Anybody else ready for libertarianism?

[CFLarsen]

/s/hatred/frustration

I certainly don't hate you, you're not worth that much of my energy and mental capacity. Frankly, I'm having a hard time seeing you as anything but a troll, considering your complete inability to support any of your assertions, and your consistent misrepresentation or dismissal of anything you can't refute.

Yes, yes, yes. You are so superior and all.

Did you even check the link?

 

[CFLarsen]

Of course, the main reason is that every candidate they field is a nut. Look no further.

It does beg the question, though:

Are there any Libertarians who are not nuts?

 

[CFLarsen]

/Church Lady

Could it beeeeeeeeeeeeeeee SATAN??

/end

 

[shecky]

This has already been effectively proven to be untrue. In fact, in places where drugs have been legallized, or at least decriminalized, the opposite has happened.

What about this? Any reliable on this? The only comparable info I recall about this was related to prohibition. IIRC, Prohibition did cut down on some of the problems related to alcohol abuse. Offset perhaps by the black market economy it spawned.

And would it apply to the USA? Sometimes solutions that work in one country don't work in another, for a variety of reasons.

Also demonstrably untrue, as has been shown in three separate threads in the last few months.

Any reliable on this, too?

Thing about either of these beliefs is that it doesn't matter. The real issue is having the freedom to use drugs or firearms. Which I think is a critical point with libertarians. Even if drug abuse and gun violence increase as a result.

 

[shecky]

13. Crack down on illegal immigration. Deport illegals, irrespective of if they've been here for 2 days or 2 decades. Do not reward criminal behavior with amnesty or work-toward-legalization programs. Crack down on companies that hire illegals, and file lawsuits against such companies.

This doesn't seem a widely accepted libertarian idea. The idea being that private enterprises should be free to hire whoever they choose for whatever reason they choose. I think there's also the notion about personal sovereignty that people should be free to go wherever they wish, regardless of their place of origin.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Then you shouldn't have any problems answering it.

I don't see how that logically follows. Your question is stupid because it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, and is based on a false premise.

No. Not just "one Libertarian". The Libertarian Presidential Candidate. Yes, from the Libertarian Party.

He's still one Libertarian. You cannot assume that everything he says represents all Libertarians.

Sure: Those disagreeing with Badnarik's interpretation of the Constitution go to jail.

Not only is that incorrect, it is completely different from what you originally said: "Libertarians believe that Libertarians should govern other people. Those who don't agree go to jail." Do you have any support for your actual claim, rather than revisions of your claim?

That doesn't answer the question, though. Simply pointing to different priorities doesn't solve anything.

And once again you show just how much you just don't get it. Of course pointing to different priorities doesn't solve anything. That's the whole point. Libertarians aren't necessarily claiming to solve the problem. Of course it doesn't "answer the question", because the question is based on false premises. Picking a problem and asking how it solves it is hardly a legitimate argument.

Perhaps I can illustrate this concept with an example. Name one thing that you think is good.

You know what? This is exactly what we hear from Our Resident Elected Libertarian Shanek.

I didn't vote for him. And this is also what we hear from you, The Central Scrutinizer, and many other anti-Libertarian fanatics.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Ahh, but principles are more important than consequences. This is a point that some people seem to be completely unable to understand.

Are you implying some sort of inconsistency regarding my position? If so, how so?

 

[Kerberos]

Are you implying some sort of inconsistency regarding my position? If so, how so?

Well you first seem to support Zito's view that principles more important than principles, and then you shortly thereafter object to a principled stance against mariage because you believe it would have bad consequences. I thought that was a bit amusing, but it's not neccessarilly inconsistent.

ETA: I do in fact, not really get the notion that principles, divorced from whatever real world consequences they have, are particuarly significant. I care far more about being able to do what i want, than whether I'm "free" according to Libertarian Dogma.

 

[luchog]

According to that logic, every law is a libertarian issue.

Yes, to the extent that a law regulates consensual activities, it is a libertarian issue. Laws that regulate anything that does not involve harm through force or fraud is a libertarian issue.

It interferes only with the ability of one to get one's marriage recognized by the government. If the government were to recongnize no marriages, that would make it even worse.

It's rather hyperbolic to call them "second class citizens" simply because they are denied a privilege, and inaccurate to say that they are denied the privileges because of their orientation or because they're polygamous.

How is it hyperbolic? "Traditional" marriages are granted special tax breaks, and are covered by numerous statutes involving inheritance, child custody, benefits, special protections and responsibilites under family law (such as community property and credit reporting), access to a spouse's legal, medical, and financial records; and a whole host of other things.

