Whats wrong with the Libertarians?

[FAH1223]

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Yeah, breh. Thats what I kind of figured. The established parties demonize them to keep them marginalized.

It's not that. It's that two parties exist because of how votes are counted in our country. Without something to replace first-past-the-post voting then your system will trend towards two parties. It has nothing to do with libertarianism per se.

Libertarianism is what happens when people who are socially apathetic join wth right winger economists. Don't think they care about progressive social policies. They don't. They just don't want you to piss on their block.

They won't fight for you, they just don't care about you. They dress it up as "freedom for the individual" not "we won't defend your rights"

 

[Shogun]

It's not that. It's that two parties exist because of how votes are counted in our country. Without something to replace first-past-the-post voting then your system will trend towards two parties. It has nothing to do with libertarianism per se.

Libertarianism is what happens when people who are socially apathetic join wth right winger economists. Don't think they care about progressive social policies. They don't. They just don't want you to piss on their block.

They won't fight for you, they just don't care about you. They dress it up as "freedom for the individual" not "we won't defend your rights"

I hear ya, but all evidence suggests that our government is fairly inept in accomplishing any of those things either.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

So I need the state, the epitome of centralized power that doesn't respect property rights or even human life to protect me from commies and thugs who would violate my property rights, to keep my property?
That sounds rather convoluted and ignorant of reality.

If your basic question is who will provide security, I would prefer private security contractors bound by local law (no state, doesn't equal no government) depending on your area also could be a volunteer security agency. Plenty of ways to go with that, which is good with me, many options at solving the problem is a good thing.

This is such utopia bullshyt.

You won't get people to do this without law, and without ensured compensation and without enforcement.

You keep relying on implicit altruism which is not something you should take for granted.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I take it by government you mean the state (two different things).
That said the state didn't create property, scareness and humans did. As long a person worked or got lucky and found a scarce resource and said this is mine, that is private property. That is its origin, the thought and the community/society's recognition of the concept that ______ belongs to _______, that is all private property is. So to claim it only came from the state shows to me, you have no realistic base to what you are trying to discuss.

Yes I've heard of Pinkertons, also heard of sheriffs in the wild west who were largely private employees of the populace in unincorporated territory.

We don't need government police to defend us, well that isn't their job, but I agree we don't need them and I am sure I could show you historically that government police have always had the primary job of generating income for the state more than protecting anyone.

You asked me how I would solve security, I told you private security, you've yet to explain how this is not feasible.

I would say the state police is the haven of psychpaths and sociopaths that you are afraid of, and the current state of the US police force, across the nation, affirms that sad state of affair. If you would have me believe that having a private security service that is beholden to the law they are paid to enforce, that doesn't control the system so that they alone are responsible for investigating themselves, prosecuted by DAs who they work with, and their proceedings administered by judges who are usually former DAs, is worse than the state system implemented in western society today you are going to have to actually present a solid argument.

So instead of the long and thankless effort of reform, you'd forgo any law enforcement and rely on ideologues to carry out law enforcement?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I hear ya, but all evidence suggests that our government is fairly inept in accomplishing any of those things either.

And?

We can argue that the government shouldn't be doing certain things, but sweeping statements about shyt like even needing cops or ensuring basic infrastructure is so massively disingenuous and intellectually corrupt that you can't be taken seriously by advocating for it.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Democracy is hard. Libertarians are those not interested in doing hard work but demanding all of the benefits of that hard work and sacrifice

 

[Shogun]

And?

We can argue that the government shouldn't be doing certain things, but sweeping statements about shyt like even needing cops or ensuring basic infrastructure is so massively disingenuous and intellectually corrupt that you can't be taken seriously by advocating for it.

I doubt their most extreme fringe positions characterize the party.
Could be wrong though

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I doubt their most extreme fringe positions characterize the party.
Could be wrong though

Look. I want people to "do what they want" too. But removing many of the social and civil mechanisms to redress inequality isn't where you start.

 

[David_TheMan]

So instead of the long and thankless effort of reform, you'd forgo any law enforcement and rely on ideologues to carry out law enforcement?

There is no long and thankless reform. You can't reform a blatantly corrupt and immoral system from the inside. You have to remove that system and choose a better one.

I am of the libertarian group (all don't believe this) that favors privitized security because it removes the inherent flaws and possibilities for corruption that a government funded law enforcement/Justice system has. If you want to discuss these differences, I'm open to do so with you.

This is such utopia bullshyt.

You won't get people to do this without law, and without ensured compensation and without enforcement.

You keep relying on implicit altruism which is not something you should take for granted.

How is it utopian when it has been put in effect in reality?
Private police - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who said there will not be law, who said there will not be compensation, who said there will not be enforcement. You literally ignored everything I typed and what you bolded to say this.

The argument doesn't rely on altruism, it relies on contract and mutual self interest of members in society, the very self interest that develops societal norms and customs.

