Is Libertarianism a Good Idea? - General

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37432961']One tiny instance. No one stopped going to Coca Cola when they assassinated labor leaders and no one stopped buying from Hersey and Nestle when people found out they got their cocoa from producers using child slave labor. You underestimate the power of PR and the basic mistakes made by Chick-fil-A. Some small business owner who owns the corner shop on the outskirts of town isn't going to give a shit about his 'reputation' if his cultural, social, or internal positions are already known and supported. Small businesses especially, like the one I work for, have a dedicated customer base, and both parties have a relationship that extends to knowing where they both stand on issues in the community and in ideology. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] But racial discrimination is not necessarily racism. and yes, you are right, but the South does, even today, have the worst record of discrimination out of anywhere else in the nation. The majority of notable court cases involving racial discrimination come from the South.[/QUOTE] how can racial discrimination not be racism? [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37433012]Source?[/QUOTE] Well most american Republicans have moved significantly to the right recently.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37433030]Well most american Republicans have moved significantly to the right recently.[/QUOTE] but i thought banning abortions was the opposite of what libertarianism wants

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37433114]but i thought banning abortions was the opposite of what libertarianism wants[/QUOTE] depends on how you view abortions. And I'm not talking just about abortions. Ron Paul has gained a lot of support recently and so has the Tea Party. Both of them advocate small government.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37433030]how can racial discrimination not be racism? [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] Well most american Republicans have moved significantly to the right recently.[/QUOTE] Because racism is the belief in superiority of one race over another, or the inferiority of one race over another. Racial discrimination is inherent in racism, but not racial discrimination deal in racial inferiority or superiority. It's a common misconception that all racial discrimination (i.e. affirmative actions, or a policy of giving smaller loans to blacks over whites) is racist, when it's simply not the case. That doesn't mean that racial discrimination is good or racism is good, I'm just saying that they (like free markets and capitalism) are not the same thing in all cases.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37433144']Because racism is the belief in superiority of one race over another, or the inferiority of one race over another. Racial discrimination is inherent in racism, but not racial discrimination deal in racial inferiority or superiority. It's a common misconception that all racial discrimination (i.e. affirmative actions, or a policy of giving smaller loans to blacks over whites) is racist, when it's simply not the case. That doesn't mean that racial discrimination is good or racism is good, I'm just saying that they (like free markets and capitalism) are not the same thing in all cases.[/QUOTE] okay, I guess you have a point. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37433012]Source?[/QUOTE] speaking of sources, when do you plan to provide the sources I asked for earlier? or have you given up on those claims?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37432675] why is that? just because corporations don't have to pay large fees in taxes does not mean they control the government. Plus, libertarianism is not bad for minorites.[/QUOTE] What I meant is that when the government's power over the people is withdrawn it's inevitable that corporations are going to come in and fill the gap. And the problem with corporations having power over people is that they're only there to make profit, there's no democracy as you can't vote for corporations, and they can get away with more as they're generally less transparent than governments

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37433129]depends on how you view abortions. And I'm not talking just about abortions. Ron Paul has gained a lot of support recently and so has the Tea Party. Both of them advocate small government.[/QUOTE] Tea Party is hardly libertarian though. A good friend of mine, a anarcho-capitalist and formerly a libertarian, used to support the Tea Party, but the message of the Tea Party is more like strict conservatism with elements of minarchism. They are hardly liberals or libertarians- they don't wish to see the allowance of liberties they don't agree with or the equal allowance of liberties or rights to all, but rather seek to remove liberties and rights that don't support a conservative moral worldview. Gay marriage, being a good example. While Libertarians propose that government should have nothing to do with union and that anyone should be able to join in union regardless, the Tea Party advocates a governmental ban on gay unions and does not wish to seek to extend the liberty of union and the right of marriage to homosexuals.

[QUOTE=obdob;37433175]What I meant is that when the government's power over the people is withdrawn it's inevitable that corporations are going to come in and fill the gap. And the problem with corporations having power over people is that they're only there to make profit, there's no democracy as you can't vote for corporations, and they can get away with more as they're generally less transparent than governments[/QUOTE] I still have a hard time believing that. The government would still be able to stop corporations from imposing laws on individuals. [editline]27th August 2012[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37433194']Tea Party is hardly libertarian though. A good friend of mine, a anarcho-capitalist and formerly a libertarian, used to support the Tea Party, but the message of the Tea Party is more like strict conservatism with elements of minarchism. They are hardly liberals or libertarians- they don't wish to see the allowance of liberties they don't agree with or the equal allowance of liberties or rights to all, but rather seek to remove liberties and rights that don't support a conservative moral worldview. Gay marriage, being a good example. While Libertarians propose that government should have nothing to do with union and that anyone should be able to join in union regardless, the Tea Party advocates a governmental ban on gay unions and does not wish to seek to extend the liberty of union and the right of marriage to homosexuals.[/QUOTE] Your right, many Tea Partiers are neocons, but a lot are also libertarians. Either way, the ideas of small government and free market capitalism might be returning soon to the main stream.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37433209] Your right, many Tea Partiers are neocons, but a lot are also libertarians. Either way, the ideas of small government and free market capitalism might be returning soon to the main stream.[/QUOTE] I believe it already has. The Libertarian Party and Ron Paul have already made the largest impact they ever have this this election over any other. Small-government free-market-capitalism is a major thing recently.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];37433263']I believe it already has. The Libertarian Party and Ron Paul have already made the largest impact they ever have this this election over any other. Small-government free-market-capitalism is a major thing recently.[/QUOTE] yes, but right now it's mainly talk talk talk. Very few politicians actually want to cut any of the big spending areas (defense, medicare, medicaid, and social security). Most just want to cut the Department of Education and other small departments.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37433336]Most just want to cut the Department of Education and other small departments.[/QUOTE] Cutting education would be like shooting yourself in the foot.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37433614]Cutting education would be like shooting yourself in the foot.[/QUOTE] ...what?

