Show us your leanings!

[Randall Flagg]

2 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

Libertarianism IS authoritarianism.  The logical terminus of the ideology is abject slavery for the vast majority of the population.  

With no government to keep capital's thumb off the scale, or ensure that the most vulnerable among us are looked after, or to remind us that children should not be made to fight to the death in cages for sport (extreme example, but there's precedent), things get bleak in a hurry. 

Can you give a specific definition for this libertarianism? seeing as you also fall very close to that side of the spectrum but surely don't seem to believe that children shouldn't be made to fight in cages?

 

1 hour ago, darksabre said:

Not that our government is even doing the best job of that right now, but your point remains valid.

Libertarianism is to me the modern equivalent of Soviet Communism. A whole bunch of people like to say and maybe even believe they are left-libertarian, but they're actually all right-libertertarian, because the "I want what is mine" part of being a Libertarian always wins out. 

Could you expand on the Soviet comparison? Is that what you're doing with the second sentence, saying that a lot of people liked to say they were Soviet-style socialists, but were really communists, or something? And also supply your definition of Libertarianism? 

[Eleven]

What a terrible quiz.  For example:  Yes, I want school to instill religious values in my (hypothetical) child--which is why I would send said child to a religious school.  I don't want public schools instilling religious values in anyone.  But the way the question was worded--well, what kind of school are we talking about?

What does my opinion on abstract art have to do with politics?

Why are there not "maybe" or "I don't know" options, each of which would have been useful?

I'm not good at cutting and pasting, but I finished just about where I expected to, at (-3, -4) using Cartesian coordinates.

[darksabre]

4 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Can you give a specific definition for this libertarianism? seeing as you also fall very close to that side of the spectrum but surely don't seem to believe that children shouldn't be made to fight in cages?

 

Could you expand on the Soviet comparison? Is that what you're doing with the second sentence, saying that a lot of people liked to say they were Soviet-style socialists, but were really communists, or something? And also supply your definition of Libertarianism? 

My definition of a Libertarian (based on my experience with them) is someone who thinks the best way to solve bad government is to destroy it rather than participate in and fix it. It's the "Rage quit" of politics and completely fails to account for how inevitable/essential government is, especially in a capitalist economy. A Libertarian thinks that unregulated capitalism will somehow work for them and not against. Every Libertarian small business owner thinks they did everything themselves with no outside help even though that is NEVER true. Libertarians think everything they do and achieve happens in a vacuum. 

Unless we're completely dismantling capitalism there's no point in "being" Libertarian. Bring some Libertarian ideas to government. I like that. I would probably get on board with a number of Libertarian-ish reforms. 

In-re my comment about Soviet Communism, what did the leaders do versus what they said they were going to do? They promised a workers revolution and then used it to make themselves rich by controlling industry. Libertarian politicians (they are inevitable just like government) would promise that you as the labor would have more money to do whatever you liked with it, but the truth is they would be making themselves rich at your expense. You would be free to be poor and stupid. Liberty! 

[LTS]

13 minutes ago, darksabre said:

You're not a Libertarian bud. You're just a liberal who wants a better ROI for his tax dollars. 

I can assure you I am not a liberal. Why do you think I am?

I'd say the isidewith nailed me pretty good.  I am quite liberal in my social views, but I don't support many liberal viewpoints and certainly don't support many of the proposed methods that liberals would choose to attain certain situations.

[darksabre]

2 minutes ago, LTS said:

I can assure you I am not a liberal. Why do you think I am?

I'd say the isidewith nailed me pretty good.  I am quite liberal in my social views, but I don't support many liberal viewpoints and certainly don't support many of the proposed methods that liberals would choose to attain certain situations.

That's the problem with these tests. They allow people to come out and try to square things like being "socially liberal but economically conservative". Which is basically impossible. 

[Eleven]

3 minutes ago, darksabre said:

That's the problem with these tests. They allow people to come out and try to square things like being "socially liberal but economically conservative". Which is basically impossible. 

That's not impossible at all.

