Where is the Libertarian explosion coming from?

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, let me put it another way. How do you imagine these problems would be dealt with in a Libertarian society?

I'm all for personal liberty, and a lot of libertarian ideas appeal to me. But equally I don't want to be living in a society that is crumbling because government is not involved. In my view we need government large enough to support and maintain society. I'm under no illusions that government is perfect. But so far I see no alternative. Protecting personal liberty is fine but who wants to live in a world where your liberty is protected but society has crumbled around you?

The crumbling ruins of inner city Detroit seem to be the end result of the Libertarian view point.

I was all up for personal liberty and a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist not too long ago. I believed the people could learn to look after themselves and hold together a strong society on a more everyone chips in basis than the government controlling them basis.

Then I realised things don't work that way in reality (which is why libertarians rarely get elected) and we do need some government control over the people so that they can remain free but at the same time not go amiss. Yes a 100% free society will soon crumble because the people will soon realise absolute freedom will lead them lost. And therefore there needs so be some boundaries that the society cannot cross.

But why I still prefer and support libertarianism is that, as I mentioned, it gives people an excellent blank slate to start building up a new society again. Most people who criticize libertarianism don't understand it and often confuse it with anarchism. In anarchism there are no rules and laws and people are free to do whatever they want. This won't last too long. In libertarianism the people are free to decide what kind of society they'ld like to live in and build a society that way. This is a big different.

In libertarianism if the people of a society decide they'ld like to live in a communist type of society so that all the people can help each other close the class divide and bring up the poor, then they're free to do so. In libertarianism also if the people of a society decide they'ld like to have a society where people are free to set up businesses without any government regulations and involvement, then they can do that as well.

You see, libertarianism doesn't mean no laws, no rules, no government. That's anarchism.In libertarianism there is a government and people have the freedom to chose what kind of a government they'ld like for their society. That's the big difference. All the people of the country don't need to be stuck with one system that is often failing and all the leaders are concerned about is maintaining their leadership. This clearly isn't working. And no one would like living in a Stalinist regime either, neither would anyone enjoy living in the wild west. What people want is to be left alone to decide what is best for themselves and to live life the way they feel is best for them. Libertarianism gives people this freedom. To chose what is best for them and set their communities their way. And if anyone doesn't agree with the majority, they also have the freedom to leave and find a society that suits them better.

And for todays failing system, libertarianism is the best of the rest. It will quickly solve most problem in the society and economy by redistributing back the power to the people. The power to chose what's good and bad for them. The power to build a society the way exactly as they'ld like to see. Its not anarchism, its freedom.

Which is why libertarians are on the rise because more and more people are saying they've had enough of the government ruining and taking more and more control of their lives and they're not gonna stay quiet and suck up another flawed government.

Libertarian explosion? I certainly haven't witnessed it.

I would certainly lean towards some aspects of libertarianism. I mean I think that the Government should have no say in what a grown adult decides to do as long as they aren't infringing someone elses rights etc. I dunno if I'd class myself as one, I'm not too bothered. I think the 'explosion' is just a growing frustration in society with a Government that is seen as too big and bureaucratic.


Oh and



Simple test eh? :pac:

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah sure there's you can hardly expect anything less than a tendetious account from a contributor to Fox :P

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was teasing lad. Thought you'd recognise a paraphrase of your own words;

Look up the book One of Us-Hugo Young.

Donegalfella wrote:

I can find less tendentious sources than a political commentator for the Guardian. Did you really expect him to produce a praiseworthy biography?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As per usual you pick the worst failings of governments as supposed 'proof' that government doesn't work. Hows about I list the worst failings of individuals?

I could start with Hitler and end with Josef Fritzl.

I expected more of you ei.sdraob, you are usually the one in threads providing the statistics and graphs to show that some action or policy or whatnot is wrong or is right. Here you have no idea whether charity would be enough, you have no cost analysis or figure on how much charity we'd need to meet the basic needs of the vulnerable (the liabilities in the system). You have no figures because you dont care. It is the state that tries (although it often fails abysmally) to balance the books, to make sure all citizens have a basic standard of living. If charity under a libertarian system didnt meet the requirements of those in need then what? Their tough luck right? How many people couldnt provide for themselves? Any figures?

I'm even more disappointed in you that you thanked a post from an utterly confused psuedo-libertarian. I thought I could save this person from being fooled by libertarianism but realise that they are simply foolish. And as a lolbertarian they can save themselves - just be sure to dig up from your intellectual sumphole.

This was the post

af_thefragile wrote: »

I was all up for personal liberty and a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist not too long ago. I believed the people could learn to look after themselves and hold together a strong society on a more everyone chips in basis than the government controlling them basis.