If the government were to recognize no marriages at all, then the tax issue would become irrelevant; and the rest of it could easily be covered under a normal civil contract, like any other partnership; with the privileges and responsibilities clearly laid out and agreed to by both parties.

As it is right now, a homosexual partnership can be denied any number of things that married couples take for granted. They can be legally excluded from hospitals, they are not able to act on be half of their partner in any way (very important if one is hospitalized, out of the country, or involved in military service). Even a formal "power of attorney" or medical release doesn't always convey all the privileges accorded married couples under law; not to mention being of limited duration and scope, and the actual government-recognized powers can vary considerably between jurisdictions.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I didn't vote for him. And this is also what we hear from you, The Central Scrutinizer, and many other anti-Libertarian fanatics.

I am not just anti-Libertarian. I am also anti-flying saucers, anti-Uri Geller, anti-homeopathy, anti-JFK conspiracy, anti-moon landing hoax, etc...

In fact, it would be more accurate to refer to me as anti-woo-woo. Which is why shanek, Art Vandelay and other Libertarians don't like me. Because I laugh at them.

 

[luchog]

What about this? Any reliable on this? The only comparable info I recall about this was related to prohibition. IIRC, Prohibition did cut down on some of the problems related to alcohol abuse. Offset perhaps by the black market economy it spawned.

And would it apply to the USA? Sometimes solutions that work in one country don't work in another, for a variety of reasons.

Look up the effect of legalization and decriminalization in Holland, Spain, and Canada. In the Netherland, post-prohibition usage levels peaked briefly, then evened out a few percentage points below the previous level. The current image of cannabis use is artificially inflated due to the huge influx of European and American "drug tourists".

Any reliable on this, too?

It's all in the other three threads, I'm not about to drag it all over here when it's so easily accessible. Hint: they all mention firearms/guns in the thread titles.

Thing about either of these beliefs is that it doesn't matter. The real issue is having the freedom to use drugs or firearms. Which I think is a critical point with libertarians. Even if drug abuse and gun violence increase as a result.

Nope, sorry, you're wrong there. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is that things are only "wrong", and therefore legitmate for government to legislate, if they are inherently harmful. As there is no reliable data showing that this is the case for either firearms or drugs, and much showing quite the opposite, it is therefore not valid for government to be involved in.

 

[luchog]

Yes, yes, yes. You are so superior and all.

Did you even check the link?

It's hard not to be, around certain people.

Yes, I read the link, and like the other links you very rarely ever bother to post, it does nothing whatsoever to support your claim that all libertarians would jail anyone who doesn't agree to their government.

I know you won't bother to read this rebuttal, or will drastically misrepresent it; but I'll post it anyway.

1) Badnarik isn't all libertarians. He's not even most of them. He's one individual who's a complete fruitcake. He's no more representative of all libertarians than Bob Dole or Oliver North are representative of all Republicans, or that Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich are representative of all Democrats. All parties have their nutjobs, and both the Dems and GOP have elected any number of them on various levels. And compared to someone like Sharpton....

You'll notice, also, that Badnarik didn't get squat for votes compared to the number of registered LP members, let alone the number of people who self-describe as libertarian according to varous polls.

2) He was stating his personal stand, exaggerated for emphasis, not the policy of the Libertarian Party,which is not even remotely close to what Badnarik espouses. But, having actually read the LP party platform, you'd know that, right?

If this is the normal calibre of material that you use to support your ludicrious assertions, then it's no wonder you rarely ever bother to support anything you say.

 

[shecky]

Look up the effect of legalization and decriminalization in Holland, Spain, and Canada. In the Netherland, post-prohibition usage levels peaked briefly, then evened out a few percentage points below the previous level. The current image of cannabis use is artificially inflated due to the huge influx of European and American "drug tourists".

Ahh, but the United States isn't Holland, Spain, or Canada. There are things that work there that don't really pan out there, and vice versa.

It's all in the other three threads, I'm not about to drag it all over here when it's so easily accessible. Hint: they all mention firearms/guns in the thread titles.

I've read several threads here on guns and never found any convincing evidence either way. Just the usual hand waving by either side. At best they show correlation, and sometimes not even that.

Which makes me toss out those arguments in favor of the personal freedom argument. If you base such decisions on data which may favor your position, you must also be ready to give up those freedoms if the data changes. I contend that some freedoms are simply too valuable, and the risk of abuse is simply the price we pay for enjoying them. The nanny state may protect lots of folks against lots of things. And restrict our freedoms in the process.

