Unfortunately, I'm not in the mood to watch a video that outlines an ideology that I am already familiar with (and one that I've adopted, for the most part).
Libetarianism (In Brief)
- Thread starter CosmicCommander
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That was quite long.. but nice concept. The problem with videos like this.. is that, even though I know about much of the corruption in the world, what can I do as a single person? And in fact, things like this make me wonder, if let's say our government was unjust in some of the actions and paths it has taken over the last several years. Well, Thomas Jefferson had something to the tune of "every 200 years a government will become corrupt, and it is up to the people to abolish and rectify such a thing" Well that being said, that means that all citizens should rise up in arms against the corruption. However, like the video states at the end, it is much easier to just do nothing, surf the net and watch some tv. The problem is that as the government's threshold for corruption increases, there will be a breaking point, and it will be all out civil war. And that beckons another question, so the people that would be fighting to free the government would be labeled "rebels or terrorist" however, in the eyes of the founding fathers of this country, they would be true patriots. So, this begs the question of how something like that would play out. And where would you stand on those lines? Do you believe the government is doing everything for the good of man, and that your soul is 100 percent clean by their actions? Or do you believe that the people that would be fighting to fix the problems would be patriots?
This idea is flawed.
In order to work, everyone must have the same mentality.
In order for everyone to have the same mentality, everyone must be convinced in childhood; if left to grow without conviction through childhood, children will develop different mentalities.
In this theory, it's wrong to force a belief on others.
Thus it's wrong to brainwash children, making the adopt a mentality not chosen by themselves.
At least other philosophers dared to say that one must brainwash people in order for a pure political theory to work. Socrates was one of them.
Oh, and a fun coincidence: Ayn Rand's theory is called Objectivism. But this flash mentioned ethics.
ethics = subjective | subjective =/= objective | objective =/= ethics.
Libertarianism, now proved wrong mathematically!
In order to work, everyone must have the same mentality.
In order for everyone to have the same mentality, everyone must be convinced in childhood; if left to grow without conviction through childhood, children will develop different mentalities.
In this theory, it's wrong to force a belief on others.
Thus it's wrong to brainwash children, making the adopt a mentality not chosen by themselves.
At least other philosophers dared to say that one must brainwash people in order for a pure political theory to work. Socrates was one of them.
Oh, and a fun coincidence: Ayn Rand's theory is called Objectivism. But this flash mentioned ethics.
ethics = subjective | subjective =/= objective | objective =/= ethics.
Libertarianism, now proved wrong mathematically!
You missed the point. The video clearly shows respect being shown, and how things should not be taken, but traded for fairly. You totally watched that video with your arms crossed doing something else. But you are right.. not everyone is a nice person, but no one has the right to infringe upon others. Statements are one thing, throwing punches are another.sirbryghtside said:
All governments are flawed.. they are run by people...Theissen said:
And as they say... Democracy is the worst form of government... you know except for all the other ones that have been tried...
I just have one question:
In this perfect libertarian world, who determines the value of work, the worker or the employer?
And if no concensus is reached, not because coercion, but because there is a dissagreement of the work's value, what then?
In this perfect libertarian world, who determines the value of work, the worker or the employer?
And if no concensus is reached, not because coercion, but because there is a dissagreement of the work's value, what then?
Then the work is not done. It will be done if both parties decide it's profitable to do so.
The worker and the employer determine the value of the work, the worker in how much he's willing to work for how much pay, and the employer in how much he's willing to pay for how much work. If there is no consensus, no work can be done without one person sacrificing himself for the other.
The worker and the employer determine the value of the work, the worker in how much he's willing to work for how much pay, and the employer in how much he's willing to pay for how much work. If there is no consensus, no work can be done without one person sacrificing himself for the other.
It's possibly a credit to this forum (depending on your attitude to religion and/or religious fundamentalism) that no-one's yet complained about how massively anti-God libertarianism is (please don't construe this as a complaint of that nature; despite my religious beliefs, I'm firmly in favour of the maximum possible separation of church and state. I'm just commenting).
Anyway, my issue with libertarianism isn't the underlying philosophy. It's a very nice approach and but for two things it would be ideal.
