What Libertarianism is Not

[714562]

That is total bullshyt. Libertarianism is a tangible thing not an amorphous belief system. It is an economic philosophy along with a social philosophy. It's as tangible as Marxism. Zero Hedge is the among the dumbest websites on Earth.

1. Marxism isn't all that tangible, considering how many branches of it there are and;

2. An economic philosophy? Oh.

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anarchist communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Libertarian Marxism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geolibertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Economic liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Camile.Bidan]

I fled libertarianism too.

I just can't get with the legalization of drugs, and the rampant drug use by libertarians.

I don't like how many Libertarians have all the dumb-ass "Big Ideas" that will never work.


There is a role for the Government in Social Engineering. Countries like China and Singapore have shown that it can be very successful, while countries like the United States and Europe fail at it.


Authoritarian Technocratic Capitalism, which is basically the Singapore model and what China is transforming into (Russia might head there too), is the Ideal system in my eyes not Libertarianism.

We need an Iron Fist Government in Social Matters like drugs, Crime, Racial Neighborhood Allocations, Cleanliness, Morality and managing Tragedy of the Commons issues.

 

[DEAD7]

I fled libertarianism too.

I just can't get with the legalization of drugs, and the rampant drug use by libertarians.

I don't like how many Libertarians have all the dumb-ass "Big Ideas" that will never work.


There is a role for the Government in Social Engineering. Countries like China and Singapore have shown that it can be very successful, while countries like the United States and Europe fail at it.


Authoritarian Technocratic Capitalism, which is basically the Singapore model and what China is transforming into (Russia might head there too), is the Ideal system in my eyes not Libertarianism.

We need an Iron Fist Government in Social Matters like drugs, Crime, Racial Neighborhood Allocations, Cleanliness, Morality and managing Tragedy of the Commons issues.

So you support the war on drugs... noted.

 

[The Real]

Not a Libertarian myself,but zerohedge is occasionally great and this is a provocative post:

What Libertarianism Is Not | Zero Hedge

Libertarianism is exclusively a political philosophy describing the legitimate use of force in society. It claims that humans have the right of self-ownership, and that theft, assault and other forms of aggression violate this right, except in the case of legitimate self-defense against an aggressor.

Isn't this a vague definition? It takes "self-ownership," "aggression," and "legitimate self-defense" to be self-evident, when they are anything but and when they are precisely what is contested in political philosophy more generally. In order to be a proper position, it has to stake out exactly what those terms consist of. As it stands, this is so vague that even the most ardent anarcho-communist or socialist would agree with it, as the author seems somewhat aware of. So then what work is it doing as a term? Not much, from what I can see. Is there a single political philosophy out there that holds assault to be ok?

 

[DEAD7]

Isn't this a vague definition? It takes "self-ownership," "aggression," and "legitimate self-defense" to be self-evident, when they are anything but and when they are precisely what is contested in political philosophy more generally. In order to be a proper position, it has to stake out exactly what those terms consist of. As it stands, this is so vague that even the most ardent anarcho-communist or socialist would agree with it, as the author seems somewhat aware of. So when what work is it doing as a term? Not much, from what I can see.

You dont believe self-ownership to be self-evident?

 

[The Real]

You dont believe self-ownership to be self-evident?

I don't believe it has a self-evident definition, no. That's why political philosophy exists- to debate what it actually means, or rather, should mean in detail.

 

[714562]

You dont believe self-ownership to be self-evident?

I don't believe it has a self-evident definition, no. That's why political philosophy exists- to debate what it actually means, or rather, should mean in detail.

If it has no self-evident definition to you, then it is not self-evident to you because you don't know what it means, what it is, or even whether you like it.

So you're admitting that self-ownership is not self evident to you.

Do you believe that people are a means to an end? Sounds like you do, Fascist.

 

[The Real]

If it has no self-evident definition to you, then it is not self-evident to you because you don't know what it means, what it is, or even whether you like it.

So you're admitting that self-ownership is not self evident to you.

Do you believe that people are a means to an end? Sounds like you do, Fascist.

Yes, I'm "admitting" that self-ownership is not self-evident to me, just like everything else I myself believe in. I think my point follows from exactly what you're saying here.

 

[714562]

Yes, I'm "admitting" that self-ownership is not self-evident to me, just like everything else I myself believe in. I think my point follows from exactly what you're saying here.

So I can hit you?

 

[The Real]

So I can hit you?

I would hope not- but then does that make me a libertarian? Does that make John Rawls a libertarian? Does that make Karl Marx a libertarian?

