Thoughts on Libertarianism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

AS IF Madison, Jefferson et al, did not shred a lot of societies blueprints by denying the divine right of kings, the supremacy of the church in spiritual matters in any given territory and whatnot.

That these ideas had taken root long before in the colonies matters little, they codified it.[/quote]

Incorrect - society stayed largely the same. English common law remained an authority in the states after the Revolution, property was not upheaved in the name of reorganization, churches maintained the same basic authority they had before, cultural norms didn’t budge.

No question the shift toward republicanism was grand and experimental, but it was never designed to re-design a society around Reason and radical (and incorrect) views of human nature…which is, incidentally, what libertarianism, properly understood, proposes and seeks.

Maximum individual liberty! Freedom to do whatever I want, whenever I want! No church, state, family, other person, or authority outside of myself should be able to tell me differently!

Yeah, Rousseau.[/quote]

Question for you, Thunder. What would you say about the Libertarian belief that people should be free to live their life as they see fit, so long as they do no harm to others? Do you believe that individuals within a society should have that freedom?

102

I’d say people should be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as they agree to weather starvation, disease, and poverty all by their lonesome…Or, let others do so. But that’s not going to happen.

103

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’d say people should be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as they agree to weather starvation, disease, and poverty all by their lonesome…Or, let others do so. But that’s not going to happen.[/quote]

Individual freedom and charity aren’t compatible? I disagree.

104

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’d say people should be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as they agree to weather starvation, disease, and poverty all by their lonesome…Or, let others do so. But that’s not going to happen.[/quote]

Individual freedom and charity aren’t compatible? I disagree.
[/quote]

Charity will never cover the widespread moral breakdown of the lower income. You think islands of gated communities would really be able (or, willing) to mail out enough ‘care-packages,’ voluntarily, to the rest of society? They’re busy, working, hanging out with each other, marrying each other, and sending their kids off to finer schools with kids of a similar socio-economic background. They know it, we know it, and then there’s the vote. If I pay little to no taxes, but can have the consequences of my ‘freedom’ smoothed over by the nanny state…Well yeah.

Private actions? Private actions become public burdens where the power to vote is present. And no founding piece of paper will stop that.

105

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[/quote]

Your book is blatant “revisionism.”

Read some of the reviews there. Like this from S R Stout:

‘Bradley makes it seem that anyone of Anglo-Saxon race was in on a master plan. The incredible literary license the man takes is incredible. Bradley also loves to pad his text with unnecessary information’

Example of this ‘unnecessary information’ from another reviewer ‘Menlo Dog Owner’:

“He also seems to make a point of suggesting that T. Roosevelt was likely pro-slavery. He points out (p. 36) for no apparent reason, that Roosevelt’s 17th century ancestor owned slaves in the Dutch Colony of “New Amsterdam”; presumably implying that TR inherited the same inclinations of his ancestor 200 years later. (Note, that slavery in the 17th century was common in all parts of what is now the United States, including all of the European colonies as well as the areas controlled by the Native Americans (e.g., “Indians”). It was also common in Europe, Asia, and Africa.) As slaves at the time in New Amsterdam were predominately Europeans, not Africans,”

Or Brian Horgan:

“(The author contends that the) 2008 Muslim terorist attacks in the Philippines are a result of Roosevelt and Taft’s policies over 100 years before.)”

and:

“Think Noam Chomsky and you’ll capture the central theme of Bradley’s book.”

106

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

…in particular that we’d all be better off if we’d return to the christian beliefs held at the time of the founding fathers.

[/quote]

Foundings Fathers on slavery:

“Benjamin Franklin explained that this separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).”

“…in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first antislavery society.”

“It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.”

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.

“My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known. Never in my life did I own a slave.” - John Adams

107

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’d say people should be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as they agree to weather starvation, disease, and poverty all by their lonesome…Or, let others do so. But that’s not going to happen.[/quote]

Individual freedom and charity aren’t compatible? I disagree.
[/quote]

I agree, but we probably disagree on the method. I don’t believe forced charity…I.E. collecting taxes to give to the poor. I believe in individual and group charity. That being said, I am not so naive as to believe that there can be no government based charity. But most charity should come from society and not mandated by the government.

108

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[/quote]

Your book is blatant “revisionism.”

