Any libertarians here?

by **thumperton** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:15 am

<img src="http://pichold.com/Images/Smilies/wavey.gif" style="border:0;"/>

by **banned** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:18 am

....depends on what you mean by "libertarian" <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> Wasn't there a big ass thread about libertarianism here recently? Someone posted something, someone else said that was setting up a 'straw man' libertarian... Sorry, it's gone into the mists of menopause aka mentalpause.

by **thumperton** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:19 am

ultimate freedom to run one's life, free of government intervention.

by **banned** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:34 am

I think there are certain legitimate functions of government--even though in a perfect world I'd be an anarchist. The government as it is now, sure I want it off my back. I still want my dang Social Security though. So no I guess I'm not a libertarian by your definition. I met a woman last year who had terrible health problems but refused to apply for any governmental social programs or medical assistance that might have helped her. She was a libertarian. I admired her principles, but she was a short timer because she couldn't provide for herself what she was rejecting from the government--ie, she couldn't afford what the free market charged individuals with no health insurance. So she was dying of kidney failure. I'd kiss Tom DeLay's ass on CNN if it would get me a kidney when mine went funky, so I guess I have no principles, or rather, keeping at least one kidney functioning is a higher principle than any political ones.

by **thumperton** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:39 am

does anarchism still believe in private property?

by **banned** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:47 am

...whether you're talking about anarchocapitalism (which is what we called what is now called libertarians back in the day...I had a friend who was a devotee of Ludwig von Mises), or anarchocommunism (again, that's the term we used circa 1970), or something somewhere on the spectrum in between. Good discussion on this site: <a href="http://www.artpolitic.org/infopedia/an/Anarchism_and_private_property.html">www.artpolitic.org/infope...perty.html</a> "* Libertarian socialists consider that private property is an illegitimate fiction enforced by the State, and that beyond "personal possession" of immediate goods no property should exist. * Anarcho-capitalists consider that private property emerges from natural law, and is a paradigmatic way to respect individual rights, to solve and avoid conflict, and to promote creation. " MUCH more if you're interested. Me, I don't like capitalism or socialism, so I guess I'm an anarcho-crank <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

by **banned** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:50 am

...but then reportedly had a shitfit when someone used his teacup.

by **thumperton** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:07 am

anarcho capitalism it is then!

by **Homeless Halo** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:43 am

I'm a neo-libertarian (in the sense of neo-conservatism vs. neoliberalism). But I'm certainly not whom your looking for. I tend to apply it as mostly idividualist anarchism (vis.a: radical traditionalism). Although I do believe that in our goal of surviving, among other things, that we should be prepared to accepts ideas that appear to be effectively better (ends vs. means) insofar as they continue to be and don't cause detrimental side effects to the collective minds-bodies-I-You-plexes' interactions with greater physical/ontological reality. That is we should learn and adapt, but we should be cautious. Personally I advocate intelligent cooperation(socialism), competition(capitalism), and a regulatory exchange with an independent beauracry(solidaritist), limited in its powers. Checks and balances can be as simple or as complex as we choose to make it. I think we should be allowed to decide.

by **Qutb** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 10:39 am

I'm a social democrat. I'm pro-big gubmint. If you don't have a powerful state, you'll be ruled by multinational corporations. It's as simple as that. Libertarianism means corporate dictatorship. In the 18th century, firemen worked for insurance companies. If you didn't have an insurance policy, they wouldn't put out your fire. That's libertarianism. Of course, the United States is a good example of a country with a very powerful central government largely representing corporations rather than the people. What I want is democratic government based on the Enlightenment ideals of checks and balances and <a href="http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Popular%20sovereignty.htm" target="top">popular sovereignty</a>. And I think the US military budget could be reduced to 1/10 its present size, and the money used to pay back debt, improve infrastructure, <a href="http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/ss_wkshp_home.html" target="top">expand</a> <a href="http://www.cepr.net/publications/social_security_2005_03.htm" target="top">social security</a> rather than cutting it, fund <a href="http://www.housedemocrats.gov/bigpicture/children_education/issue.cfm?level2id=60" target="top">public education</a> etc. I'm a librul. Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **AnnaLivia** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:06 am

this is just AnnaLivia being way glad that Qutb didn't leave us. and this is her wishing starman and dreamsend come back, too.

by **banned** » Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:35 pm

of your statement "If you don't have a powerful state, you'll be ruled by multinational corporations." As long as the powerful state is subject to corruption by the influence of the MNCs, the powerful state IS rule by them. And if you think the US is the only place that's true...well, where ezackly do you live, so I can move there? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D">

by **revelation** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:41 am

don't be so quick to drop the term 'libertarian'; it can be useful. Try putting on the 'social libertarian'© hat the next time someone asks. 1. the word 'social' pisses off libertarians 2. the word 'libertarian' pisses off socialists 3. intentionally vague; gives no clue as to what your views on current events are or who you vote for, forcing you to explain yourself... which is, of course, the fun part 4. oxymoronic to the uninitiated, non-commital to the true believers... like a skilled phrenologist, you'll soon be able to read your opponent by the furrows of their brow

by **banned** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:15 am

The Fourteenth Book of Bokonon: "What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the Experience of the Past Million Years?" Nothing.

by **Jerky** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:07 am

The problem with being against "statism" is that any state you remove will inevitably be replaced by another state. Think of the etymology of the word and you'll understand exactly what I mean. Why go through all the fuss and bother of destroying "the state" when you could simply reform the one you already have? Wouldn't that be easier? Anti-statists seem to believe in the possibility of a return to a kind of "natural state," before the Social Contract, which was entered into long before they were born, and which has been evolving since the first time three nerdy cavemen combined forces to protect their fruit-pile from the neighborhood bully caveman. Of course, they always seem to forget that the system we're living in - and all other systems under which human beings organize themselves - came about precisely as a direct fucking reaction to the ugliness of life in our "natural state," without a Social Contract. I've read enough libertarian movement dogma to know that most of them are what is commonly referred to as "right-wing libertarian" or "conservative libertarian", the pathetic ultimate in delayed adolescence and reflexive anti-authoritarianism. That which drives them, in actuality, is not the desire to reign in authority, but is rather a longing to replace one system of rule with another... one that is more to their liking, more in their favor. Individual libertarians brood over the inadequacies of the System - the perceived source of all their failings and disapointments - and scream "Leave me alone!" But what they're secretly thinking to themselves all the while is: "ALLOW ME TO RULE!!!"

Any libertarians here?

Any libertarians here?

As Billy Jeff would say...

Re: As Billy Jeff would say...

That sounds like anarchism, no?

Re: That sounds like anarchism, no?

Guess it depends...

PS Pierre Proudhon said "Property is theft"...

Re: PS Pierre Proudhon said "Property is theft"...

sometimes

Re: Libertarian, no way

Re: Libertarian, no way

Your own points points up the weakness...

Qutb,

I prefer to identify myself as a Bokononist.

Libertarianism is a crank belief system.

Who is online