[LTS]

3 minutes ago, Eleven said:

What a terrible quiz.  For example:  Yes, I want school to instill religious values in my (hypothetical) child--which is why I would send said child to a religious school.  I don't want public schools instilling religious values in anyone.  But the way the question was worded--well, what kind of school are we talking about?

What does my opinion on abstract art have to do with politics?

Why are there not "maybe" or "I don't know" options, each of which would have been useful?

I'm not good at cutting and pasting, but I finished just about where I expected to, at (-3, -4) using Cartesian coordinates.

Yes, I just read it as public schools but I understand your viewpoint.  As for the abstract art question, it was odd, but it may have statistical relevance to how you view what others should think and like.  For example, if you believe it's not art but don't care if other people do you might trend in one direction as opposed to not believing it's art and telling others that it is not.  If, for example, you are debating a government bill that funded the NEA and someone was using abstract art as an example of why to NOT fund the NEA, that question might indicate which way you would lean on the topic.

 

1 minute ago, darksabre said:

That's the problem with these tests. They allow people to come out and try to square things like being "socially liberal but economically conservative". Which is basically impossible. 

 

I don't think it's impossible.  There are people who make millions of dollars who give a lot of it away.  They support the fiscally conservative methods of making money but want to use that money to improve society.  If, on the other hand, you take more of their money away from them and the government decides where it goes, they will have less money to give to the causes they want to support.

1 minute ago, darksabre said:

My definition of a Libertarian (based on my experience with them) is someone who thinks the best way to solve bad government is to destroy it rather than participate in and fix it. It's the "Rage quit" of politics and completely fails to account for how inevitable/essential government is, especially in a capitalist economy. A Libertarian thinks that unregulated capitalism will somehow work for them and not against. Every Libertarian small business owner thinks they did everything themselves with no outside help even though that is NEVER true. Libertarians think everything they do and achieve happens in a vacuum. 

Unless we're completely dismantling capitalism there's no point in "being" Libertarian. Bring some Libertarian ideas to government. I like that. I would probably get on board with a number of Libertarian-ish reforms. 

In-re my comment about Soviet Communism, what did the leaders do versus what they said they were going to do? They promised a workers revolution and then used it to make themselves rich by controlling industry. Libertarian politicians (they are inevitable just like government) would promise that you as the labor would have more money to do whatever you liked with it, but the truth is they would be making themselves rich at your expense. You would be free to be poor and stupid. Liberty! 

Interesting take.  Reading the commentary on #walkaway it seems many people believe that is exactly what the Democratic party is doing.  I would agree with them as well.  The Republican party is doing the same thing.  They prey on the fears of their constituents about losing their guns and God while using that to make rules that allow corporations to relocate and cause those same people to lose their jobs... not keep them as they thought.

Because, in the end, they are all greedy.  They are only looking out for themselves.  There are libertarians who would certainly do that, but the underlying premise is that they are free to do it if they so choose.  Whereas others are free to support other initiatives that would help immigrants, or religious organizations, or people who want to carry guns, or people who want a health insurance plan that caters to them.  They can choose to support it because their money is theirs to spend.  Just because they might not spend it on what you think they should spend it on does not make them evil.  After all, you might not spend your money on what they think you should spend your money on.

[Eleven]

2 minutes ago, LTS said:

  As for the abstract art question, it was odd, but it may have statistical relevance to how you view what others should think and like.  For example, if you believe it's not art but don't care if other people do you might trend in one direction as opposed to not believing it's art and telling others that it is not.  If, for example, you are debating a government bill that funded the NEA and someone was using abstract art as an example of why to NOT fund the NEA, that question might indicate which way you would lean on the topic.

So it's the old "rap isn't music" issue but phrased in a way not likely to create or rely upon racial division.  Very creative on the quiz-maker's part.  I withdraw my objection to the art question.

[LTS]

2 minutes ago, Eleven said:

So it's the old "rap isn't music" issue but phrased in a way not likely to create or rely upon racial division.  Very creative on the quiz-maker's part.  I withdraw my objection to the art question.

