The General understanding of Libertarianism.

ClockworkUniverse

Fargle, I don't see how something being abstract makes it nonexistent.

Tnu1138

Wow the cult of the omnipotent state is getting far too strong. so we should all be slaves to the state if it is for the greater good? if it furthers society?

Nova

Fargle, I don't see how something being abstract makes it nonexistent.

Nonexistent:  Not existing, or not real or present.

ClockworkUniverse

Yes, now how do you get there from "abstract?"

Nova

Real: Being or occurring in fact or actuality

I dunno what this means though

ClockworkUniverse

My point is that "abstract" and "nonexistent" aren't the same thing. If they are, then intelligence and fun are also nonexistent.

Nova

I'm trying to follow the chain of logic back.

Intelligence and fun may not exist though. I dunno. I consider 'stuff that I know of' to be real, that's about it.

ClockworkUniverse

I guess what I'm trying to say is that stuff can exist conceptually but not concretely, and that such things, while difficult to define by nature, still exist.

CaptainFargle

Perhaps I've made a poor choice of words here, I'm rather tired and when I get tired I tend to start having a little difficulty in communicating such things clearly. 

What I am trying to convey is that there is nothing that inherently bears liberty. There is no "Liberty Particle", nothing that makes something fundamentally liberating. It's entirely subjective and subject to the imagination of the human mind and how it perceives it. The same for Justice, Good and Evil, Beauty etc etc etc. 

ClockworkUniverse

Ah.

Well, then, I definitely agree with that.

Nova

It depends on whether you believe ideas can exist, INUH.

ClockworkUniverse

Fair enough. And at risk of pointing out the obvious, I do.

CaptainFargle

I would like to point out that Fun is also on that list. Another one of those things that's entirely subjective and abstract. There is nothing concretely fun. 

Tnu1138

This is why I hate the world in general next suicide booth please?

ClockworkUniverse

^^Yes. That's why I said that if "abstract" means "completely nonexistent," fun doesn't exist.

Nova

I do too, for the record.

CaptainFargle

My apologies for the confusion in terminology. As I said I'm earlier, I'm very tired at this point. While deconstructing everything Tnu believes in has been fun, I'm done for the night. I'll look into the thread in the morning. Try not to get it locked while I'm gone. 

FrodoGoofballCoTV

I consider myself a "moderate libertarian", but believe as a citizen, I play a dual role in society.  As a subject of the law I am a slave, and my first duty is to obey, whether it's taxes, jury duty, the draft, etc., but as a voter I am the master, and I regard it as my first duty to seek to limit the power of government to impose problematic restrictions within the extent that the law allows.

Tnu1138

the draft is just plain evil I don't see anything good about it.

ColorPrinter

Are we really just going to play the "everything sucks" game? Really now?

MousaThe14

Then what the hell are you still posting here for tnu? Your ideal world  where society is unnecessary does not exist and while everything does not exist in complete extremes you beleive they do and that is your problem and no matter how much reason we try to sue you simply do not wish to comprehend. Find your dream desert island and find a way to survive n your own. That;'s what you want that's what you get, deal with it.

You know between the OTC threads about libertarianism and Tnu  I can't ever help but feel that Libertarianism is just Anarchy with the fancy "Constitution" package in a desperate attempt to sound legitimate. INUH, I get what you are saying and in many ways agree with your ideas but Libertarianism is very difficult for me to  take seriously when all I see is advocacy for a world of so little regulation that I can't be sure my food is safe and I have to pay for my police and fire extinguishing on a case by case basis and if I'm too poor or don't have my next paycheck that week then no dice, house burns down, crook get away with my stuff, and in more recent news, I die of a an illness or injury that could've easily have been dealt with were it not for the fact I couldn't'
 pay for treatment that day.

It always seems to me the very idea runs on an idealism that should've been shot down the very second you stepped out of Graduation and found out who the real world actually worked and why humans will 50% of the time be self-serving bastards that will screw you over at a moments notice when it's most beneficial whether it's using their new big shiny gun they are allowed to have since no one is stopping them to gun you down and take your crud, or no one stopping them to simply game the economic system so that they keep making money and eveyrone gets poorer.