Nope, sorry, you're wrong there. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is that things are only "wrong", and therefore legitmate for government to legislate, if they are inherently harmful. As there is no reliable data showing that this is the case for either firearms or drugs, and much showing quite the opposite, it is therefore not valid for government to be involved in.

Really. Any "official" sources on that. AFAIK, libertarians I know emphasize small govt and freedoms, and are extremely skeptical of any laws, even ones protecting people from "inherently harmful" things. Then again, I'm not sure there's any monolithic libertarian movement.

 

[Orwell]

Funny how all of these hyper-individualists all think alike...

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You'll notice, also, that Badnarik didn't get squat for votes compared to the number of registered LP members, let alone the number of people who self-describe as libertarian according to varous polls.

Interesting. So if there are all of these "registered" LP members, why didn't they take over the convention and nominate a non-loony toon? That just seems plain odd to me. Oh wait. Is it perhaps that they were all rabidly behind him, like shanek & billydkid & etc, during the race, but when he came up with ZERO percent of the vote, they were all quick to claim that they never really supported him, in order to avoid embarassment? Is that possible?

 

[MrFrankZito]

This doesn't seem a widely accepted libertarian idea. The idea being that private enterprises should be free to hire whoever they choose for whatever reason they choose. I think there's also the notion about personal sovereignty that people should be free to go wherever they wish, regardless of their place of origin.

One thing I hate is the intermixing of libertarian and anarchist thought. Even libertarians believe laws ought to be followed; indeed, if laws are ignored, it undermines the entire justice system. I believe in having open borders. I would vote in favor of such a proposal. HOWEVER, at present, we have a set of immigration laws on the books. Thus, illegal aliens are, by definition, criminals. I do not support giving criminals amnesty. When laws are ignored on a widespread basis--even just one law--it breeds a general, pernicious lawlessness. That's something I don't tolerate.

Here's another articulation of this point:

Many people incorrectly perceive racism when I say that all illegals must be deported. That's a complete misinterpretation of my objection. In fact, I would support having a totally open border policy. If I were in Congress, I would vote for such legislation. I would have no problem with 25 million Mexicans legally entering the US tomorrow. My objection is narrow: I oppose criminals entering the United States illegally, willfully and deliberately ignoring the law. We do not live in an anarchical society: We cannot simply ignore laws with which we disagree. The fact that the government continues to turn the other way while criminals undermine the laws of our land is absolutely shameful.

Think that I don't sound very much like a libertarian on this issue? Well, let's never confuse libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarians want as few laws as possible. Anarchists ignore laws. Say, come to think of it, these illegals fit the definition of anarchists more than do libertarians!

I am a strong believer that widespread lawlessness, even in the violation of one particular statute, undermines the entire justice system. How many millions of illegal immigrants are in this country right now, totally free? That sends a pernicious message: Millions of criminals can break the law and not suffer negative consequences. The federal apathy sends another pernicious message: The federal government will watch millions of criminals breaking the law, and not bring down negative consequences on them. This is truly the worst-case scenario possible on this issue.

I've often heard people say that illegals are willing to work the jobs that nobody else wants. That wouldn't be the case in a libertarian society. In a libertarian society, there would be no government welfare. Therefore, if those people wanted to get a check every month, they'd be working those jobs currently occupied by illegals. Those undesirable jobs don't look quite so terrible if the alternative is a cardboard box.

Cut from: http://libertariandefender.blogspot.com/2005/09/defending-controversial-views-in-my.html

 

[Earthborn]

Look up the effect of legalization and decriminalization in Holland, Spain, and Canada.

And which of these countries legalised any drugs illegal in the US?

In the Netherland, post-prohibition usage levels peaked briefly, then evened out a few percentage points below the previous level.

I like to see where you got your figures. I am from the Netherlands, and I think you pulled those figures out of your zitvlak. My proof: you speak of 'post-prohibition' in past tense. What year did that prohibition end? 2132?

The fundamental principle of libertarianism is that things are only "wrong" (snip) if they are inherently harmful.

How does one measure the inherentness of harm?

 

[shecky]

One thing I hate is the intermixing of libertarian and anarchist thought. Even libertarians believe laws ought to be followed; indeed, if laws are ignored, it undermines the entire justice system...

Cut from: http://libertariandefender.blogspot.com/2005/09/defending-controversial-views-in-my.html

I don't know where you found that moonbat, but he sounds like a typical Libertarian: no govt intervention, except for my pet peeve. Seriously, how can someone say something like this:

I am a strong believer that widespread lawlessness, even in the violation of one particular statute, undermines the entire justice system.

with a straight face? What happens when everyone starts jaywalking? Does society collapse?

In many ways, the illegal immigration issue and accompanying underground economy is among the most libertarian practices in the country. it's completely driven by market supply and demand, it strives to bypass as much government as possible and it works largely by it's own rules. The alternative involves a huge growth in government, and accompanying growth in the cost of everything touched by that underground economy. Which pretty much is everything. It seems to me that the current system of ignoring the "problem" serves everyone much more efficiently.

 

[CFLarsen]

He's still one Libertarian. You cannot assume that everything he says represents all Libertarians.

We have to. Otherwise, the LP has a renegade in their ranks.

Not only is that incorrect, it is completely different from what you originally said: "Libertarians believe that Libertarians should govern other people. Those who don't agree go to jail." Do you have any support for your actual claim, rather than revisions of your claim?

Look, if you are going to argue that the Libertarian Presidential Candidate doesn't speak for Libertarians and the Libertarian Party - capital L - then how do you suggest we take anything they say seriously?

Each Libertarian has his own Libertarianism?

No wonder these wackos don't get elected!!

And once again you show just how much you just don't get it. Of course pointing to different priorities doesn't solve anything. That's the whole point. Libertarians aren't necessarily claiming to solve the problem. Of course it doesn't "answer the question", because the question is based on false premises. Picking a problem and asking how it solves it is hardly a legitimate argument.

Perhaps I can illustrate this concept with an example. Name one thing that you think is good.

No, no, no. Don't shift the onus on me. You name one thing that is entirely Libertarian.

I didn't vote for him. And this is also what we hear from you, The Central Scrutinizer, and many other anti-Libertarian fanatics.

That is such a lame excuse. "I didn't vote for him". Meaning: "I can't be held responsible for anything".

Just out of curiousity: What are you supporting of Libertarian policies?

 

[CFLarsen]

Look up the effect of legalization and decriminalization in Holland, Spain, and Canada. In the Netherland, post-prohibition usage levels peaked briefly, then evened out a few percentage points below the previous level. The current image of cannabis use is artificially inflated due to the huge influx of European and American "drug tourists".

Fact 6: Legalization of Drugs will Lead to Increased Use and Increased Levels of Addiction. Legalization has been tried before, and failed miserably.

Other countries have also had this experience. The Netherlands has had its own troubles with increased use of cannabis products. From 1984 to 1996, the Dutch liberalized the use of cannabis. Surveys reveal that lifetime prevalence of cannabis in Holland increased consistently and sharply. For the age group 18-20, the increase is from 15 percent in 1984 to 44 percent in 1996.
Source: US Drug Enforcement Agency

Beware of political propaganda.

Nope, sorry, you're wrong there. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is that things are only "wrong", and therefore legitmate for government to legislate, if they are inherently harmful. As there is no reliable data showing that this is the case for either firearms or drugs, and much showing quite the opposite, it is therefore not valid for government to be involved in.

A REVIEW OF FIREARM STATISTICS AND REGULATIONS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES
Research, Statistics and Evaluation
Directorate Department of Justice Canada
April 25, 1995

Excerpts:

Homicides with firearms (per 100,000 capita)

Canada 0.67
Australia 0.36
New Zealand 0.49
Japan 0.06
Switzerland 1.4
Britain 0.14
France 2.32
United States 6.4

Another in the same league:

US Census Bureau, Death rates from injuries by mechanism and country (Bookmark No. 1356)

Excerpts:

Average annual injury deaths per 100,000 population for time period indicated

Murders:
USA, 1995: 13,7
Australia, 1993-95: 2,9
Canada, 1994-95: 3,9
Denmark, 1994-95: 2,1

The US Census Bureau and the FBI has some interesting data showing how people get murdered in the USA:

US Census Bureau, Murder Victims, 1990-1998 (Bookmark No. 333)

Excerpts:

Murders, type of weapon
Guns 1) Handguns
1990: 64,3% 49,8%
1995: 68,2% 55,8%%
1997: 67,7% 53,3%
1998: 64,9% 52,1%
1999: 65,3% 78,7%

1) Guns, total

Note: Numbers from 1999 is from: The crime rate FBI, Crime in the United States - 1999 Table 2.13 Circumstances, by weapon, 1999

66% of US murder victims are killed by firearms. Between 50% and 79% of these are killed by handguns. This, after almost a decade of decreasing crime and increasing gun possession?

It would seem that not only is the USA by far the most violent country in the Western world, they have far more guns than any other. They rank first in murders per capita, murders by firearms per capita, and firearms per capita.

Beware of political propaganda.