If you are going to insult someone's intelligence, try learning how to use grammar first.
Libertarian
- Thread starter the
- Start date
If you are going to insult someone's intelligence, try learning how to use grammar first.
Can the entirety of your intelligence be defined by your most recent thoughts? I think not. I insulted the content of your recent posts not you. Grammar is not an accurate measure for intelligence either.
I am half tempted to come to the conclusion, based on this obvious failure in logic, that you truly are simple minded but I would refrain from such assumptions as it is more than possible that even intelligent people can abandon simple reasoning through common oversight or maybe other reasons unknown to me.
You truly are a rare individual. I often see individuals ask and beg for things thinking it will make them happy just to remain unsatisfied when they finally receive it.
You my friend know exactly what you want, or more importantly, what you need.
-1 ;(
Yes, I agree that libertarianism is not the same with anarchy.
But still, libertaniarism would slowly but certanly lead to anarchy and total chaos.
A society whithout force, whithout a clear hierarchy, would colapse.
What is most interesting, is that these things happen naturaly. If there is not a strong authority already established, people would themselfs begin to establish force. People must be lead. People need to be lead. If there is no authority, there would be force devoided of authority. And I think that is very dangerous.
Do you have an explanation as to how you have determined this? I fail to see how liberalism leads to chaos.
Yes. Communism often results in this. Liberalism or libertarianism as some refer to it can exist in a democracy or even a republic which has a defined authority. Libertarianism simply follows the philosophy i stated earlier and so will limit the amount of authority a government has to necessary proportions.
Hold on, what do libertarians want? I don't get it. If you want to do nothing all day, sit at the computer, fuck yourself and do a bunch of drugs that's one thing, no ones going to let you live somewhere for free, give you a computer and internet and drugs and say, "Go fuck yourself." Lol what?? I really don't get it. If you want to live off the grid, farm and feed yourself along with a group of people, everyone is already allowed to do that. I don't understand..? Someone explain this to me please :/ cause as it stands now it sounds like they want stuff given to them. People can pretty well live any way they want so long as they do it themselves, they can have anything they want so long as they get it themselves. *holds head in hands* the world doesn't make sense anymore. So many people bitching *sob*
It's only natural that you can do a lot of things. Like be a hermit if you choose. This is because most government institutions operate in a permissive mode as opposed to prohibitive mode.
Permissive mode is where laws mainly tell you what you what you shouldn't do - if there's no law against it, it's ok. Right?
Prohibitive mode is where laws mainly tell you what you should do - if it's not explicitly authorized, it is illegal.
Most governments operate in permissive mode. They tell you what you shouldn't do. The problem comes in with their authority to decide what you shouldn't do - e.g. gay marriage.
It's not always about what you can do, some times it's about what you can't do and why you can't do it.
These people exist in any ideology but to be clear...
Using USA terms... Liberals are the ones that are more likely to do such things not Libertarians. Liberals are the ones who promote high taxes and want the government to create massive assistance programs. Libertarian want no such programs. I find myself more in the middle.
Libertarianism is also often for some people a wildcard for "getting whatever you want".
For example in one breath they might advocate equal rights for everybody and in the next, advocate for the right to discriminate.
Honestly you can never be sure who's side they're really on.
Can you give an example? As far as I am aware this right already exists. I am assuming you mean more than having a discriminating opinion.
I'm a socialist and an extrovert, most of the time, so I dont think much of libertarianism to be honest.
It'll be co-opted, its well along that road to be honest, I read an essay online once about the modern use of libertarian emerged from right wing think tanks in the US seeking to find a way to articulate their thinking when they had begun to believe that individualist, individualism, selfish, self-interest, all those catch phrases had become morally taboo.
Must have been a different era.
It'll be co-opted, its well along that road to be honest, I read an essay online once about the modern use of libertarian emerged from right wing think tanks in the US seeking to find a way to articulate their thinking when they had begun to believe that individualist, individualism, selfish, self-interest, all those catch phrases had become morally taboo.
Must have been a different era.
I mean active discrimination, like a normal business refusing to serve somebody just because they're a certain race or something.
Or a football team not allowing a woman to play on their team because she is a woman?
It is allowed except in government jobs. Businesses don't do it because they would be put out of business.
Who here identify's with with being libertarian? Its been fairly obvious to me for a long while I fall in this camp. Libertarian is not an all inclusive government structure though. For what we have to choose from and what will work in the current world we reside, I am also firmly capitalist.
As a result I think its also the default option or setting for a lot of really young adolescents online and in discussion, the sort of person who will loudly and aggressively assert an opinion and then in blind panick insist they dont care and type things like "lol" repeatedly as their emotional defensiveness goes into overdrive. Either actual adolescents or people who're of that mind, whatever their chronological age happens to be.
I sort of wait for the watershed moment when people realise that an ideology which is proclaimed by people who valourise their own self-interest, pretty unqualified and categorical self-interest too, is going to mean whatever they want it to mean in the moment they think it serves them best.
A consistent libertarian isnt going to be able to serve a constituency, or even represent one, they might prefer the rich to the poor but ultimately they are out for themselves and make no bones about that.
I used to have some anarchist sympathies when I was younger, those guys can certainly write, however, I couldnt say I have any libertarian sympathies now at all.
Culturally I'd be conservative, perhaps a moderate or liberal conservative but a conservative none the less, traditions moderated by reflective innovations trumphs fashions and fads, and fiscally I'm a socialist. I think that only reflects realpolitik, I dont like idealpolitik, having an interest in history I can see what its done to mankind. Socialism is one of the only ideologies which has acknowledged the importance of social struggles, particularly class, in determining the economy and the economy in determining everything else. So while there's a lot of muddled up "hopes and dreams" stuff to it, which I think needs to be excised or treated carefully, there are other important material which is overlooked.
Because its a system that is incovenient, it doesn't take into account what a population with those kind of rights might become.
It has been clearly observed in history that a population whithout strong leadership and a authority, will colapse inside. Disorder is the word. Everyone will do what he likes (of course, within that established laws). It is a self-contradictory system. After some time, it will destroy itself by its own principles. In terms of efficienty, longetivity, stability, clarity, order this philosophy is faulty.
And this is also because man can not be equal, in the sense of how they advance in society. One man works like 10 others at a time. He would have more money, more influence, and more....POWER and force. Can libertarianism prohibit that? No.(marxism can!)
And what is happening? There would be a total confusion on society. Kind of like gangs and mafia. Points of power woudl raise that would compete with each other, thereby forcing a clear order, a hierarchy, which is much more dangerous then if it would be from the beginning, already established. It leads to domination, whithout the accord of authority. It would be kind of unofficial authority, a shaddow force. Here is how Blaise Pascal puts it:
and:
.
Yes, but people need authority within themselfs, within society. Slowly but surely, force would establish everything.