Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: Cerb
OK, since you haven't answered it in two threads now, how is it is a cop-out?
I have already answered this. You don't want to deal with the problems that come from government so you seek to abolish most of it. You are too proud to sacrifice some lost pride for the common good. Just look at where the libertarian philosophy came from:
The term "libertarianism" in the above sense has been in widespread use only since the 1950s. Libertarian had previously been used most commonly by anarchists to describe themselves, avoiding the derogatory connotations of the word "anarchy"
It is an utterly useless ideal. Most people do NOT have an individual sense of moral conduct.
Agreed.
Most people will not be satisified with their little homestead and with no governmental regulations eye their neighbors. Minorities will have no clout and will be in great danger because there are large amounts of the American population who are still racist and only act PC.
Agreed.
This is like some fairy tale out of some children's book. There is no successful Libertarian country on earth. I could even go as far as to say all cavemen are libertarian. Weren't they? No concept of government, each man has his own moral conduct. It is pretty much Darwinism, isn't it?
No. Anarchy would lead to things going wrong. That's why I am not an anarchist, and do not use definitions from the past. If I were to do that, I could use the word science as a catagory encompassing knowledge of fiction. The modern definition:
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
That is part of why I pointed out in another thread to dissipate that it is as much a social ideal as a political one--not inherent(sp) in the functioning of government, but to make government a thing lifted up from the people to do collective work for the people. The 'people' not just being those running large corporations. Also why I have previously mentioned that it will not work
right now. I do not delude myself into thinking that my vote actually counts towards electing someone I feel is better suited to the job. It helps get another digit in the final count.
Why do you think there are so many religions? It is a socially enforced concept of morality.
Yes, and that is unfortunate. People should be empowered to find their own being and purpose.
Originally posted by: Cerb
Er, that's extremely redundant. I would call socialism a Utopian ideal. Note that it is Utopia, a proper noun, which by its origin and definition, can not properly exist
What...? Are you playing games here or serious? Socialism does exist.
Where do I say socialism does not exist? Ideal socialism does not exist. It fares better than Communism, though.
Libertarianism does not in any way, shape or form. It is an idea pioneered by anarchists in France and extolled by a small amount of Americans.
Originally posted by: Proletariat
This nation was hypocritically founded upon oppression and genocide. The ideal that all men are created equal wasn't even halfway achieved before the liberal-socialistic movements of the 1960's with great leaders such as JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. In many peoples minds that ideal still does not compute.
Originally posted by: Cerb in response to above
The biggest problem is that people want uniformity. They want people to be 'equal'--not just under law, but in full complete reality. Diversity, is good, and equality should only be a legal ideal.
Again, what...? Equality should not be a societal ideal? I definitely disagree completely with that. Are you saying Asians/Blacks (or any other race) are not equal to Whites in reality? What do you mean by 'full complete reality'.
No, I am saying that I am not, in all my faculties, equal to you. There is genetic and social diversity that puts each of us in varying circumstances. Equality in the view of the law is the only case where general equality, which usually devolves into lowest common denominator expectations, would be ideal. By full complete reality, that every faculty of my being is equivalent to every faculty in your being, and everyone else's, when it is in fact, not. Trying to to treat it that way is part of what gives us our failing school system.
Originally posted by: Cerb
Stating these facts is not being anti-American,
Facts...
it is telling it like it is.
From your PoV
So what did the colonists come here to do? Start a new life at the expense of others. The native americans out of pure heart helped them through their first winter and recieved a slaughter in return. A situation which would repeat itself too many times. The enslavement of blacks was utterly inhuman and helped further our economy. Colored people in this country gained true rights in ALL of America in the 1960's. I'm sorry but if you argue against this you are being dishonest. These are basic facts.
In the realities of many, that is not how it came about. That was the point.
Originally posted by: Proletariat
If anything we need to move very far away from the libertarian philosophy because it enabled these things.
Originally posted by: Cerb
It neither enabled nor hindered them. The beliefs in scientific racism, rampant sexism, and class wars, which our forefathers merely brought over from England did that, with the help of maligned religions.
Of course it enabled them. There literally were no rules in the Wild West and the South for a long time, look at the butchery and savagery they partook in. The trail of tears and whatnot. New England had a solid government and was much more advanced and had better living conditions.
...and they had already killed off most of their natives, gotten the T-short, worn it out, and thrown it away. They did the same things, just in a smaller scope. Neither situations were good ones.
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Pure capitalism, and this 'libertarianism' have only opened up avenues for the rich, richer, and richest to exploit the middle-class and the poor.
Originally posted by: Cerb
Right...the drug war and high taxes are doing such a great job. I don't see how any libertarian ideals caused the need for multiple incomes for families.
????? Multiple incomes? The taxes in America are quite low.
Not compared to the past.
The whining ratio is quite high though. How much do you need?
If that were the question, we would have never gotten to being entirely consumers.
In a capitalistic society the need for new items never stops, it consumes your entire life.
The want for new items never stops. The need stopped long ago. As soon as we could feed and shelter ourselves through bad weather, the need stopped
We throw out your elderly, constantly hold the young on a pedestal and thusly forget the lessons of the past.
:thumbsup: We throw out a lot more than the elderly. We throw out ourselves.
Originally posted by: Proletariat
For when you give a man freedom over everything, he can and will do anything.
Originally posted by: Cerb
...and must accept responsibility for those actions
Originally posted by: Cerb
One of the things that makes libertarian ideals different in our age is that they are largely social, stemming up from the bottom, rather than down from the top. That's also why they are so small, as the Rs, Ds, and MSM actively shun them, as they represent a threat.
Libertarianism is not social at all. In fact its homestead type lifestyle is anti-social if anything.
Anti-social is still social, and I fail to see how removing some of the state affects one's social existence.
Read up on it at Wikipedia.
OK, from the intro:
"This is usually taken to mean that each person should be permitted by all other persons (including persons acting on behalf of governments) to act as they please so long as they do not initiate force or fraud against the person or property of another, as it is said that this would be an augmentation of the liberty of one at the expense of a diminution of liberty of another."
I think the quote above about where the philosophy came from is the most damning. Libertarianism is also NOT a threat. It is weak in America. Tremendously weak. Weaker than Ralph Nader weak Not to mention it is very selfish, even more selfish than American Conservativism.
Its nature is not selfish, nor unselfish. Its nature is for the freedom and responsibility of as many things as can be, to be on the person and community. It is social because for it to work, an implicit contract must be in place within communities, rather than explicit contract handed down from a central government.