Your true colors... shining through.  ?

[5th line wingnutt]

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

When I do that, I come up with a completely different quiz than what the rest of you all are showing.  Can someone post a link?

https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/

3 hours ago, Sabel79 said:

Libertarianism IS authoritarianism.  The logical terminus of the ideology is abject slavery for the vast majority of the population.  

With no government to keep capital's thumb off the scale, or ensure that the most vulnerable among us are looked after, or to remind us that children should not be made to fight to the death in cages for sport (extreme example, but there's precedent), things get bleak in a hurry. 

Your first sentence is simply wrong.  Slavery?  Who is enslaving whom?

"With no government" is anarchy not libertarianism.  "Children..fighting to death in cages...", whatever are you talking about?

[North Buffalo]

And this is where I come middle of the road depending on the issue.  I want a balanced budget.  Government imo should spend money to promote a safety net, a floor if you will... but conditions should be attached so that the money goes for only certain basic necessities.  Therein lies the rub, my basics might not be yours.  Food shelter clothing ( limited) and any income should offset that support.   Also, in the US, defense spending is way too mismanaged and wasteful.  Overall taxes shouldn’t be higher than 30 percent including fed, excise taxes, user taxes, state and sales taxes etc and the budget should be constrained by that number.  

 

PS SS would not be such a hole if the government would stop borrowing against it and once the millenials reach full integration that hole will go away.  It’s a short-term gap.

 

 I would love to see a return to the line-item veto.  It worked well in Virginia and as well under Clinton for various reasons.  Still think though highly political can be used as effective budget balancing tool. 

Edited July 6, 2018 by North Buffalo

[Randall Flagg]

40 minutes ago, Eleven said:

What a terrible quiz.  For example:  Yes, I want school to instill religious values in my (hypothetical) child--which is why I would send said child to a religious school.  I don't want public schools instilling religious values in anyone.  But the way the question was worded--well, what kind of school are we talking about?

What does my opinion on abstract art have to do with politics?

Why are there not "maybe" or "I don't know" options, each of which would have been useful?

I'm not good at cutting and pasting, but I finished just about where I expected to, at (-3, -4) using Cartesian coordinates.

I swear that in the old thread a much better and much longer test with more nuanced answers and less-leading questions was posted and used a lot, but I couldn't find any test that jogged my memory. 

For me, and that question, I would say yes - I want my public schools instilling values that can be ultimately traced to Judaeo-Christian roots, but no, I don't want any specific religion taught in public schools in a manner that would violate the US constitution. 

39 minutes ago, darksabre said:

My definition of a Libertarian (based on my experience with them) is someone who thinks the best way to solve bad government is to destroy it rather than participate in and fix it. It's the "Rage quit" of politics and completely fails to account for how inevitable/essential government is, especially in a capitalist economy. A Libertarian thinks that unregulated capitalism will somehow work for them and not against. Every Libertarian small business owner thinks they did everything themselves with no outside help even though that is NEVER true. Libertarians think everything they do and achieve happens in a vacuum. 

Unless we're completely dismantling capitalism there's no point in "being" Libertarian. Bring some Libertarian ideas to government. I like that. I would probably get on board with a number of Libertarian-ish reforms. 

In-re my comment about Soviet Communism, what did the leaders do versus what they said they were going to do? They promised a workers revolution and then used it to make themselves rich by controlling industry. Libertarian politicians (they are inevitable just like government) would promise that you as the labor would have more money to do whatever you liked with it, but the truth is they would be making themselves rich at your expense. You would be free to be poor and stupid. Liberty! 

Could you tell us where you draw the line on the things that you don't actually want government doing versus the things they just have to, like it or not, for society to end up in a good place?

 

This is a perpetual area of pondering for me - in general I trust free markets probably more than you seem to, but I also can't immediately square away the need for a well-functioning, say, EPA, and other things which are pertinent to the whims of cold (and useful) business tactics (which do, objectively, in controlled situations, lead to blossoming quality of life and industry and nations)

Edited July 6, 2018 by Randall Flagg

[Sabel79]

44 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Can you give a specific definition for this libertarianism? seeing as you also fall very close to that side of the spectrum but surely don't seem to believe that children shouldn't be made to fight in cages?