Read some of the reviews there. Like this from S R Stout:

‘Bradley makes it seem that anyone of Anglo-Saxon race was in on a master plan. The incredible literary license the man takes is incredible. Bradley also loves to pad his text with unnecessary information’

Example of this ‘unnecessary information’ from another reviewer ‘Menlo Dog Owner’:

“He also seems to make a point of suggesting that T. Roosevelt was likely pro-slavery. He points out (p. 36) for no apparent reason, that Roosevelt’s 17th century ancestor owned slaves in the Dutch Colony of “New Amsterdam”; presumably implying that TR inherited the same inclinations of his ancestor 200 years later. (Note, that slavery in the 17th century was common in all parts of what is now the United States, including all of the European colonies as well as the areas controlled by the Native Americans (e.g., “Indians”). It was also common in Europe, Asia, and Africa.) As slaves at the time in New Amsterdam were predominately Europeans, not Africans,”

Or Brian Horgan:

“(The author contends that the) 2008 Muslim terorist attacks in the Philippines are a result of Roosevelt and Taft’s policies over 100 years before.)”

and:

“Think Noam Chomsky and you’ll capture the central theme of Bradley’s book.”[/quote]

“Revisionism” is often the charge leveled towards those works outside of the accepted historical teachings of the time. As we know, history is a tale told by the victors, with “accepted” historical perspectives usually being very pleasing (read: biased) towards the victors. Read through the historical textbooks being used in Japan right now, and you will find nary a reference to their rape of China and various other atrocities committed by Japan in the past. America is no different. Our “accepted” textbooks on US history leave out much that would be embarrassing to our country.

109

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

…in particular that we’d all be better off if we’d return to the christian beliefs held at the time of the founding fathers.

[/quote]

Foundings Fathers on slavery:

“Benjamin Franklin explained that this separation from Britain was necessary since every attempt among the Colonies to end slavery had been thwarted or reversed by the British Crown. In fact, in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain, many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves released them (e.g., John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).”

“…in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first antislavery society.”

“It is true, however, that not all of the Founders from the South opposed slavery. According to the testimony of Thomas Jefferson, John Rutledge, and James Madison, those from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia favored slavery.”

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.

“My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known. Never in my life did I own a slave.” - John Adams[/quote]

“…in particular that we’d all be better off if we’d return to the christian beliefs held at the time of the founding fathers.”

Notice that the above quote does not imply that ALL of the founding fathers were so confined to those beliefs. I clearly said that they were beliefs held “at the time of the founding fathers”, and IMHO, were probably held by a majority of them. My point is that such beliefs were the prevailing beliefs of the time in our young country, and that many of those founders were very comfortable with those beliefs.

110

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’d say people should be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as they agree to weather starvation, disease, and poverty all by their lonesome…Or, let others do so. But that’s not going to happen.[/quote]

Individual freedom and charity aren’t compatible? I disagree.
[/quote]

I agree, but we probably disagree on the method. I don’t believe forced charity…I.E. collecting taxes to give to the poor. I believe in individual and group charity. That being said, I am not so naive as to believe that there can be no government based charity. But most charity should come from society and not mandated by the government. [/quote]

I could agree with you on that, especially your point on forced altruism. What forms of government based charity would you support?

111

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known. Never in my life did I own a slave.” - John Adams[/quote]

This was absolutely true from what I’ve been able to gather as well. John Adams, in this regard, put his money where his mouth was. Never did he own slaves, and was known to do much of his own work on his farms when he could, even late into his years. Good stuff.

112

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’d say people should be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as they agree to weather starvation, disease, and poverty all by their lonesome…Or, let others do so. But that’s not going to happen.[/quote]

Individual freedom and charity aren’t compatible? I disagree.
[/quote]

I agree, but we probably disagree on the method. I don’t believe forced charity…I.E. collecting taxes to give to the poor. I believe in individual and group charity. That being said, I am not so naive as to believe that there can be no government based charity. But most charity should come from society and not mandated by the government. [/quote]

I could agree with you on that, especially your point on forced altruism. What forms of government based charity would you support?
[/quote]

Well, I haven’t fleshed out a full plan, but my starting point would be military vets and those who truly cannot help themselves. Assistance for the healthy and able bodied would be limited.

113

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

“Revisionism” is often the charge leveled towards those works outside of the accepted historical teachings of the time. As we know, history is a tale told by the victors, with “accepted” historical perspectives usually being very pleasing (read: biased) towards the victors. Read through the historical textbooks being used in Japan right now, and you will find nary a reference to their rape of China and various other atrocities committed by Japan in the past. America is no different. Our “accepted” textbooks on US history leave out much that would be embarrassing to our country.

[/quote]

The entire premise of the book has been utterly discredited:

Read what Professor Sadao Asada says. He “taught American diplomatic history and the history of Japanese-American Relations at Doshisha University in Kyoto, Japan for more than 40 years.”

114

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’d say people should be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as they agree to weather starvation, disease, and poverty all by their lonesome…Or, let others do so. But that’s not going to happen.[/quote]

Individual freedom and charity aren’t compatible? I disagree.
[/quote]

I agree, but we probably disagree on the method. I don’t believe forced charity…I.E. collecting taxes to give to the poor. I believe in individual and group charity. That being said, I am not so naive as to believe that there can be no government based charity. But most charity should come from society and not mandated by the government. [/quote]

I could agree with you on that, especially your point on forced altruism. What forms of government based charity would you support?
[/quote]

Well, I haven’t fleshed out a full plan, but my starting point would be military vets and those who truly cannot help themselves. Assistance for the healthy and able bodied would be limited.[/quote]

I think the majority would share this vision also. The trick of it, I suppose, is how do we keep the healthy and able bodied from using the social safety net as a hammock? For the record, I don’t have that one figured out yet either.

I know from my work as a firefighter, that there are truly people out there with significant needs (physical disabilities) and ZERO resources to meet those needs. We’re talking needs that would far exceed the capabilities of charity. Should there be a government safety net for such individuals? My thoughts are; probably.

115

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’d say people should be able to live their lives as they see fit as long as they agree to weather starvation, disease, and poverty all by their lonesome…Or, let others do so. But that’s not going to happen.[/quote]

Individual freedom and charity aren’t compatible? I disagree.
[/quote]

I agree, but we probably disagree on the method. I don’t believe forced charity…I.E. collecting taxes to give to the poor. I believe in individual and group charity. That being said, I am not so naive as to believe that there can be no government based charity. But most charity should come from society and not mandated by the government. [/quote]

I could agree with you on that, especially your point on forced altruism. What forms of government based charity would you support?
[/quote]

Well, I haven’t fleshed out a full plan, but my starting point would be military vets and those who truly cannot help themselves. Assistance for the healthy and able bodied would be limited.[/quote]

I think the majority would share this vision also. The trick of it, I suppose, is how do we keep the healthy and able bodied from using the social safety net as a hammock? For the record, I don’t have that one figured out yet either.

I know from my work as a firefighter, that there are truly people out there with significant needs (physical disabilities) and ZERO resources to meet those needs. We’re talking needs that would far exceed the capabilities of charity. Should there be a government safety net for such individuals? My thoughts are; probably. [/quote]

It is difficult to assess where to draw the line, but assessment, job training, and /or some degree of giving back should absolutely be mandated as strings attached to that free check for healthy able bodied folk.
Those with special needs certainly need to have their basics met, how encompassing the safty net is, is the delicate question. I don’t believe in leaving people who cannot, behind. I am less worried about those who won’t.
The current system is old and antiquated. It needs a major overhaul…

116

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Question for you, Thunder. What would you say about the Libertarian belief that people should be free to live their life as they see fit, so long as they do no harm to others? Do you believe that individuals within a society should have that freedom?[/quote]

Sounds fine in the abstract, but libertarianism defines “harm” to narrowly and unrealistically. So, technically, no, I don’t think individuals within a society should have that freedom as “freedom” is defined by libertarians.

“Freedom” can lead to all sorts of pernicious social consequences. This is where libertarians consistently get it wrong: “freedom” is not an End, in and of itself. It is a Means.

117

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

This debate just got easier.[/quote]

Well, given that reading your posts is like wading through a junior high schooler’s bad poetry written tearfully in response to getting grounded by his parents, you need all the assistance you need in the debate, so you’re welcome.[/quote]Ok, this is really funny, but I always feel bad when folks go beatin up ol Lifty. I’ve got a soft spot for the lad. He’s not nasty or malicious most of the time and besides. I think he’s sensitive and his feelings get hurt. LOL. I know how corny that sounds, but I really think that.
[/quote]

Oh, come now. Quit being so patronizing to me.

I am a big boy capable of logical debate.

If you have anything to say about that go ahead.

118

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Question for you, Thunder. What would you say about the Libertarian belief that people should be free to live their life as they see fit, so long as they do no harm to others? Do you believe that individuals within a society should have that freedom?[/quote]

Sounds fine in the abstract, but libertarianism defines “harm” to narrowly and unrealistically. So, technically, no, I don’t think individuals within a society should have that freedom as “freedom” is defined by libertarians.[/quote]

This, IMHO, is the slippery slope created by religious conservatives. Their ideas of “freedom” are very often defined by their religious views. How would you define “harm”?

[quote]
“Freedom” can lead to all sorts of pernicious social consequences. This is where libertarians consistently get it wrong: “freedom” is not an End, in and of itself. It is a Means. [/quote]

So you see government as a useful tool in social engineering? What moral standards would you use as your guide and where will you derive them from? What freedoms would you have the government deny the individual so that you could attempt to benefit society?

119

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oh, come now. Quit being so patronizing to me.

I am a big boy capable of logical debate.

If you have anything to say about that go ahead.[/quote]I didn’t mean that you’re a whimpering infant who’s on the verge of tears all the time and I certainly wasn’t being patronizing though I suppose I see how you could have taken it that way. IT was actually a sort of compliment. You do realize that you left Thunderbolt a big club here right =]

@work, gotta go.

120

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You do realize that you left Thunderbolt a big club here right =]
[/quote]

I could leave him a flashlight, a map and compass, and my trusty boy scout manual and he’d still be lost…so I guess a club is a better tool for him, anyway.