Then I realised things don't work that way in reality (which is why libertarians rarely get elected) and we do need some government control over the people so that they can remain free but at the same time not go amiss. Yes a 100% free society will soon crumble because the people will soon realise absolute freedom will lead them lost. And therefore there needs so be some boundaries that the society cannot cross.

But why I still prefer and support libertarianism is that, as I mentioned, it gives people an excellent blank slate to start building up a new society again. Most people who criticize libertarianism don't understand it and often confuse it with anarchism. In anarchism there are no rules and laws and people are free to do whatever they want. This won't last too long. In libertarianism the people are free to decide what kind of society they'ld like to live in and build a society that way. This is a big different.

In libertarianism if the people of a society decide they'ld like to live in a communist type of society so that all the people can help each other close the class divide and bring up the poor, then they're free to do so. In libertarianism also if the people of a society decide they'ld like to have a society where people are free to set up businesses without any government regulations and involvement, then they can do that as well.

You see, libertarianism doesn't mean no laws, no rules, no government. That's anarchism.In libertarianism there is a government and people have the freedom to chose what kind of a government they'ld like for their society. That's the big difference. All the people of the country don't need to be stuck with one system that is often failing and all the leaders are concerned about is maintaining their leadership. This clearly isn't working. And no one would like living in a Stalinist regime either, neither would anyone enjoy living in the wild west. What people want is to be left alone to decide what is best for themselves and to live life the way they feel is best for them. Libertarianism gives people this freedom. To chose what is best for them and set their communities their way. And if anyone doesn't agree with the majority, they also have the freedom to leave and find a society that suits them better.

And for todays failing system, libertarianism is the best of the rest. It will quickly solve most problem in the society and economy by redistributing back the power to the people. The power to chose what's good and bad for them. The power to build a society the way exactly as they'ld like to see. Its not anarchism, its freedom.

Which is why libertarians are on the rise because more and more people are saying they've had enough of the government ruining and taking more and more control of their lives and they're not gonna stay quiet and suck up another flawed government.

All the parts in bold occur as things are now. We are free to decide what society we want through a democratic process - we have as a people decided we want to live in a communist democratic type of society so that all the people can help each other close the class divide and bring up the poor through a welfare system, then we're free to do so.....as long as you lolbertarians dont get your way.

You have a say in how society is shaped. You can vote. If you dont like who there is to vote for you can run for office. So if you dont like the options and you haven't bothered running, then you are either too lazy to bother to create the society you want or you realise you wouldn't get the votes because the majority actually dont share your lolbertarian vision.

In the following he just contradicts himself and shows that he doesn't understand what libertarians want

Yes a 100% free society will soon crumble because the people will soon realise absolute freedom will lead them lost. And therefore there needs so be some boundaries that the society cannot cross.

donegalfella wrote: »

You are consistently oblivious to the fact that for principled libertarians, liberty trumps everything else, without exception.

But why I still prefer and support libertarianism is that, as I mentioned, it gives people an excellent blank slate to start building up a new society again.

I'd like to say, so would a nuclear war.

In a libertarian society you'd have power over your own actions and no power over others. The market would have power over all.

I dont litter. This is a choice. Does my choice impact on the litter strewn streets of ballymun? Probably not. Other peoples actions affect me whether I like it or not. People currently have the choice/freedom to litter or not litter (penalties are not enforced in the slightest). Their poor choices affect the me because they affect the commons. You think people litter because they know the council will clean up after them? They do it because they dont care.

Under lolbertarianism you say people have the freedom to decide what is best for themselves, what is good and bad - is this good and bad in a social sense or in an economic sense?? How under any economic model is it good to invest in something where the costs outweigh the benefits?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They can also do limited good. So if you admit they can hurt less, then you have to admit they can protect less. There are alternative ways other then the abolishment of government that we can get to a situation where governments can hurt less. Would a libertarian allow rights to be violated due to suspicion of a threat? A concrete example, would a libertarian allow security issues to supercede property rights? if not (and you still say liberty trumps all) a single man, left to his own devices under the protection of unassailable property rights could kill hundreds of thousands. KABOOOOM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is an argument for moving to the gold standard, not against the existence of governments.

Nitochris wrote: »

Incidentally the libdems tend to use libertarian rhethoric themselves and often protest the nanny-state which may have helped their appeal during the last election. It is possible that this is not that far removed from the above point as perhaps (and this is only conjecture) at some level they associate the EU's encroachment on Britain with that of the state on the individual. And of course some of the measures that lead to the "nanny-state" derive from EU directives etc.

Did you see the LibDems policies?

They were more left wing than Labour.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8515961.stm?subject=economy