 

Could you expand on the Soviet comparison? Is that what you're doing with the second sentence, saying that a lot of people liked to say they were Soviet-style socialists, but were really communists, or something? And also supply your definition of Libertarianism? 

Libertarianism is, at base, anarco-capitalism.  Effectively, capital wholly usurps the State, and with no regulation or restriction, is allowed to do as it will.  This is marketed in the US as: "Gee golly, wouldn't it be great to have a small government, personal liberty at all times, and personal responsibility ascribed to those we choose to see as leeches?"  In reality, of course, this is a fairly transparent deflection from the real aim, which is simply piling all the money (or whatever has value) up at one end.  

Once "The Free Market" is wholly in control, the comparisons to Soviet Russia are apt.  You want a job?  Gonna have to bend to the whim of the Corporation, as to hours, pay, working conditions, and so on.  Want food, housing, medical care?  You're buying it from us of course, and frankly we need it more so whatever scraps we toss you will have to suffice (At a large markup).  If this sounds an awful lot like now, well, it does kinda.  Remove the last few remaining vestiges of the welfare state or whatever you want to call it are stripped away, it gets a whole lot worse.  

This is what makes the American Libertarian focus on "Liberty" hilarious, as it's definitely a sliding scale.  It's not your Liberty anybody is concerned about.  You or I or anyone else can be left dead in the gutter with nary a second thought if it's deemed expedient by the wealthy.  

[Randall Flagg]

1 minute ago, Sabel79 said:

Libertarianism is, at base, anarco-capitalism.  Effectively, capital wholly usurps the State, and with no regulation or restriction, is allowed to do as it will.  This is marketed in the US as: "Gee golly, wouldn't it be great to have a small government, personal liberty at all times, and personal responsibility ascribed to those we choose to see as leeches?"  In reality, of course, this is a fairly transparent deflection from the real aim, which is simply piling all the money (or whatever has value) up at one end.  

Once "The Free Market" is wholly in control, the comparisons to Soviet Russia are apt.  You want a job?  Gonna have to bend to the whim of the Corporation, as to hours, pay, working conditions, and so on.  Want food, housing, medical care?  You're buying it from us of course, and frankly we need it more so whatever scraps we toss you will have to suffice (At a large markup).  If this sounds an awful lot like now, well, it does kinda.  Remove the last few remaining vestiges of the welfare state or whatever you want to call it are stripped away, it gets a whole lot worse.  

This is what makes the American Libertarian focus on "Liberty" hilarious, as it's definitely a sliding scale.  It's not your Liberty anybody is concerned about.  You or I or anyone else can be left dead in the gutter with nary a second thought if it's deemed expedient by the wealthy.  

Are all Libertarians by definition Ayn-Rand-style?

This is not a danger I would ever consider America being in, for what it's worth, even if a self-described Libertarian gets into power.

[darksabre]

8 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I swear that in the old thread a much better and much longer test with more nuanced answers and less-leading questions was posted and used a lot, but I couldn't find any test that jogged my memory. 

For me, and that question, I would say yes - I want my public schools instilling values that can be ultimately traced to Judaeo-Christian roots, but no, I don't want any specific religion taught in public schools in a manner that would violate the US constitution. 

Could you tell us where you draw the line on the things that you don't actually want government doing versus the things they just have to, like it or not, for society to end up in a good place?

 

This is a perpetual area of pondering for me - in general I trust free markets probably more than you seem to, but I also can't immediately square away the need for a well-functioning, say, EPA, and other things which are pertinent to the whims of cold (and useful) business tactics (which do, objectively, in controlled situations, lead to blossoming quality of life and industry and nations)

The first bolded is a somewhat nebulous question that I think shifts depending on circumstances. It's why I don't like trying to fit my political beliefs into a box. I went ahead and filled out that survey and lo and behold:

 

Even though I'm basically in the same place on the chart as LTS, I strongly resist identifying as Libertarian. Whereas LTS identifies as Libertarian, but I wonder whether examinations like these have had influence?