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37433746]...what?[/QUOTE] The politicians advocating a cut in education spending would worsen education, and only encourage the growth of poverty and lack of innovativeness.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37433832]The politicians advocating a cut in education spending would worsen education, and only encourage the growth of poverty and lack of innovativeness.[/QUOTE] I never said it wouldn't. I said that most "libertarians" want to make little cuts like that, instead of social security or other more important cuts.

[QUOTE=Kentz;37431842]yes it is it is my property it is being taken from me without my will how do you define theft? if i take your property to benefit my family is that ok? plus, nobody has the obligation to help other people, that's a personal choice and not your decision to make. stop trying to control other peoples lives please[/QUOTE] If everyone had a choice, the poorer would get poorer and the richer would get richer. Those who are selfless should make decisions for the selfish, and it is finding those people that are the problem. A true theft would be a gunman holding you hostage and emptying your wallet, or an identity thief scanning your credit card with one of those secret magnet readers. Taxes/tributes =/= theft. [editline]28th August 2012[/editline] You only have money because the government has it printed and cast, it is right to give some back so that it may be redistributed to those who actually need it.

Libertarianism revolves around free will. Without free will, Libertarianism is not what people make it out to be. It all depends on your view on free will. In my own opinion, the way people think that man is an island that makes it's own choices makes me upset. I think that Libertarianism is bunk.

Disproving the validity of libertarianism is quite easy. Where most people go wrong is that they refute the conclusions of a moral principal, as opposed to refuting the moral principle. For those who aren't sure about what is at the heart of libertarianism, it is property rights and the non-aggression principal. There are many proofs for property rights, many emphasizing self-ownership and owning of actions. If self-ownership can be disproved, or that someone does not own their actions, then libertarianism is dead in the water. Really, the concept of the non-aggression principal is logically destroyed when self-ownership does not exist, as aggression cannot exist without self-ownership, just as the act of "love making cannot exists between corpses". If for whatever reason you accept the two moral axioms, then the discussion has to focus on how the principals are incorrectly to the real world.

Yeah I agree with sobotnik in that case, education needs to be a much higher priority than it is right now.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37434597]If everyone had a choice, the poorer would get poorer and the richer would get richer. Those who are selfless should make decisions for the selfish, and it is finding those people that are the problem. [/quote] I'm not sure I follow this reasoning that because some people have more money than others, that somehow justifies any person (or group of persons) in taking their money away. How do you also decide where the line should be, isn't it all completely arbitrary? Some governments will tax the top marginal income at 30%, other governments may tax 75% or more. What is the "right" amount to take away from someone? Second, why should "the selfless" get to make decisions on behalf of other people and their property? Who the hell gave them that right? And out of curiosity, what does "selfish" actually mean to you? Does wanting to keep what you've earned make you selfish? [quote]A true theft would be a gunman holding you hostage and emptying your wallet, or an identity thief scanning your credit card with one of those secret magnet readers. Taxes/tributes =/= theft.[/quote] Except that's essentially what the government does. You don't get a choice whether or not to pay your taxes. If you don't pay them, government agents will come in pointing guns at you in order to lock you in a cage. If you resist them, you'll more than likely be killed. At least someone committing identity theft isn't using physical coercion against me while committing their crimes. It seems like you're also making a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman"]"no true scotsman"[/url] argument. [quote]You only have money because the government has it printed and cast, it is right to give some back so that it may be redistributed to those who actually need it.[/QUOTE] How is that even relevant? You can have other forms of money, like commodity money or digital money like bitcoins. Even putting that aside it's just a completely absurd argument. For example, "you only have a computer because someone else has built the parts, it is right for you to have to redistribute your computer parts to people who need them..I mean really man do you need all that RAM".

[quote]Except that's essentially what the government does. You don't get a choice whether or not to pay your taxes.[/quote] yeah you do don't buy or earn any money and you won't pay tax.