The first of these things (and the more significant) is luck. Sometimes, despite working all his life, having good ideas and devotedly and honestly pursuing them, nothing might come of a guy's efforts; plenty of small-hold farmers died bankrupt despite fifty or sixty years of serious hard labour because a crop or two failed, or the market wasn't quite with them. Likewise, some people make huge fortunes because one idea they had was in the right place at the right time (eg. certain seminal music records, like Nirvana's 'Nevermind'), or because they struck oil, and so on. Libertarianism only attains the fairness it claims if something insures that the rewards for effort are in direct proportion to the amount of effort (which wouldn't necessarily be fair either, but would at least be fairer). It's not fair to brand all (possibly not even most, though I don't know the precise statistics) receivers of benefits as leaches on the public purse who've never done an honest day's work in their lives. Some of them are stuck there because the crops failed, or there was an accident and they can't work as much or as hard as they used to, or any one of thousands of other such scenarios.
The second problem of libertarianism (one which I imagine is felt much more strongly in Europe than America, which is why various forms of socialism do much better over here) is the problem of old money. Some people are born into abject poverty, some people inherit vast fortunes (in some ways, this is just an extension of the luck point). Now, if person A, born to a single mother with no significant qualifications and no prospects, and person B, born the son of a rich family (it doesn't really matter why the family's rich), both take their inheritance and work equally hard, B is going to get much richer, but A doesn't stand much of a chance of making any improvement to his life at all, unless someone provides him with some education or training for next to nothing, and sees to it he isn't crippled by disease before his efforts can bear fruit and so on.
Libertarians would do well to remember that the three greatest oppressors of mankind are disease, poverty and ignorance.
But then, I'm one of the old-fashioned sort who believe that there is a duty (within reason, but with all the force of moral law) to help those in need when you yourself are not, so what do I know about liberty?
ADDENDUM TO PREVIOUS: Kwil - I like your point about the child. Hadn't thought of that one
Anyway, my issue with libertarianism isn't the underlying philosophy. It's a very nice approach and but for two things it would be ideal.
The first of these things (and the more significant) is luck. Sometimes, despite working all his life, having good ideas and devotedly and honestly pursuing them, nothing might come of a guy's efforts; plenty of small-hold farmers died bankrupt despite fifty or sixty years of serious hard labour because a crop or two failed, or the market wasn't quite with them. Likewise, some people make huge fortunes because one idea they had was in the right place at the right time (eg. certain seminal music records, like Nirvana's 'Nevermind'), or because they struck oil, and so on. Libertarianism only attains the fairness it claims if something insures that the rewards for effort are in direct proportion to the amount of effort (which wouldn't necessarily be fair either, but would at least be fairer). It's not fair to brand all (possibly not even most, though I don't know the precise statistics) receivers of benefits as leaches on the public purse who've never done an honest day's work in their lives. Some of them are stuck there because the crops failed, or there was an accident and they can't work as much or as hard as they used to, or any one of thousands of other such scenarios.
The second problem of libertarianism (one which I imagine is felt much more strongly in Europe than America, which is why various forms of socialism do much better over here) is the problem of old money. Some people are born into abject poverty, some people inherit vast fortunes (in some ways, this is just an extension of the luck point). Now, if person A, born to a single mother with no significant qualifications and no prospects, and person B, born the son of a rich family (it doesn't really matter why the family's rich), both take their inheritance and work equally hard, B is going to get much richer, but A doesn't stand much of a chance of making any improvement to his life at all, unless someone provides him with some education or training for next to nothing, and sees to it he isn't crippled by disease before his efforts can bear fruit and so on.
Libertarians would do well to remember that the three greatest oppressors of mankind are disease, poverty and ignorance.
But then, I'm one of the old-fashioned sort who believe that there is a duty (within reason, but with all the force of moral law) to help those in need when you yourself are not, so what do I know about liberty?
ADDENDUM TO PREVIOUS: Kwil - I like your point about the child. Hadn't thought of that one
I would group myself with the Libertarians mostly because it cuts back on gov spending and way to "help you" and gives you alot of personal freedom, I have never gotten why the people that we elect into office alwas decide we are to dumb to take care of ourselves and they need to do it for us. I'm a perfectly fit capable adult I can take care of myself.Mother Yeti said:
That sounds fine and dandy for pre-planned work, but what about the work of producing perishables?
A farmer doesn't get to work out the price before planting the seeds; he works under a budget.
If the buyer doesn't agree with the final price, it seems to me the farmer has no choice but to drop the price below his own profit expectations until he reaches a price the buyer accepts, considering his produce is also losing value as time passes.