Regarding the second bolded, I question any reference to "increased quality of life" when it's coupled with "industrial nation". I think there are plenty of societies that don't require being subjected to wage labor structures, land ownership, and everything else that comes with "industry" and "progress". 

[Randall Flagg]

4 minutes ago, darksabre said:

The first bolded is a somewhat nebulous question that I think shifts depending on circumstances. It's why I don't like trying to fit my political beliefs into a box. I went ahead and filled out that survey and lo and behold:

 

Even though I'm basically in the same place on the chart as LTS, I strongly resist identifying as Libertarian. Whereas LTS identifies as Libertarian, but I wonder whether examinations like these have had influence?

Regarding the second bolded, I question any reference to "increased quality of life" when it's coupled with "industrial nation". I think there are plenty of societies that don't require being subjected to wage labor structures, land ownership, and everything else that comes with "industry" and "progress". 

I really wish I had the chops and knowledge base to continue the discussion, but I simply don't yet. Thanks for answering! 

[darksabre]

5 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Are all Libertarians by definition Ayn-Rand-style?

This is not a danger I would ever consider America being in, for what it's worth, even if a self-described Libertarian gets into power.

I think the problem is that a lot of Ayn Rand styled Libertarians try to present themselves as not. But, when stressed, would revert to that model. Who was it, Gary Johnson? That guy is the kind of guy that my left-libertarian friends hitched their wagon to until it turned out he was actually trash. 

[Sabel79]

6 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Are all Libertarians by definition Ayn-Rand-style?

This is not a danger I would ever consider America being in, for what it's worth, even if a self-described Libertarian gets into power.

Mine is the extreme example, surely, but, assuming they've thought things all the way through (which many people on all ends of the spectrum don't do, so this is not me just bashing the Libertarians) they are absolutely advocating the Ayn Rand model, yes.

[darksabre]

48 minutes ago, LTS said:

Yes, I just read it as public schools but I understand your viewpoint.  As for the abstract art question, it was odd, but it may have statistical relevance to how you view what others should think and like.  For example, if you believe it's not art but don't care if other people do you might trend in one direction as opposed to not believing it's art and telling others that it is not.  If, for example, you are debating a government bill that funded the NEA and someone was using abstract art as an example of why to NOT fund the NEA, that question might indicate which way you would lean on the topic.

 

 

I don't think it's impossible.  There are people who make millions of dollars who give a lot of it away.  They support the fiscally conservative methods of making money but want to use that money to improve society.  If, on the other hand, you take more of their money away from them and the government decides where it goes, they will have less money to give to the causes they want to support.

Interesting take.  Reading the commentary on #walkaway it seems many people believe that is exactly what the Democratic party is doing.  I would agree with them as well.  The Republican party is doing the same thing.  They prey on the fears of their constituents about losing their guns and God while using that to make rules that allow corporations to relocate and cause those same people to lose their jobs... not keep them as they thought.

Because, in the end, they are all greedy.  They are only looking out for themselves.  There are libertarians who would certainly do that, but the underlying premise is that they are free to do it if they so choose.  Whereas others are free to support other initiatives that would help immigrants, or religious organizations, or people who want to carry guns, or people who want a health insurance plan that caters to them.  They can choose to support it because their money is theirs to spend.  Just because they might not spend it on what you think they should spend it on does not make them evil.  After all, you might not spend your money on what they think you should spend your money on.

This is the problem though. You're assuming that Libertarianism comes with an increase in choice. It doesn't. You simply have different choices than you had before, presented in a different set of boxes and restrictions. You're not any more free to make those choices because those choices don't happen in a vacuum. You might just as well go from having more money but less choice, to plenty of choices and no money. Libertarianism doesn't guarantee that you will benefit as an individual in such a manner as to have greater freedom. 

