interests of the government.

I have to ask, is there a contract when one signs up for the military? If one agrees to a contract for service and then wants to change the contract, does one not have to ask for this.

As for suing, they have all the right in the world to a civil case. Would they win if I was a juror, it would all depend on the contract they signed.

What about the rights of the GITMO detainees?

Are they human beings? Of course they have rights. Abso frelling lutely.

...there's millions of these cases around. I find the Libertarian views to be very simplistic and a lot of them seem to be behind the principles that the government shouldn't interfere with gun ownership. Gun Ownership seems to be the #1 issue for most of them -- not protection of women from rape and abuse (there's not a lot of attention to that in the Libertarians), equal pay for equal work no matter your race or sex or age (not a big issue with them), regulation to shut down computer trading and preventing a stock market panic (which would be against their principles), and on and on and on.

I find very little attractive about them.

After examining it all, I find I'm still a liberal Democrat, and I will stand up for many things, but I'm not going to stand up for your right to turn your property into a private garbage dump (I work at a site where a man did just that with his farm for 20 years) or sit on your front porch with your gun and favorite rottweiler, playing loud music so the Black schoolkids can see you as they head home from school (example of someone I felt is Yet Another Moron.)

The rest of your discussion is irrelevant to the discussion. For one, the people you mention are not Libertarians. Libertarians value responsibility for their actions.

Also, to create a garbage dump out of ones land infringes on the rights of others. I also had a neighbor that did this. He was forced to clean it up. Pollution from it infringes on others.

Also, you attempting to equate Libertarians with a racist redneck slant should be indicative of your bias. Thanks for the comment.


Several edits needed to breakdown the underage girl question. Still not even sure to settle with that.

[edit on 5/13/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by hawkiye


Ireland was settled by stone age hunter gatherers at least as far back as 7500 BC.

They built various megalithic structures, some as early as 3200 BC.

The Celts originated in central Europe forming their culture as early as 1400 BC.

The Celts arrived in Britain around the 6th century BC and expanded into Ireland around that same time.

reply to post by Byrd


The important thing here, is that force not be initiated against others, for any reason. For instance, if you steal from me and I shoot you, you are the initiator of force and my force was only in response.

A Native American tribe comes in and says (with documentation) that the land we own is theirs and was stolen from them. Again, they have documentation showing that the legislature (this is a true case, by the way... in California) met in secret session during the lifetime of the person who is making the claim and made laws to steal his land. I bought the land legally 30 years ago.

Whose rights are you supporting?

You support the tribe, who had force initiated against them. You were duped by buying stolen land and in fact, had force initiated against you through fraud. While your land belongs to the tribe, you should have the right to take action against the person/s who committed fraud against you. Maybe you can get your value through them but the tribe should not be made to eat the cost of the fraud committed against you.

A mom (who is known to have alcohol problems) and a dad (in prison for rape and car theft) are fighting over custody of a 6 year old girl. No other relatives want the child because she's autistic. Neither of the parents is infringing on someone else's rights of Life, Liberty or Property.

Whose rights do you support?

Clearly the girl's rights should be supported (within reason). The parents should be able to come to an agreement in a way where force is not initiated. The people should not be forced to interject between these parents. If the father is in prison, he clearly can not care for the child so this is pretty much case closed.

A religious group claims that their deity told them that it's okay for the founder to have multiple wives and marry 12 year old girls (another case snatched from the headlines a few years ago) and have sex with 12 year old boys. He isn't imprisoning the children and the girls appear to have married him voluntarily. His community of followers approves of him and say he isn't infringing on someone else's rights of Life, Liberty or Property.

Whose rights do you support?

Well this is tricky and somewhat subjective. You obviously support the rights of the children. If this religious group's rights impede on the liberties of someone else, such as the children, then they are clearly overstepping their bounds. However, because these children live under the liberties of their parents, it should be up to their parents whether or not their liberties are being impeded. With that being said, if the parents are subjecting these kids to clear abuse, to which would impede these children from making sound choices in the future, then again, the children's rights should be supported.

A group of gays are suing the military to let them live as openly gay and they want spousal recognition and rights.

Whose rights do you support?

Since the military is public or publicly funded, you support the rights of the gays. Force here, is being initiated against the gays.



The simple way to look at it from a libertarian point of view, is to break it down to the lowest common denominator and that is, who is initiating the force. You support the rights of those who are not the initiators of force because those are the ones whose liberties are being impeded. This holds true to the philosophy of "you should have all the liberty you want, as long as that liberty does not impede on the liberties of others", which is the responsability half.

Just my 2 cents.

--airspoon


[edit on 12-5-2010 by airspoon]

Originally posted by endisnighe
There is one tenet of Libertarianism.

You have the RIGHT to do anything as long as you do not infringe on someone else's rights of Life, Liberty or Property.

Why the HELL are you not a Libertarian?

Can you show us some examples of libertarian societies
where these ideas work?

reply to post by poet1b


I would like to point to one of the largest markets there are.

Illicit drugs.

Seems to be running quite well with no regulation.

Hell, even with millions of LEO's attempting to destroy the market.

It keeps running and running and running!

Let us look at another unregulated market. The hiring of illegal immigrants.

It keeps running and running and runnning!

Or another one, prostitution.

Any market thrives without government intervention. THRIVES.