Whats wrong with the Libertarians?

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'm not anti government either, I just believe in limited government.

Basically IMO Government has only one role and that is to protect the rights of each individual resident. Specifically protect people from direct harm or force

When you start saying "one role" you start abstracting and trivializing shyt like the FDA, EPA, or even education department.

I'd like to discuss the role of government, not the value of government.

Cause some of ya'll like taking the easy route when it comes to discussing freedom, which I think is important, but some of ya'll are too quick to ignore the fact that "being against something, is ok, and the responsible thing to do"

I've heard the argument by some uber-libertarians that 3D guns or nukes or free 8-balls of cocaine should just be as freely available as starbucks and chewing gum

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@David_TheMan Look. The very things you expect your fellow citizen to do, have been ingrained by an adherence to the consequences, disincentives, and limitations of resources, as predicated by law, and to a lesser extent social pressures that discourage certain things in the context of the law.

So when you remove all of that, you can't expect everything to go the way you want, without vastly different outcomes.

Look around the world. Humans clearly value different ways of living with different morals and political systems and economic systems. Many of which ARE as libertarian as you'd want.

But you want all of the comforts of a western democracy with the expectation that in YOUR world, they'd get it right.

Well you can't have all of THIS, without any of THESE rules.

 

[David_TheMan]

Theres politicians and officials getting cuffs put on them every day. Are you not paying attention to indictments?

And what "right people" proposition? Ask a clear, direct question. I can't follow with all this shyt you're typing and confusing yourself with.

Again, the process and system is hard. Its meant to be to ensure some degree of legitimacy against the test of time, but that doesn't change the level of interaction you're expected to have with it.

What indictments has Obama gotten for killing a 15 year old american boy not charged with any crime, but only happening to be related to someone who the government wanted to capture?

Where are the cuffs on Hillary Clinton. where are the cuffs for the ferguson DA who abused the grand jury process, where is the indictment and prosecution for the NYPD who murdered Eric Garner in the street. Where is the indictment on Chaney and Bush for launching the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can go on and on, with examples but the sentiment is clear, this system isn't doing anything to correct the behavior of the top of the political class.

I gave you the proposition again, and again you ignore a very basic question in an attempt to deflect.

The process and system is hard? That is your response to over 200 years of corruption and failure. Its hard. Yet you would have me believe and argue that if we keep trusting this system, despite what we see suddenly things will get better? And you call me the one blinding by a pie in the sky dream? Come on man, you are killing your solution in this thread.

You are advocating to support what has proven to be broken, because the worse case scenario if we moved to an anacap solution would be the exact same thing we have now with the current state, a group of thugs with a monopoly of violence who rig the system for their own benefit.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

What indictments has Obama gotten for killing a 15 year old american boy not charged with any crime, but only happening to be related to someone who the government wanted to capture?.

he was rolling with the creator of an Al-Qaeda magazine 2 weeks before he died and had criminal ties. Sucks for them.

Where are the cuffs on Hillary Clinton.

For what?

where are the cuffs for the ferguson DA who abused the grand jury process, where is the indictment and prosecution for the NYPD who murdered Eric Garner in the street. Where is the indictment on Chaney and Bush for launching the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can go on and on, with examples but the sentiment is clear, this system isn't doing anything to correct the behavior of the top of the political class.

Characterizing miscarriages of justice doesn't equate to the system being broke. It means we didn't make the system work. The system is in place. And I don't know what libertarianism has to do with this.

I gave you the proposition again, and again you ignore a very basic question in an attempt to deflect.

What?

The process and system is hard? That is your response to over 200 years of corruption and failure. Its hard. Yet you would have me believe and argue that if we keep trusting this system, despite what we see suddenly things will get better? And you call me the one blinding by a pie in the sky dream? Come on man, you are killing your solution in this thread.

A broken system doesn't say as much about this system as it does its users.

We have a document that guarantees certain rights. Its up to use to ensure those rights.

You want all of the outcomes with none of the efforts.

And worse, you think mere social pressure will ensure these same outcomes due to mere ideology and not legal ramifications...how is that any less delusional?

You are advocating to support what has proven to be broken, because the worse case scenario if we moved to an anacap solution would be the exact same thing we have now with the current state, a group of thugs with a monopoly of violence who rig the system for their own benefit

You're not exactly advocating for the benefits of your system other than calling it another name.