[5th line wingnutt]

7 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

Libertarianism is, at base, anarco-capitalism.  Effectively, capital wholly usurps the State, and with no regulation or restriction, is allowed to do as it will.  This is marketed in the US as: "Gee golly, wouldn't it be great to have a small government, personal liberty at all times, and personal responsibility ascribed to those we choose to see as leeches?"  In reality, of course, this is a fairly transparent deflection from the real aim, which is simply piling all the money (or whatever has value) up at one end.  

Once "The Free Market" is wholly in control, the comparisons to Soviet Russia are apt.  You want a job?  Gonna have to bend to the whim of the Corporation, as to hours, pay, working conditions, and so on.  Want food, housing, medical care?  You're buying it from us of course, and frankly we need it more so whatever scraps we toss you will have to suffice (At a large markup).  If this sounds an awful lot like now, well, it does kinda.  Remove the last few remaining vestiges of the welfare state or whatever you want to call it are stripped away, it gets a whole lot worse.  

This is what makes the American Libertarian focus on "Liberty" hilarious, as it's definitely a sliding scale.  It's not your Liberty anybody is concerned about.  You or I or anyone else can be left dead in the gutter with nary a second thought if it's deemed expedient by the wealthy.  

1st bold: Nope.  Libertarians believe in both laws and regulations.  A lot of environmental problems involve "tragedy of the commons" situations and libertarians are OK with regulating these areas.

2nd bold: The Corporation...singular?  Nope.  Libertarians want to remove barriers to entry.  There will be plenty of competition and that keeps prices low.

3rd bold: What parts of the welfare state have been removed?  I must have missed that.

Also, when are you going to explain those cage death matches?  Are they on Pay per View?

[Randall Flagg]

I think a more American-style Libertarianism, ie with a soul, is what 99% of American Libertarians want, and it's right that they want it, because it's what made America America, IMO. 

I'm well aware at how much value, insight, and elaboration I've provided with that claim. 

I wish I knew more and was better at talking about this stuff.

[Sabel79]

1 hour ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

1st bold: Nope.  Libertarians believe in both laws and regulations.  A lot of environmental problems involve "tragedy of the commons" situations and libertarians are OK with regulating these areas.

2nd bold: The Corporation...singular?  Nope.  Libertarians want to remove barriers to entry.  There will be plenty of competition and that keeps prices low.

3rd bold: What parts of the welfare state have been removed?  I must have missed that.

Also, when are you going to explain those cage death matches?  Are they on Pay per View?

To your first response: the constant retrofitting of the philosophy, or ideology, or whatever, to include institutions incompatible with the very heart of the matter so as to sell it to a wider audience is maddening (not you personally, mind).  The "well, obviously there'll be some government and regulations" idea means you've (again, not you personally) left the Libertarian platform and are now just a hardcore small-government conservative calling yourself a Libertarian in an attempt to differentiate yourself from the rest of them.  

To the second: Libertarianism really is the Marxism of the Right.  Instead of the collective, it peddles the myth that an endless cycle of self-interest will somehow benefit us all.  And the ostensible lack of barriers to entry disappear quickly as the first few through the door (Because they are perfectly free to do so) build new ones right behind them.  

To the third: We have seen, in this country, my parent's generation engage in a 40-year pattern of diminishing the safety net built by my Grandparent's generation for a very good reason.  But I suppose we're about to learn the lesson over again, probably soon.  I have no expectation of ever seeing a dime of the Social Security I've been paying into for more than 20 years now.  Congress, with the full cooperation of the Clinton Administration, absolutely gutted public assistance in 1996.  I spent twelve years of my professional career working in Title IV-D programs, created by that legislation.  The impact, largely felt by children because of course it is, is not good.  Which reminds me: Children.  Brought into the world with no agency or intent, left to suffer the consequences of their parent's poor choices.   Personal responsibility is, of course, a good thing.  There likely should be more of it.  but it needs to be limited to those actually responsible. 

To the fourth: It was a Hunger Games reference.

[LTS]

3 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

Are all Libertarians by definition Ayn-Rand-style?