 

[Camile.Bidan]

So you support the war on drugs... noted.

Look at the boxer rebellion, or even the conspiracy theory around Crack Cocaine and the Black Ghettos.


I think Drugs are special substances and they need to be controlled.


Some people are predisposed to addiction or negative side-effects.

I smoked weed a handful of times in my life, and every time, I felt as if the world was coming down on me. I felt like people were out to kill me, and my sense of motion was so acute and so exaggerate that I felt like my world was out-of-control. I am sure everyone else may have a pleasurable experience with Weed, but I can't tolerate it.


Same goes for Caffiene. I once drank a Rockstar and two Cokes, and I had to go the Urgent Care because my heart was beating irregularly. I see that some people can drink one whole pot of coffee and nothing will happen to them. I can barely drink one cup without getting amped-up and shaking.

However for alcohol. I can drink a lot more alcohol than a Normal person and I won't get drunk. I have driven around legally drunk so many times in my life, and I even used to drink beer while driving when I was a 20. I am freshly 31 years old now, and I have never received a DUI citation, and I have never got into a car accident. These days, I don't even really drink that much. I drink maybe once every 4 months, so I am not an addict and I never feel an urge to drink. I have a very high tolerance for alcohol.


So basically, I am in the 99th percentile with it comes Alcohol tolerance, but I am in the 99% when comes to Marijuana and Caffeine intolerance. This has nothing to do with my daily consumption or my tolerance build-up. More than likely I was born this way.

Why is this relevant?


Libertarianism is another Ideology that is based on the false assumption of Feel-will. People don't chose to do shyt. They are pushed into their actions or choices by a combination of antecedent conditions, Genetics and environment.

If Person A is an predisposed to be an Addict of Crack with one dose of Crack, then I don't think person A would be an addict to Crack if it was completely unavailable. He could have had a nice productive life if Crack was completely banned. If the system allowed Crack to become available to him, it's the system's fault not his. He has no choice, he is was born to be an addicted and the system allowed the addictive substance to get within his possession.

 

[714562]

I would hope not- but then does that make me a libertarian? Does that make John Rawls a libertarian? Does that make Karl Marx a libertarian?

We're not there yet.

We're still talking about self-ownership.

You clearly acknowledge that self-ownership is ascertainable to some extent.

 

[DEAD7]

Libertarianism is another Ideology that is based on the false assumption of Feel-will. People don't chose to do shyt. They are pushed into their actions or choices by a combination of antecedent conditions, Genetics and environment.

 

[The Real]

We're not there yet.

We're still talking about self-ownership.

You clearly acknowledge that self-ownership is ascertainable to some extent.

Yes, I am, but in a way that precisely makes its usage in the form employed in the article pretty much empty of content. It's like a vegan evangelist saying "veganism is the school of thought that holds that humans need to eat to survive." That's something we all agree on, sure, but that doesn't do veganism any favors, since it doesn't distinguish it from anything else. It's in the details of what counts as legitimate food, ethically or however else, that the lines are drawn. Similarly, it's in the specifics of what something like self-ownership consists, it's limits, its comprehensive definition, that draw lines between libertarianism and other schools of thought. Sure, we can all agree that assault is bad- I even edited my initial post to reflect that, though I think you were probably replying while I did it- but where exactly does that leave us, or libertarianism?

To complicate it even further, even libertarianism acknowledges some exceptions to the assault rule, from what I understand. So even the definition of assault would probably be a matter of debate, even if we can agree on baselines like "no one should just walk up to a random stranger and hit them for no reason."

 

[714562]

Yes, I am, but in a way that precisely makes its usage in the form employed in the article pretty much empty of content. It's like a vegan evangelist saying "veganism is the school of thought that holds that humans need to eat to survive." That's something we all agree on, sure, but that doesn't do veganism any favors, since it doesn't distinguish it from anything else. It's in the details of what counts as legitimate food, ethically or however else, that the lines are drawn. Similarly, it's in the specifics of what something like self-ownership consists, it's limits, its comprehensive definition, that draw lines between libertarianism and other schools of thought. Sure, we can all agree that assault is bad- I even edited my initial post to reflect that, though I think you were probably replying while I did it- but where exactly does that leave us, or libertarianism?

To complicate it even further, even libertarianism acknowledges some exceptions to the assault rule, from what I understand. So even the definition of assault would probably be a matter of debate, even if we can agree on baselines like "no one should just walk up to a random stranger and hit them for no reason."

This seems like a general problem of philosophy, rather than libertarianism in particular. So you woulds have to apply it equally across the board.