God I'm angry...

GLORIOUSLeader

The same could be said of all religions. 

Tnu1138

 and statism doesn't run on an idealsim that "the government will provide for and protect us fromt he toher evil people" you can't trust any collective to protect you is what I say and why should I move towards tyranny anyway?Why should I just roll over and obey the state?

Nova

So, essentially, you believe in Darwinism then?

Beholderess

This one is utterly ignorant of politics, and economics too.

Libertarianism, however, seems rather...merciless...for this one. Seriously, not everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps, should such people just left to die? And no, private charity is not a solution, because it cannot be relied upon.

The strangest thing is that this one shares an idea that people should be free to do whatever they like as long as they harm noone else/only harm those who consent to it. It is one of the main ideas this one holds true, if not the one even. But economic issues are where it does not apply for this one.

An ideal for this one would be personal freedom without any interference but strong safety net where it comes to money. Guess it is unachievable...

Anyway that does not mean that this one is "begging for an oppressive government". All this one asks is that government stop sitting on their backside and started doing what it is supposed to do - ensuring the quality of life for citizenry. This one is far from supporting giving government a free reign - what this one would like to see is more (much more!) transparency and accountability, so that every taxpayer penny could be traced to just what it went to, and the government would be accountable for doing their job poorly and liable to be dismissed - no ifs or buts - for not performing well enough.

Libertarianism is very difficult for me
to  take seriously when all I see is advocacy for a world of so little
regulation that I can't be sure my food is safe and I have to pay for my
police and fire extinguishing on a case by case basis and if I'm too
poor or don't have my next paycheck that week then no dice, house burns
down, crook get away with my stuff, and in more recent news, I die of a
an illness or injury that could've easily have been dealt with were it
not for the fact I couldn't'
 pay for treatment that day.

Exactly, and needless to say, it frightens this one.

MousaThe14

@Tnu

Then what the hell are you doing here complain on this soapbox provided to you by the society you so despise? why are you seeking solace from the society you so despise? Why do you believe you will get the answers form the society you so despise? You never listen. You never want to listen. You refuse to listen. All the frikkin' time.

We get it, everything sucks and only sucks more becuase of your inability to see middle grounds and only GRAND TYRANNIES! Instead of complaining about it, then you should be going out into the woods and see how it is without the society and government you hate so much. You clearly think everything is better if it's just you so go do that. No one will care you don't want people to care, after all, caring is a fundamental part of society and since you hate that so much being an insignificant and lone figure in a the universe is the only solution for you. Go.

I'll be here living comfortably in this "tyranny".

Tnu1138

not sure I don't beleive in actively hurting people if that's what your syaing I don't hold that you should destroy someone sliberty because they are weak or whatnot Besides people so often misunderstand "survival of the fittest" What Darwin meant was not that the strong should oppress the weak but that the ones who will survive the ages are the ones who can adapt and thrive to different situations. for example an animal that survives very harsh natural conditions not an animal that oppresses or harms other animals. I think helping people is an ultimately good thing but not when it's enforced through the threat of force. Altruism just like values and religion need to be voluntary to be sincere.

FrodoGoofballCoTV

IMHO, there is a world of difference between libertarianism and anarchy.  I consider the U.S. to have been a genuine libertarian society during parts of the 1700's and 1800's, and while there were serious social problems, the U.S. survived as a legitimate nation.  I consider Somalia today to be an example of a de - facto anarchy.

Edit: Ninja'd, but I stand by my statement.

Nova

Altruism just like values and religion need to be voluntary to be sincere.

Are insincere values not better than allowing harm to come to people, then?

Tnu1138

your statment is kind of vague and confusing Cygan could you elaborate? Also I don't know what your problem is Mousa do you ahve to be so hostile? is anarcho-primitivism the only way to be free? Is that what eveyrone thinks that society and progress can only be held thorugh the threat of force? that people have to get screwed over and that liberty and progress are mutually exclusive?