This is not a danger I would ever consider America being in, for what it's worth, even if a self-described Libertarian gets into power.

This is perhaps the problem.  Objectivism is not Libertarianism.  Moreover, Objectivism is the not about being self-serving above all.  I've been called an objectivist before and I don't necessarily deny it.  Except when people misinterpret what I interpret as objectvism.  

Defined: My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. — Ayn Rand , Appendix to Atlas Shrugged

My own happiness as the moral purpose of my life does not mean that I am only concerned with myself.  If supporting a cause makes me happy then I should do that.  If putting up a 12 foot wall makes me happy, I should do that.  No one should stand in the way of it.  

Digging in deeper, I believe we all owe the planet our existence.  We are visitors of this land and need to care and respect for it.  No one person is more important than another.  We are all parts of a larger machine.  Each insignificant but combined are important.

2 hours ago, darksabre said:

This is the problem though. You're assuming that Libertarianism comes with an increase in choice. It doesn't. You simply have different choices than you had before, presented in a different set of boxes and restrictions. You're not any more free to make those choices because those choices don't happen in a vacuum. You might just as well go from having more money but less choice, to plenty of choices and no money. Libertarianism doesn't guarantee that you will benefit as an individual in such a manner as to have greater freedom. 

That's not the case.  Libertarianism should not guarantee anyone will benefit from anything more than having equal capacity to benefit.  Each person is responsible for their level of benefit and can choose to assist others (or not) as they see fit.  Again, this concept that every person who wants individual freedom will choose to ignore their fellow person is difficult to grasp.  This assumption that we are all inherently greedy is inaccurate at best.

It does not necessarily indicate an increase in choice.  It simply removes constraints over what we are compelled to do against our will.  It does not assume there will be no taxation.  It does not call for a lack of government.  It calls for the amount of government that allows society to operate without telling each person how to live.

1 hour ago, Sabel79 said:

To your first response: the constant retrofitting of the philosophy, or ideology, or whatever, to include institutions incompatible with the very heart of the matter so as to sell it to a wider audience is maddening (not you personally, mind).  The "well, obviously there'll be some government and regulations" idea means you've (again, not you personally) left the Libertarian platform and are now just a hardcore small-government conservative calling yourself a Libertarian in an attempt to differentiate yourself from the rest of them.  

To the second: Libertarianism really is the Marxism of the Right.  Instead of the collective, it peddles the myth that an endless cycle of self-interest will somehow benefit us all.  And the ostensible lack of barriers to entry disappear quickly as the first few through the door (Because they are perfectly free to do so) build new ones right behind them.  

To the third: We have seen, in this country, my parent's generation engage in a 40-year pattern of diminishing the safety net built by my Grandparent's generation for a very good reason.  But I suppose we're about to learn the lesson over again, probably soon.  I have no expectation of ever seeing a dime of the Social Security I've been paying into for more than 20 years now.  Congress, with the full cooperation of the Clinton Administration, absolutely gutted public assistance in 1996.  I spent twelve years of my professional career working in Title IV-D programs, created by that legislation.  The impact, largely felt by children because of course it is, is not good.  Which reminds me: Children.  Brought into the world with no agency or intent, left to suffer the consequences of their parent's poor choices.   Personal responsibility is, of course, a good thing.  There likely should be more of it.  but it needs to be limited to those actually responsible. 

To the fourth: It was a Hunger Games reference.

To your first point, every political ideology has altered over time to address the constant state of change of society.  Libertarianism is not about no government.  The only system that advocates for no rules is anarchy.  Being a hard-core small government conservative might imply that you are against same sex marriage, abortion, and other non-conservative ideals.  You might be against the legalization of drugs.  A libertarian is not going to be against those concepts because they are not for any one person to dictate over another.  You refusing to see that is a refusal to see Libertarianism as a spectrum of ideals.  There may be some who are hardcore Constitutionalists and are really nothing more than small government conservatives.  They are not libertarians.