Likewise, if the product is the livelihood of the buyer, then the farmer gets to charge whatever he wants from it and the buyer has no choice but to ether pay up or starve, specially if demand on the farmers side.
So, in other words, how is this "better" than having a regulatory body determining a price for the product that isn't too high for the buyer but not too low for the seller?
And what about the common worker? what leverage does he have to negotiate the value of his work while he's starving?
That doesn't sound very "free" to me.
A farmer doesn't get to work out the price before planting the seeds; he works under a budget.
If the buyer doesn't agree with the final price, it seems to me the farmer has no choice but to drop the price below his own profit expectations until he reaches a price the buyer accepts, considering his produce is also losing value as time passes.
Likewise, if the product is the livelihood of the buyer, then the farmer gets to charge whatever he wants from it and the buyer has no choice but to ether pay up or starve, specially if demand on the farmers side.
So, in other words, how is this "better" than having a regulatory body determining a price for the product that isn't too high for the buyer but not too low for the seller?
And what about the common worker? what leverage does he have to negotiate the value of his work while he's starving?
That doesn't sound very "free" to me.
This is my primary beef with the basic tennet of the philosophy.Kwil said:
I don't think we have absolute ownership to our own lives unless we are completelly self-sufficient and, last time I checked, I don't grow my own food.
And what about our parents, does libertarianism mean I owe them their food and care back or not?
Hell keep what we have now just cut back on what the government can do and some laws, not that hardKwil said:
Yeah the anti-god thing does seem to be quite common and that's how I was introduced to it. I am an atheist and quite a few popular atheists subscribe to this ideal. However for me I just can't see it. It's just to far out there for me to worry. Yeah I know this is how bad people are allowed to prosper, but economics are just so damn hard. I've just decided to never label myself and when it comes time to vote I'll weigh the good and the bad and vote. And overwhelmingly the Democrats tend to win. Sure they may have it wrong when it comes to giving the government more power, but I'll take that possibility over the hateful idiocy of the Conservative side (At least the current form that it takes).Pocket Apocalypse said:
Maybe this is incredibly nieve but I say we just keep our current government and cut back on stupid laws. Stuff that doesn't harm others directly should be legal. How? Well we educate people. That being said I am not really against government run programs like health care, education etc at least not in this climate. Taxes are not going to go away, so we should figure out what we want. Should we be spending as much as we are on shitty healthcare? Military?
I'm a Libertarian and I found this thread a little odd. A quote I am most fond of when people get into heated debate about this is, "I do not agree with what you say, however I would die fighting for your right to say it". Can you say the same of us?
Personally I like the idea of living in a world where people don't tell me what me or my children can or cannot watch (or play, in the context of video game censorship). I like the idea of being able to have sex with another person and it being nobody else's business. I like the idea of being able to work my way up in the world without having to consider whether progressing in my life would be better under the tax and welfare laws.
I haven't attacked anyone, tried to take their property, liberty or life. That means I am not a criminal. If anyone says otherwise they are oppressing their social agenda through law and that means we have lost freedom. You think me doing drugs, or sleeping with someone for money, or ending my own suffering through ethenasia, or playing Grand Theft Auto when I'm under 18 is a crime? You are wrong. The crime is that government thinks it has the right to tell us these things are crimes while taking our property, liberty and life.
Personally I like the idea of living in a world where people don't tell me what me or my children can or cannot watch (or play, in the context of video game censorship). I like the idea of being able to have sex with another person and it being nobody else's business. I like the idea of being able to work my way up in the world without having to consider whether progressing in my life would be better under the tax and welfare laws.
I haven't attacked anyone, tried to take their property, liberty or life. That means I am not a criminal. If anyone says otherwise they are oppressing their social agenda through law and that means we have lost freedom. You think me doing drugs, or sleeping with someone for money, or ending my own suffering through ethenasia, or playing Grand Theft Auto when I'm under 18 is a crime? You are wrong. The crime is that government thinks it has the right to tell us these things are crimes while taking our property, liberty and life.
Ugh I hate this! I agree with you so much, but dammit the economic side of things is so tough for me to go along with. I mean obviously this would be a slow thing. Abolishing certain programs would be a slow process and I might just go along with that. It's just so tough to see where we are know and take that leap!clericalerror said: