Libertarianism

froggie said:
Tax laws made corporations, correct or was there another influence?
Free trade made monopolies.
Corporations are starting to have too much influence on lawmakers.
Click to expand...

Free trade destroyed monopolies. Monopolies never existed in free trade Britian, while America had many monopolies at the times whenever it's tarriffs were the highest in the world.
 
Watermark said:
Free trade destroyed monopolies. Monopolies never existed in free trade Britian, while America had many monopolies at the times whenever it's tarriffs were the highest in the world.
Click to expand...

thanks, this is the area of history that I am shakiest.

I think of free trade I think of international corporations, like WalMart.

I think trade should be free, but it should also be fair.
 
Wal-Mart? That's almost entirely US, really...

I honestly couldn't see free trade causing more monopolies. All it does is increase competition, which, if anything, would decrease monopolies. There's a danger of one corporation becoming a worldwide monopoly, but this has never happened before, and it would presumably be split up by all of the world's various anti-trust laws.

I'm one of the site's biggest defenders of free trade, as you may have noticed :clink:
 
Really....!

blackascoal said:
No it doesn't and it has no real world application in a modern society.

It pretends the individual is more important than society and claims the individual has no responsibility to anything other than himself.
Click to expand...


and what have you contributed lately?Minus the Lib BS...! Cry another river won't ya hun' just a cut from a song!..Applies to all criers..not doers!
 
blackascoal said:
No it doesn't and it has no real world application in a modern society.

It pretends the individual is more important than society and claims the individual has no responsibility to anything other than himself.
Click to expand...
Only in a jaundiced view does it do that. Libertarianism is against the initial use of force, this would protect the individuals around them when and if they followed the philosophy.

While some libertarians are militant, if following the philosophy, it would solely be retaliatory force that would be used, never initial force.

To the libertarian, freedom is the absence of the initiation of force.

A robber cannot be "free" to steal your property nor can the bully be "free" to strike you. The robber and the bully have initiated force and the condition of freedom doesn't exist unless there is an absence of the initiation of force.

The proper role of government (force) in a free society then, is to defend and/or retaliate against those who initiate force. Government in a free society should not be the initiator of force.
 
Force, of course, can only be initiated in the way libertarians limit themselves to bleleiving it can be.

Why can't inviduals be free to not purcahase police protection, Damo? WHY ARE YOU ROBBING ME?!1
 
Watermark said:
Force, of course, can only be initiated in the way libertarians limit themselves to bleleiving it can be.

Why can't inviduals be free to not purcahase police protection, Damo? WHY ARE YOU ROBBING ME?!1
Click to expand...
In such a society you would be free to do so. Why are you being so silly tonight? Are you drinking again?
 
A society in which people are "free" not to "purchase" police protection would be one of the most inequitable and chaotic societies in history.
 
Watermark said:
A society in which people are "free" not to "purchase" police protection would be one of the most inequitable and chaotic societies in history.
Click to expand...
It very much depends on how you apply the word "police protection" and whether or not they choose to purchase taxable goods. One could use their property to create their own goods and not purchase the outside goods. They would however end up choosing to live as a hermit as many of the taxable goods are items you use to travel, to contact others... To till your land...

So forth.

The reality is, there must be a minimal group allowed to use retaliatory force in order to maintain the most freedom. Such as if you polluted your neighbor's property, which would be an initiation of force, you could expect to have some of your freedoms removed for your action.
 
Damocles said:
It very much depends on how you apply the word "police protection" and whether or not they choose to purchase taxable goods. One could use their property to create their own goods and not purchase the outside goods. They would however end up choosing to live as a hermit as many of the taxable goods are items you use to travel, to contact others... To till your land...

So forth.

The reality is, there must be a minimal group allowed to use retaliatory force in order to maintain the most freedom. Such as if you polluted your neighbor's property, which would be an initiation of force, you could expect to have some of your freedoms removed for your action.
Click to expand...

Actually, the most freedom is preserved when a maximal group is allowed to use retaliatory force. This keeps everyone on their toes, even the government.
 
Watermark said:
The individual is just as important as society. Society cannot exist without the individual. Although an individual can exist without society, it wouldn't be an existance worth noting. I'd say there's a mixed responsibility there but every individual deserves a lot of autonomy and independence from society.

This is a thing I think that people like the middle-easterners don't understand. Whenever an individual releases something that they find objectionable, they go and bomb a Dutch embassy or something that's composed up of individuals who had nothing to do with any of it. They are unable to understand the concept of the autonomous individual, and of tolerance towards individuals within a society. An inability seperate the I from the we.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree.

Every individual stands on the shoulders of those who came before him/her. There is a debt owed to those who have created the environment and society for any individual to exist and thrive in and there is a responsibility to generations who come after.

The self-absorbed notion that the individual is more important than society can only lead to the destruction of that society when no one has any responsibility for it.

Beyond the philosophical interpretations, there is something deeply creepy about people who think themselves more important than the world, more important than even their own nation. There is something seriously immature about people who think society exists only to allow them to do whatever they want free of responsibility. Such thoughts belong only in the minds of children.

Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare .. all bad to libertarians because it may cost them a nickel. Throw the elderly out on the street and let them eat cake. Maybe "charity" will take care of them. No compassion, no spirituality.

The ideology of libertarianism is a failure and it is a failure because most people understand shared responsibility and possess a more mature perspective of life and society.

Libertarianism has accomplished nothing. Today, not only is Social Security still valued and attacks on it have been rebuffed, nationalized health care is on the horizon .. because that's what Americans want. Government has not gotten smaller, it's gotten bigger. "Free market" lassiez-faire policies aren't being adapted, because people and history KNOW the dangers of runaway corporate control.

Libertarianism is an ideology that is imploding onto itself with its dicates all over the place and constant in-fighting among its proponents.

The one good thing about Ron Paul is that he has shed some light on the ideology of libertarianism, and the more people know about it, the more disgusting, irresponsible, and immature it becomes.
 
blackascoal said:
The self-absorbed notion that the individual is more important than society can only lead to the destruction of that society when no one has any responsibility for it.
Click to expand...


Ah, but he actually said, "The individual is just as important as society".

Blackie, you nihlist statists use the abstractions of "society" to harm individuals. That's why even the kind of PARITY watermark mentions bothers you.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Actually, the most freedom is preserved when a maximal group is allowed to use retaliatory force. This keeps everyone on their toes, even the government.
Click to expand...
However, here you see the relation "police" would be government, more freedom exists when individuals have retaliatory power, not when it is solely within the power of the government.
 
Nobody has said that the individual is "more important" that is an exaggeration and again is a misrepresentation of what people have said. The individual is what makes up society, the free individual is a portion of a free society. If the individual is not free then society is also not free.
 
I agree with the points Black's #32 post.

The idea that the free market will counter monopolies is disproved by Microsoft's destruction of numerous software vendors.

The free market had its greatest accomplishment in the great depression and numerous other depressions. Without government, as a regulatory organization or as the stick, we would move closer to the third world nation the corporations are making us today.

The notion that greed and all the evils that occupy mankind will lead to the greatest good and utopia is pure fantasy.
 
midcan5 said:
I agree with the points Black's #32 post.

The idea that the free market will counter monopolies is disproved by Microsoft's destruction of numerous software vendors.

The free market had its greatest accomplishment in the great depression and numerous other depressions. Without government, as a regulatory organization or as the stick, we would move closer to the third world nation the corporations are making us today.

The notion that greed and all the evils that occupy mankind will lead to the greatest good and utopia is pure fantasy.
Click to expand...

I agree.
QFT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top