 

[David_TheMan]

In the rawest sense, self-interest equals selfishness.

You're just corrupted, in a sense, by the expectation by the society you've been raised by, to expect that self-interest, includes altruism...and it does not have to and to expect it to, is a miscalculation on your end.

Anything you expect, or demand, has been secured by law and the tradition of the experimentation in society since time-immemorial.

And the golden rule does not equal self-interest. If it did, you wouldn't have to make piecemeal, step-wise justifications of it.

Oh, and don't think that just because you have a community of people who agree with you and follow you, that it doesn't mean that you're still not just as irrational or unreasonable in your conclusion.

@TheDarceKnight Why do these guys sound like college sophomores who think they're being groundbreaking with introducing these abstractions as if they're rediscovering a wheel, thats not a wheel , but the wheel 2.0?

i'm corrupted in a sense? What has corrupted me?
Again you claim altruism but I've not argued not made an argument appealing to altruistic valuations by anyone, but the opposite, self-interest. so again we have you blatantly lying about my position and trying to shoehorn a argument to me that i never presented so you can knock it down.

I have argued for respect of societal norms and customs in the form of law (which is what law is).

If self-interest is selfishness, the golden rule most certainly does equal selfishness, because you are treating others only the way you would like to be treated, so you are acting in your own self-interest to treat people fairly, with respect, and in honoring your word. You cant even hold your logic consistently.

As for people agreeing with me, I could say the same to you, that said I have not once used the fallacy of appealing to the masses to try to support my stance. Unlike you I actually prefer to use logical and rational arguments to defend my position.


look at you calling your friend to try to attack the messenger instead of rationally defend your position.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

i'm corrupted in a sense? What has corrupted me?
Again you claim altruism but I've not argued not made an argument appealing to altruistic valuations by anyone, but the opposite, self-interest. so again we have you blatantly lying about my position and trying to shoehorn a argument to me that i never presented so you can knock it down.

I have argued for respect of societal norms and customs in the form of law (which is what law is).

If self-interest is selfishness, the golden rule most certainly does equal selfishness, because you are treating others only the way you would like to be treated, so you are acting in your own self-interest to treat people fairly, with respect, and in honoring your word. You cant even hold your logic consistently.

As for people agreeing with me, I could say the same to you, that said I have not once used the fallacy of appealing to the masses to try to support my stance. Unlike you I actually prefer to use logical and rational arguments to defend my position.


look at you calling your friend to try to attack the messenger instead of rationally defend your position.

Why does your view of a perfect society look like that of someone who lives in a Western, secular democracy?

 

[David_TheMan]

@David_TheMan Look. The very things you expect your fellow citizen to do, have been ingrained by an adherence to the consequences, disincentives, and limitations of resources, as predicated by law, and to a lesser extent social pressures that discourage certain things in the context of the law.

So when you remove all of that, you can't expect everything to go the way you want, without vastly different outcomes.

Look around the world. Humans clearly value different ways of living with different morals and political systems and economic systems. Many of which ARE as libertarian as you'd want.

But you want all of the comforts of a western democracy with the expectation that in YOUR world, they'd get it right.

Well you can't have all of THIS, without any of THESE rules.

Law is nothing but the formulation of the norms and customs of a those in a community/society. The norms develop first and from that the law, not the other way around. That said again the law and the punishments from violating them aren't disincentives, more they are just formulation of the rules the community has adopted with regimented punishment for violating these rules. that is it.

So the only thing the state gives with regard to the rules is the method of enforcement, it isn't required or neccessary to enforce these norms and rules, which is why some of us libertarians argure for a privately funded and competitive method of law enforcement.

The rest of your statement has absolutely nothing to do with what I've posited to the point where its literally just a attempt to derail the discussion, I can only guess because you truly have nothing else left to add logically.

Yes man, we can have a voluntaryist society, a stateless soceity, without embracing of the state.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Law is nothing but the formulation of the norms and customs of a those in a community/society. The norms develop first and from that the law, not the other way around. That said again the law and the punishments from violating them aren't disincentives, more they are just formulation of the rules the community has adopted with regimented punishment for violating these rules. that is it.