As to your second point... a business doesn't build barriers, a government does.  What is a business going to do to limit competition if not supported by some regulation?  The business is beholden to its customers.  If people don't support the business, it doesn't succeed.  If people support a business, then they give up their right to complain about how the business operates. 

Based on your third point I am beginning to get the sense that you feel government is supposed to protect people from themselves.  These "safety nets" are put in place to keep people from having to worry about how to live their lives.  It also makes them 100% reliant on the government.  The government shall provide.  The fallacy of that argument is that the government creates value.  Governments don't create value.  They are a negative.  They are necessary overhead for the operation of society.  What has routinely happened over the last 40 years is that people have been made ignorant.  They've been made compliant to the government.  So much so that any thought of reducing governmental control is frightening.  Why?  Because it means that those who didn't bother to educate themselves and work harder to achieve will suddenly find the hill to success much higher.

We live in a culture now that believes over-spending on college tuition is a good idea.  That going into debt (to your government) is somehow a smart move.  We don't teach responsibility.  We teach people not to think, and certainly not to question.  The lack of problem solving skills demonstrated by my children and their friends is something I find quite disturbing.  It's not that they aren't polished, they simply don't exist.  Don't confuse that with kids not being taught.  They are being educated, they just aren't being taught to think.

There's a long history of corporate control of our government system.  This has been built by both Republicans and Democrats, each whittling away from their respective ends of the spectrum.  So much so that people are afraid to think of alternatives.. they only think in shades of red and blue when green is staring them in the face.

 

[LTS]

In other news... I was confused about the Elon Musk reference.  No clarification has been given.

Am I supposed to not like the guy?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/elon-musk-has-an-idea-for-saving-boys-stranded-in-a-thailand-cave/#p3

Just curious...

[Sabel79]

25 minutes ago, LTS said:

To your first point, every political ideology has altered over time to address the constant state of change of society.  Libertarianism is not about no government.  The only system that advocates for no rules is anarchy.  Being a hard-core small government conservative might imply that you are against same sex marriage, abortion, and other non-conservative ideals.  You might be against the legalization of drugs.  A libertarian is not going to be against those concepts because they are not for any one person to dictate over another.  You refusing to see that is a refusal to see Libertarianism as a spectrum of ideals.  There may be some who are hardcore Constitutionalists and are really nothing more than small government conservatives.  They are not libertarians.

As to your second point... a business doesn't build barriers, a government does.  What is a business going to do to limit competition if not supported by some regulation?  The business is beholden to its customers.  If people don't support the business, it doesn't succeed.  If people support a business, then they give up their right to complain about how the business operates. 

Based on your third point I am beginning to get the sense that you feel government is supposed to protect people from themselves.  These "safety nets" are put in place to keep people from having to worry about how to live their lives.  It also makes them 100% reliant on the government.  The government shall provide.  The fallacy of that argument is that the government creates value.  Governments don't create value.  They are a negative.  They are necessary overhead for the operation of society.  What has routinely happened over the last 40 years is that people have been made ignorant.  They've been made compliant to the government.  So much so that any thought of reducing governmental control is frightening.  Why?  Because it means that those who didn't bother to educate themselves and work harder to achieve will suddenly find the hill to success much higher.

 

 

Bold #1: I don't want to descend fully into the gaping maw of pedantry, and there are different strains of Libertarianism, but I find it hard to believe that the underlying habit of the ideology to reduce society to economics (again, the same fatal flaw which kills Marxism) can have any other logical end.  

Bold #2: Standard Oil, Ma Bell, and heck, the British East India Company were literally in the business of limiting competition more than anything else.  

Bold #3: Any decent society puts limits, both at bottom and at top, of the outcomes of our choices (or the impact those of others have on us).  You can get rich, but you pay taxes (Which are the cost we pay to fund government to ensure a civilized, at the very least, society).  Those taxes can then be used to ensure the poor (no matter what the reason for said poverty, and that can start another argument) do not starve.  Arguments may be had in between about what government should be doing (infrastructure, defense, education) and to what level, but there you have it.