Why not just TRY Libertarianism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MicroBalrog

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
2,896
Location
The State of Israel - aka Gun Nut Hell
I mean, there's lots of these little Pacific islands...

Heck, here goes Palau Island, 17,000 people, even certain civilisation there... why don't move the FSP there? You wouldn't have any Federal intervention to mess up the experiment (and no excuses if it doesn't work), but it would be cool.

I would move in.:D
 
If you were the single communist on MY island, there would be a tiny Woody Allen look alike washed up on the beach by morning.

:D
 
What happened to that pic of you...It's gone now from the "show yourself" thread?

It would go a long way towards explaining my post.

:D
 
woody_allen.jpg


balrog.jpg


Spot the differences!:D

(You are so not the first...)
 
Dude, there are NO differences...you folks of asian descent watch your preadolescent daughters around Micro...

:D
 
MicroBalrog,

You aren't a libertarian. A libertarian who supports Welfare is like a capitalist who supports a ban on private ownership of corporations.
 
No, Micro, but a libertarian must believe in the tenets of personal liberty. Forced redistribution of my money to your wallet isn't libertarianism. It's not the same ballpark, it's not even the same sport.

:p
 
Micro...you're not getting it, bro. You want to set up an island of libertarianism, then introduce yourself as a communist to that society. The political concepts are mutually exclusive.

Very different philosophies and not suitable for coexistence...
 
Justin, allowing the homeless, the unemployed, the terminally ill because somebody didn't wish to violate Bill Gates' right to "ever single dime" of his paycheck is not freedom. It's cold blooded murder.
Click to expand...

Micro, bud, you're making the same mistake that all statists make: Assuming that just because a person objects to the government doing something that it means that they must object to that thing being done at all.
 
Micro,
I'm not going to defend Bill Gates, but he does give away millions to charity every year. Not everyone in a Libertarian society is going to be that rich, but the fact is that people will pay for what they want.
Example:
Assumption #1: There are no taxes.

Situation: Money is needed for highways. Otherwise there are no highways. Some people would say "I don't want highways, so I won't pay." Others will say "I want highways, so I will pay."

The end result is that instead of a government that has a certain amount of money that it "must" spend, you have a government that is financialy powerless, and on top of that, you don't even have to spend money on voting for laws as they are cast by dollars. Worthwhile causes like the care and feeding of the poor and elderly and homeless are taken care of be the people who care about them. Unworthwhile causes like wellfare, BATF, DEA, FBI, IRS, most of the armed forces, wars on terrorism, drugs, and personal freedoms are not allowed, not by vote, but by the the fact that no one will pay for them. Hence, an efficient government is created through lack of funding.

-drew
 
I'm not going to defend Bill Gates, but he does give away millions to charity every year.
Click to expand...

Correct, he gives away, of his own volition. When money you earn is taken from you against your will, it's called theft.
 
I see you think Libertarian = must lockstep with 100% of LP platform.
Click to expand...
Supporting welfare is not a mere disagreement over a platform plank, it is diametrically opposed -- antithetical -- to libertarian principles. You cannot be a libertarian and support Welfare any more than you can be a libertarian and support government censorship of newspapers.

For more, see my response to you in this thread
 
I see you think Libertarian = must lockstep with 100% of LP platform.
Click to expand...

You cannot claim to be a Libertarian while clinging to philosophies that are radically opposed to the core of Libertarianism. A Libertarian who doesn't believe in the Non-Agression Principle, for example, would be as much of a contradiction in terms as a self-professed Christian who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

You don't have to lockstep with 100% of the LP platform to be a Libertarian, but you cannot be opposed to core Libertarian principles and still claim to be one.

Justin, allowing the homeless, the unemployed, the terminally ill because somebody didn't wish to violate Bill Gates' right to "ever single dime" of his paycheck is not freedom. It's cold blooded murder.
Click to expand...

That's why you are not a Libertarian, and why you'll never be one: you think that a need on the part of the homeless/unemployed/terminally ill is a justification to take money from Bill Gates by force.

Tell you what: as long as there are homeless, terminally ill, or unemployed people in need in your home country, you have no right to a single red shekel above and beyond the ones you absolutely need for the basics of life. If you don't give away all your surplus income to the needy, you have no right to advocate taking money from others by force to pay for those in need. So, if you use your own philosophy on yourself, you commit cold-blooded murder every time you spend money on a gun magazine or a pair of designer jeans, if there's a beggar somewhere who starves because you didn't pass that money on to him.

It's always easy to be generous with other people's money. If you feel a debt towards society, feel free to pay it off with your own money. I'll help with my money in a manner of my choosing, and I don't need a sanctimonious champion of the downtrodden to make those decisions for me. I'm pretty sure I've spent more money to help people in need in my lifetime than you have, and that doesn't even count the money that was forcibly extracted from my paychecks.

You're just like every other authoritarian on the planet who likes the part of Libertarianism where it says, "Nobody can tell you what to do," but who doesn't like the part that says, "but you don't get to tell anyone else what to do, either."
 
Last edited:
It's cold blooded murder.
Click to expand...
Whether it is or not is beside the point of what the libertarian philosophy supports. Libertarians oppose welfare. This isn't some platform plank handed down from the LP. It comes from the core philosophy of libertarianism, which opposes government interference.

It is impossible to be true to the core libertarian philosophy against government interference and support Welfare.

Libertarians will help those people through voluntary charity, but they still oppose the government forcing them to give to a government program that helps them.

Micro, this is a simple matter of the definition of the word libertarian. You are no more a libertarian than you are a girl. You can become a girl if you like, but to fit the definition, you'll need to change a few things. Same with being a libertarian.
 
Hello MicroBalrog
Just so we know what we're talking about, what is your idea of Libertarianism?

Also, assuming you have more wealth than a homeless person, are you also guilty of murder because you didn't give them a place to stay?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top