What's the deal with Libertarianism?

[smp]

Jellybaby, get it right, Anarchy is to the left of libertarianism .. and speak for yourself when you say that "nobody wants that"
If we're going to talk about ideals, I think we can say that Anarchy would be the highest aspiration .. that every human being on the face of the planet had the exact same values and nobody needed to be policed/babysat. This is impossible, we will always have strife, but if we're going to have ideals, we may as well have a shining star to aim at.

Libertarianism is, above all, a return to common sense.
Common sense is a-priori
There is no such thing as common sense .. common sense is sand.
Moonbeam is asking all the right questions and everyone is giving him all the wrong answers.
Ideology is almost a subconcious understanding (or lack of) of life. Values, morals, common sense .. all of these fall under the umbrella of ideology. Moonbeam is asking what this (libertarian) ideology is founded on and nobody has been able to answer him. His statement "all I know is that i don't know" is right on the ball as far as I'm concerned. Yes, it's an oxymoron, but there is no truth anyways, that's what makes this statement so accurate. Maybe it's better put in other words, "I'm sure that I know nothing"... that almost doesn't cancel itself out.
Don't call him a socialist, (it offends me as well) he's too smart for labels and that would go against his "not knowing anything" IDEOLOGY .. because that is one too, yet one that doesn't claim a moral high ground, as others (libertarianism, socialism etc) do.
Moonbeam if you were a girl I'de be in love with you, even as things stand I'm getting there.
You are a pretentious, pontificating fvcknut though

 

[JellyBaby]

smp, anarchy is right of the libertarian ideology/structure. What are you listing in your scale and what do you mean by "left" and "right"? I have this in mind when I say, "right":

(left) communism/totalitarianism | fascism | socialism | liberalism | conservatism | libertarianism | anarchy (right)

Anarchy is the lack of political governance. You would be hard pressed to find many who would prefer that structure. What's on your "right to left" list?

 

[zephyrprime]

JellyBaby is right about anarchy. Anarchy is on the right of the political spectrum.

Back to the original topic concerning the foundations of Libertarianism, I think MoonBeam has a lot of valid points. Like him I also believe that Libertartians take their axioms too much for granted. And practicing Libertartians seem to have an extremely hard time dealing with people (like Moonbeam) that don't believe in these axioms because so often they automatically assume sane person would believe in these axioms. And of course, these axioms are Libertarianism's justice.

There is no right to private property if it is not the will of God or a right taken by force of a cummunity of men in their own self interest

I've never heard of a Libertarian explantion for the validity of owning anything. But I get the impression that Libertarianism believes that there is a right to private property that doesn't depend of God or force. Basically, I get the impression the Libertarianism believes that man has an automatic right to whatever he can get his hands on that doesn't already belong to someone else and man also has a right to the fruits of his labor.

So this property problem that Moonbeam has proposed is an interesting problem for Libertarianism.

We were talking about rights, the rights to be free, my rights to be free. How did you and your rights get involved.

No, I think you're making a big mistake MoonBeam. Libertarianism does believe in the rights&freedom of individuals other than the self. So it's not a pure philosophy of the self and I don't believe that it ever claimed to be.

[different topic]

To me it's the person who does not covet his own personal property, who has no need of it, because he owns (is) the universe because he has recaptured his original self, that is the only person with a respect for the property of others. He neither needs it and already owns it.

This may or may not be true, but even if it were true, what of it? Such a person could be wiped out by a person or group of persons with no respect for the properties of others. Is there anymore to this philosophy?

Now Moonbeam, how do you feel about your understanding of Libertarianism now? Do you feel like explored as much of it as there is to explore.

 

[AaronP]

I hear that the Lieutenant Governor of CA Libertarian candidate's plank is about legalizing ferrets.

LOL is he a pirate? I think you mean PLATFORM!

 

[Moonbeam]

For AaronP

plank Pronunciation Key (plngk)
n.

1 a. A piece of lumber cut thicker than a board.
b. Such pieces of lumber considered as a group; planking.
2. A foundation; a support.
3. One of the articles of a political platform.
------------------
smp as to the "You are a pretentious, pontificating fvcknut though", don't forget that You need to talk to people on their level of understanding. I hope the previous sentence fits your description.

___________

Nice post, zepher. If my eyes aren't playing tricks on me I sense that by this:

"This may or may not be true, but even if it were true, what of it? Such a person could be wiped out by a person or group of persons with no respect for the properties of others. Is there anymore to this philosophy?

Now Moonbeam, how do you feel about your understanding of Libertarianism now? Do you feel like explored as much of it as there is to explore."

you imply that the tables would be turned if I said yes. Well in the first place, I don't mind that. I'm not welded or wedded to a belief. Also, I only offered that as an alternative viewpoint, not necessarily my own, and certainly not my own on most days. Similarly when you pointed out what was wrong with this statement of mine:

"We were talking about rights, the rights to be free, my rights to be free. How did you and your rights get involved."

to which you replied:

"No, I think you're making a big mistake MoonBeam. Libertarianism does believe in the rights&freedom of individuals other than the self. So it's not a pure philosophy of the self and I don't believe that it ever claimed to be."

I was neither stating my notion of the libertarian view or my view. I was stating the view of the strong having the power to take what they want were it not for a collective, not an individual counter-force. I was making the claim that in a Godless world or one with no innate morality, the only law is the law of the jungle.

So you want to examine the viewpoint of the man who is the universe? OK, I've got my speculation helmet on. Your point was:

"This may or may not be true, but even if it were true, what of it? Such a person could be wiped out by a person or group of persons with no respect for the properties of others. Is there anymore to this philosophy?"

First of all it would not be a philosophy, but a state of being, THE STATE OF BEING. Such things were spoken of in Zen literature. I?ve heard it said that only exhaustion could bring down a Zen swordsman. When they came for Mohamed they found a spider had spun a web across the entrance to the cave in which he was hiding and the searchers passed on. Jesus arose on the third day. Picture the breaking of a film while the movie is playing. Movie movie movie, and bam, black. What is death where there is no fear?

 

[glenn1]

So this property problem that Moonbeam has proposed is an interesting problem for Libertarianism.

Why? He's asking for a justification for a right that only a infinitesimal minority would question. Private property has existed for as long as mankind has possessed the ability to have a sense of self. Even Communism acknowledges private property, it's beef wasn't with private property per se but rather the accumulation of private capital or capital goods by an individual. They are two entirely distinct concepts. Asking for the basis of a right like private property is like asking for why you have a right to breathe; only a fool continues to ask for a justification for a right that even the Founding Fathers stated was a "truth to be held self-evident." In the language of the day, the pursuit of happiness = the right to private property.

To answer your question Moonie, why we can and do support the concept of the right to private property, and why it doesn't represent a simply Darwinian "might makes right" system, is because in the Libertarian worldview, rights are always cojoined with obligations/responsibilities, actions with consequences. Where you're missing the boat is by not being able to make that linkage between the two, because your sole focus is on qualifying the ultimate source of the right. So long as i can point to it and show it exists, who cares? That's a totally irrelevant argument. If you point out the moon in the night sky to me, would it make it less real if you couldn't describe where it came from? That's what you're doing with your diversion with asking for a justification for a belief in the right of private property. Since when did pointing out someone's ability or inability to give the reasons for their position become a valid contra-position?

 

[Moonbeam]

Some glenn1 quotes:

"Why? He's asking for a justification for a right that only a infinitesimal minority would question." (Like Galileo and the geocentric universe?)

Private property has existed for as long as mankind has possessed the ability to have a sense of self. (I don't know about that, ever try to take a bone from a wolf. You would also complain bitterly, I think, too If we were to pursue just how real this notion of self you put forward is. Another of those infinitesimal questions, I'm sure)

"Even Communism acknowledges private property, it's beef wasn't with private property per se but rather the accumulation of private capital or capital goods by an individual. They are two entirely distinct concepts." (You didn't read carefully, I guess, because my bone with libertarianism was only peripherally related to private property. I merely used it to show that the libertarian hoopla about the individual has a communal, not an individual source of validation which makes the whole proposition rather inane.)

"Asking for the basis of a right like private property is like asking for why you have a right to breathe;" (False: humans all have to breathe, they do not have to have private property)

"only a fool continues to ask for a justification for a right that even the Founding Fathers stated was a "truth to be held self-evident." In the language of the day, the pursuit of happiness = the right to private property." (Well now I know you didn't read carefully, but I don't want, like so often happens, to make fun of you for that. It's a long and maybe even complex thread. glenn, my argument has been that libertarianism is a cult of individualism that rests either on the proposition that group force, not any absurd sanctity of the individual, or God is the only way it makes sense and that Libertarians are trying, or sure seem to be trying to disguise that fact because it doesn't flatter the central focus, the individual. You are telling me what I have already said a number of times. The question I have for you is are you a religious libertarian or do you think inalienable means something other than Creator imputed? I have said that I see this Libertarianism thingi as looking for all the world as some sort of substitute for religion, an attempt to justify things like private property out of thin air instead of God. It seems to me to be an atheistic politic. I'm not saying I have a problem with that. My problem is with the cult of the individual.)

"To answer your question Moonie, why we can and do support the concept of the right to private property, and why it doesn't represent a simply Darwinian "might makes right" system, is because in the Libertarian worldview, rights are always conjoined with obligations/responsibilities, actions with consequences." (Conjoining those two changes nothing at all. I do not follow your point at all)

"Where you're missing the boat is by not being able to make that linkage between the two, because your sole focus is on qualifying the ultimate source of the right. So long as I can point to it and show it exists, who cares? That's a totally irrelevant argument. If you point out the moon in the night sky to me, would it make it less real if you couldn't describe where it came from? That's what you're doing with your diversion with asking for a justification for a belief in the right of private property. Since when did pointing out someone's ability or inability to give the reasons for their position become a valid contra-position?" (You are drawing a false analogy and defying the very meaning of analysis and thought. The moon is a real object. Not knowing it's origin does not affect its reality. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, a pretender to some innate truth. It rests on other ideas and is an argument. Your notion that we not look at roots is frankly absurd unless, of course, you believe that truth is merely some vital propaganda. You may be someone who accepts what your fed, but pardon me if I'm not. I don't know what it is that drives one to question and another to accept, but I know where I stand. I know the price I paid and what I gained.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

From MOONBEAM:

I'm left with the conclusion that Libertarianism just rests on unexamined assumptions or assumptions that libertarians don't want to admit to, that rights must be inalienable or are just arbitrary and based on power, and not the power of the individual, but the power of the group, exactly contrary to the notion that the individual is of any relevance.

I agree. I believe most 'libertarians' have a world view that is even simpler than republicans. As if somehow, the country will run itself, without corruption, greed, and theivery. Who was it that said "If men were honest, we wouldn't need government." It was one of the men who wrote the constitution...Jefferson or Adams...

 

[smp]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
smp, anarchy is right of the libertarian ideology/structure. What are you listing in your scale and what do you mean by "left" and "right"? I have this in mind when I say, "right": (left) communism/totalitarianism | fascism | socialism | liberalism | conservatism | libertarianism | anarchy (right) Anarchy is the lack of political governance. You would be hard pressed to find many who would prefer that structure. What's on your "right to left" list?

Totalitarianism is at the top
Communism/Socialism is on the left
Anarchy is at the bottom
Capitalism is at the right

360 degrees.

Example:
Stalin .. top left
Gandhi .. bottom left
Hitler .. top left
Margaret Thatcher .. middle top, right

Basically, I'm saying that I agree with the "political spectrum" model .. if anyone remembers that site.



Libertarianism fits just right of Anarchy on this scale, also at the bottom. no government control (far from totalitarian) .. yet capitalist, so on the right.
Anarcho-Communism (which is the most popular form of Anarchy) is at bottom left. Anarcho communists reject any form of control (oppose totalitarianism) yet are marxists of a sort, so on the left.

Up and down symbolize control.
Left and right symbolize economy.
That's my understanding.
I'm curious, the people who seem to have opinions on anarchy .. how much anarchist literature have you read? How familiar are you with it? Where do you get that it's right?

I'm not saying I'm an "anarchist" either .. but I don't know, it's something I'm curious about and I've done some reading... not to mention conversations with so called "anarchists".
I'm not gonna bother bringing up other people's quotes and all that stuff, I lack the concentration for that sh!t right now and I just discovered that someone's been poking around my personal stuff on my hard drive .. namely, naked pics of my ex girlfriend :|

Oh yeah! Don't fvck with me!