These notions of accepted premises you keep trotting out ARE the role of government. You just keep assuming society at large will reach the same conclusions without any legal enforcement

Not against any government, anarchy doesn't mean no government, libertarians attack the state, which is a form of government. It is very important you understand that linguistic distinction.

I not assuming anything, I'm not making any argument about society reaching anything, nor have I argued there being no legal enforcement.
I'm simply stating there needs to be a new process for exercising society norms and customs, outside the current system clamored for by those in western society, the state.

Government isn't for the decent person. It's for the immoral selfish a$$hole who would fukk it up for the 90% of people

Think about every single law. It's to protect the vast majority of people from the Minority of people engaging in bullshyt.

government or the state?
I think you are talking about the state, since no one is arguing regarding government.

the state isn't for the decent person? Yes it is, it is made entirely for the decent person to establish the methods and means for order for the people in that locale/community/populace.

The immoral doesn't care about any rules of the state or government, because they are going to do what they want regardless. Law doesn't stop law breakers, it merely details how those law breakers act outside of accepted norms and usually (fair or just) law prescribes punishment for those violations.

Who pays these security contractors?

Customers who want their service, the same way those who pay private security now. Just expand the base

 

[MMS]

alot of these "voluntary" ideas have huge holes

half the reason the state operates the way it does is because of checks from departments adjacent and above them

the hierarchy is in place to prevent corruption. Without hierarchy, who enforces law? goodwill?

id like to see an honest answer as to how you would prevent the "truth-skewing" and rule bending that would occur if only the free market determined this. Throughout history human beings choose the easiest path to their primary objective whether that is an honest or dishonest path. The state and law have generally skewed that towards the honest one. How would a stateless society prevent dishonesty :cacwot:

 

[88m3]

alot of these "voluntary" ideas have huge holes

half the reason the state operates the way it does is because of checks from departments adjacent and above them

the hierarchy is in place to prevent corruption. Without hierarchy, who enforces law? goodwill?

id like to see an honest answer as to how you would prevent the "truth-skewing" and rule bending that would occur if only the free market determined this. Throughout history human beings choose the easiest path to their primary objective whether that is an honest or dishonest path. The state and law have generally skewed that towards the honest one. How would a stateless society prevent dishonesty :cacwot:

Well you have to understand that it's the Government that keeps getting in the way. Corporate social responsibility works when the Government doesn't interfere. Ask anyone with personhood. 10 out of 10 corporations will agree.

 

[TheDarceKnight]

Precisely. History is nice to them since they claim they'd have supported the oppressed people of history but they ignore the present struggles and injustices of people who deserve protection and equality under the law.

They take the selfishness of the individual for granted or see themselves as being indicative of everyone else's degree of altruism. It's bullshyt b

Exactly!

I have two close friends that are Libertarians, and they both have many things in common. One is white, one is half white and half Korean, and they both are upper middle class, and live in parts of the country that are very progressive.

What you bolded is so true. They're awesome people, but sometimes when I've told them some of the stuff I've seen said and done to black people in my lifetime down in the south, they are shocked, and think I'm exaggerating.

If everything was up to each individual state to decide...There are parts of the south still in 2016 that would easily and openly discriminate against black people and other minorities, be proud of it, and get away with it. I don't at all think it's a given that slavery or segregation would have "died out on its own."

Hell, in NC the majority of the state is against this HB2 bill that our idiot governor passed, and he will probably not get re-elected, but it's not a given that he'll get voted out of office, despite his unpopularity. There are still so many backwards ass people here when you get out of the major cities.

When confronted with this info, these Libertarian friends commonly say, "Well, it's easier to move out of a state if you don't like how things are there than it is to leave the country." Okay, maybe so, but again, they are upper middle class, and they are acting like it's easy to just uproot and leave a state. The type of people that might want to leave a state like Mississippi for a better life somewhere else are precisely the people that do not have the means to do so.

So again, they're taking their own situation of having the ability to easily move them and/or their families across state lines and projecting it as if that's a reality for most of this country. It's not.

Also, state govt. doesn't exactly attract the best and brightest.

 

[TheDarceKnight]

It's not that. It's that two parties exist because of how votes are counted in our country. Without something to replace first-past-the-post voting then your system will trend towards two parties. It has nothing to do with libertarianism per se.

Libertarianism is what happens when people who are socially apathetic join wth right winger economists. Don't think they care about progressive social policies. They don't. They just don't want you to piss on their block.

They won't fight for you, they just don't care about you. They dress it up as "freedom for the individual" not "we won't defend your rights"

fukk where is the rep?

This deserves some.

 

[TheDarceKnight]

Look. I want people to "do what they want" too. But removing many of the social and civil mechanisms to redress inequality isn't where you start.

Yeah, that's where they start to lose me and go looney tunes. I'm on board with a lot of what they say until they start talking about undoing things like the Civil Rights Act and then you start looking around like