So the only thing the state gives with regard to the rules is the method of enforcement, it isn't required or neccessary to enforce these norms and rules, which is why some of us libertarians argure for a privately funded and competitive method of law enforcement.

The rest of your statement has absolutely nothing to do with what I've posited to the point where its literally just a attempt to derail the discussion, I can only guess because you truly have nothing else left to add logically.

Yes man, we can have a voluntaryist society, a stateless soceity, without embracing of the state.

All this volunteerism looks a lot like communism

 

[MewTwo]

I was a lifelong dem because of cultural reasons but have become more libertarian as I've gotten older.

That tends to happen when people smarten up.

 

[David_TheMan]

he was rolling with the creator of an Al-Qaeda magazine 2 weeks before he died and had criminal ties. Sucks for them.
For what?

Characterizing miscarriages of justice doesn't equate to the system being broke. It means we didn't make the system work. The system is in place. And I don't know what libertarianism has to do with this.

What?
A broken system doesn't say as much about this system as it does its users.

We have a document that guarantees certain rights. Its up to use to ensure those rights.

You want all of the outcomes with none of the efforts.

And worse, you think mere social pressure will ensure these same outcomes due to mere ideology and not legal ramifications...how is that any less delusional?



You're not exactly advocating for the benefits of your system other than calling it another name.

You are arguing for the death of a 15 year old kid by the US government, without charges, without a trial, and against the US Constitution which requires both before an execution. So again you prove all your talk about the law, means nothing to you, because you excuse murder by those in power if it suits you. Again I can think of no greater reason to not support the state than to advise those reading and following this discussion to examine your open hypocrisy regarding the law and those in power who blantantly ignore it with no reprisal.

Your argument for murdering that kid, is the exact same argument that people used to justify the death of Micheal Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Tamir Rice.
==

Hilary violated the law with regard to handling top secret information. Same law that had Snowden and Manning imprisoned.

If miscarriage of justice were isolated incidences you might have a point, but when these isolated incidents aren't isolated and actually systematic you can deduce the system actually allows these things to happen.

A broken system in which the power elite live above the masses, is a sure sign of a broken system, especially when the system claims it provides equality under the law, and when it claims it keeps itself in check, yet does neither.

US Constitution doesn't guarantee anything, if it didn't wouldn't be a need for civil rights act would it? If it did Obama and those in his administration that approved the murder of a 15 year old american with no charges and no trail would be in jail right?

I want the outcome of civil society and contract with those I interact with, nothing more and nothing less.

Social pressure does influence people though, its the foundation of culture and social norms that law originates from.

I've clearly said the benefits of the system I advocate, again you are reduced to lying outright because you truly have no logical reply

 

[David_TheMan]

Why does your view of a perfect society look like that of someone who lives in a Western, secular democracy?

Yet stateless society doesn't have to be western, secular, nor democratic.
Its literally the composition of those composed in it, so long as they voluntarily agree to be there.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Yet stateless society doesn't have to be western, secular, nor democratic.
Its literally the composition of those composed in it, so long as they voluntarily agree to be there.

So I guess Somalia is a smashing success

 

[David_TheMan]

All this volunteerism looks a lot like communism

voluntaryism doesn't have to be capitalist it can be communist, as the name suggest as long as there is no compulsion in the community it is acceptable.
You can have a anacap community, a communist community, and etc.

 

[David_TheMan]

So I guess Somalia is a smashing success

What about somalia would classify it as a success?

Sad part about somalia though is after the state in control failed, the living standards increased, fukked up isn't it.
Even as fukked as somalia is, it was better after the state failed than it was during it.
Somalia: Failed State, Economic Success? | Benjamin Powell

 

[TheDarceKnight]

When you start saying "one role" you start abstracting and trivializing shyt like the FDA, EPA, or even education department.

I'd like to discuss the role of government, not the value of government.

Cause some of ya'll like taking the easy route when it comes to discussing freedom, which I think is important, but some of ya'll are too quick to ignore the fact that "being against something, is ok, and the responsible thing to do"

I've heard the argument by some uber-libertarians that 3D guns or nukes or free 8-balls of cocaine should just be as freely available as starbucks and chewing gum

That a$$hole Cody Wilson?