[QUOTE=thisispain;37435405]yeah you do don't buy or earn any money and you won't pay tax.[/QUOTE] ah, yeah. you're right I do have a choice! I could also just make the choice to commit suicide too and then I won't have to worry about taxes at all. So now we have a justification for taxation because I have a way to avoid paying it. But let's be serious, what is their justification for imposing a debt on me just for interacting with other individuals? (i.e. buying and selling things - including selling my labor)

[QUOTE=thisispain;37435405]yeah you do don't buy or earn any money and you won't pay tax.[/QUOTE] Not much of a choice, huh...

Noble seeing how you always parrot on about the social contract and usually all your arguments lead back to it, how would you answer the statement "maintaining citizenship in a country which explicitly outlines the governments right to collect taxes is a form of actively agreeing to a social contract"?

[QUOTE=Noble;37435320]I'm not sure I follow this reasoning that because some people have more money than others, that somehow justifies any person (or group of persons) in taking their money away. How do you also decide where the line should be, isn't it all completely arbitrary? Some governments will tax the top marginal income at 30%, other governments may tax 75% or more. What is the "right" amount to take away from someone? Second, why should "the selfless" get to make decisions on behalf of other people and their property? Who the hell gave them that right? And out of curiosity, what does "selfish" actually mean to you? Does wanting to keep what you've earned make you selfish? Except that's essentially what the government does. You don't get a choice whether or not to pay your taxes. If you don't pay them, government agents will come in pointing guns at you in order to lock you in a cage. If you resist them, you'll more than likely be killed. At least someone committing identity theft isn't using physical coercion against me while committing their crimes. It seems like you're also making a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman"]"no true scotsman"[/url] argument. How is that even relevant? You can have other forms of money, like commodity money or digital money like bitcoins. Even putting that aside it's just a completely absurd argument. For example, "you only have a computer because someone else has built the parts, it is right for you to have to redistribute your computer parts to people who need them..I mean really man do you need all that RAM".[/QUOTE] Those who work to serve themselves and their business, and only themselves and their business (I.E almost every major American corporation.) They have the means to do so, so why don't they? And no, the government isn't going to point their guns at your face or kill you if you don't pay taxes, you could get jailed and rightly so, or you could lose your assets that were made with the money that you refuse to pay. Taxes should rise and decrease in congruence with the amount of needy people that there are, and the state of infrastructure among other thing with a country. Bitcoins are different from money in that they are decentralized, they are produced by miners (and therefor have no true value, except the time that it took to produce them possibly) and not the same body of people that serve your nation, they are a commodity and not a means as to regulate how goods and life is lived. You only earn money because someone else produced it for the populace to have and to live by, and when some of it must be moved elsewhere, some of it must be moved elsewhere.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37435547]Noble seeing how you always parrot on about the social contract and usually all your arguments lead back to it, how would you answer the statement "maintaining citizenship in a country which explicitly outlines the governments right to collect taxes is a form of actively agreeing to a social contract"?[/QUOTE] What if I explicitly outline my "right" to own the sun, and then collect 100% of your income as a result of taking in "my sunlight". If you don't agree to it, you can just go live in a cave. Just because the government claims a "right" to something doesn't mean they have one. Their claims to be justified in taxing you because you live in "their country" are preposterous.

[QUOTE=Noble;37435617]Just because the government claims a "right" to something doesn't mean they have one. Their claims to be justified in taxing you because you live in "their country" are preposterous.[/QUOTE] You literally want to sign a contract don't you

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;37435547]Noble seeing how you always parrot on about the social contract and usually all your arguments lead back to it, how would you answer the statement "maintaining citizenship in a country which explicitly outlines the governments right to collect taxes is a form of actively agreeing to a social contract"?[/QUOTE] we have a choice to reject the social contract, right? If so, then fine. If it's optional, Libertarians shouldn't have a problem with it.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37435688]we have a choice to reject the social contract, right? If so, then fine. If it's optional, Libertarians shouldn't have a problem with it.[/QUOTE] In this case by renouncing your citizenship but apparently this isn't enough

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37435609]Those who work to serve themselves and their business, and only themselves and their business (I.E almost every major American corporation.) They have the means to do so, so why don't they?[/quote] But they benefit everyone else while doing it (by selling them goods and services they want/need). [quote]Bitcoins are different from money in that they are decentralized, they are produced by miners (and therefor have no true value, except the time that it took to produce them possibly) and not the same body of people that serve your nation, they are a commodity and not a means as to regulate how goods and life is lived.[/quote] Yeah, I used them to point out that not all money is created by government. Fiat money is, but I just wasn't understanding how the fact that the government prints it means that some of it must be redistributed. [quote]You only earn money because someone else produced it for the populace to have and to live by, and when some of it must be moved elsewhere, some of it must be moved elsewhere.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry I just don't follow this. Why must it be moved elsewhere? Who gave someone a right to dictate where my money goes?

[QUOTE=thisispain;37435405]yeah you do don't buy or earn any money and you won't pay tax.[/QUOTE] That's a stupid argument, and I hope you're joking. That's like a store owner has a choice about being robbed, because he chose to open a shop.