Quote: .gif "Laughing")
That's a new way to describe governments role of protecting property and life.
Once again you fail to know anything about a "libertarian society" no libertarian advocates abolishing courts and the judicial system.
No, there are plenty of ways to protect property and life, the way you want to do it is just as much socialism as the ways that seek to do it by making sure people don't starve the death. Any time you expect everyone to pay for government of any form, that's socialism. If you want something other than socialism then you'll need to hire your own police and pay for your own court system.
Of course that doesn't work very well, so instead you'll claim it's everyone else's job to make the system that only fulfills the roles you desire and none that they do.
Quote:Nope, there's just no point in talking with a guy who can't tell the difference between anarchists and libertarians. You constantly do it, it's intentional, and it's a waste of my time to bother with you.
I do know the difference, one group is hypocritical and self centered to the core and the other can at least be looked upon favorably for ideological consistency.
Quote:I do know the difference
Your posts show distinctly otherwise.
Quote:No, there are plenty of ways to protect property and life, the way you want to do it is just as much socialism as the ways that seek to do it by making sure people don't starve the death. Any time you expect everyone to pay for government of any form, that's socialism. If you want something other than socialism then you'll need to hire your own police and pay for your own court system.
Of course that doesn't work very well, so instead you'll claim it's everyone else's job to make the system that only fulfills the roles you desire and none that they do.
I do know the difference, one group is hypocritical and self centered to the core and the other can at least be looked upon favorably for ideological consistency.
No sir all government is not a form of socialism.
Quote:No sir all government is not a form of socialism.
So you're saying that not everyone is responsible for funding it and that not everyone is supposed to derive a benefit from it?
Quote:So you're saying that not everyone is responsible for funding it and that not everyone is supposed to derive a benefit from it?
Websters definition of Socialism not your fairytale idea of what it is:
"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
When a system, call it government, is established to protect the rights of individuals property and life there is no "exchange" of services or "distribution of goods" being collected by all and given to all. It's simply a system that says my property is protected under law and punishable by the terms society has agreed upon. In some twisted way you think of that as soft version of socialism is nothing more than your desire to see socialism in everything.
Quote:It's simply a system that says my property is protected under law and punishable by the terms society has agreed upon.
Okay, so how did society agree upon it? Government? Okay, that's government of the social.
However, it's really much simpler than all of that. Your idea of protection of your personal property only has two avenues, either you're protecting it yourself or through your own means (hiring security, having a fortress built, whatever) and that would be the libertarian way of doing it.
However, that's not the way you're actually talking about, you're talking about socializing the means to protect your property. The tax funded police system? That's socialism. The tax funded court system? That's socialism too.
So, like I said, when you say you want liberty what you really mean is you want socialism, but only up to the point where your sensibilities like it. Quite a hypocritical and self-centered ideology, really.
Quote:Okay, so how did society agree upon it? Government? Okay, that's government of the social.
However, it's really much simpler than all of that. Your idea of protection of your personal property only has two avenues, either you're protecting it yourself or through your own means (hiring security, having a fortress built, whatever) and that would be the libertarian way of doing it.
However, that's not the way you're actually talking about, you're talking about socializing the means to protect your property. The tax funded police system? That's socialism. The tax funded court system? That's socialism too.
So, like I said, when you say you want liberty what you really mean is you want socialism, but only up to the point where your sensibilities like it. Quite a hypocritical and self-centered ideology, really.
You're equating Socialism with all forms of government, socialism does not represent ALL forms of government or agreements between people. Socialism refers to the equal ownership of commodities and the distribution of those commodities. You're trying to manipulate the term to justify your warped sense of nobility in socialism.
Quote:You're equating Socialism with all forms of government, socialism does not represent ALL forms of government or agreements between people. Socialism refers to the equal ownership of commodities and the distribution of those commodities. You're trying to manipulate the term to justify your warped sense of nobility in socialism.
So when you head to city hall is that privately owned, or is that publicly owned? The fire station? The police station?
The only twisting and warping going on here is by you and those who want to believe as you do.
Just accept that you want society to socially subsidize the government you want, and that you're a selfish hypocrite. However, don't worry, you'll have plenty of company in holding that position.
Quote:So when you head to city hall is that privately owned, or is that publicly owned? The fire station? The police station?
The only twisting and warping going on here is by you and those who want to believe as you do.
Just accept that you want society to socially subsidize the government you want, and that you're a selfish hypocrite. However, don't worry, you'll have plenty of company in holding that position.
So wanting any form of functioning government equates to socialism,
. I guess when you want to own your home you're a hypocrite for seeking private property over the good of society as a whole?
Why don't you just admit the only way you can justify your romantic version of an ideology that has brought only pain and suffering in history is to change the definition.
Anarchy or Socialism is what your suggesting, only those who wish to deceive work in absolutes. You sir are fooling no one but yourself.
Quote:So wanting any form of functioning government equates to socialism, . I guess when you want to own your home you're a hypocrite for seeking private property over the good of society as a whole?
Why don't you just admit the only way you can justify your romantic version of an ideology that has brought only pain and suffering in history is to change the definition.
Anarchy or Socialism is what your suggesting, only those who wish to deceive work in absolutes. You sir are fooling no one but yourself.
Government is just there to pool the power of society. It is inherently socialist, because it is not privately held and is functional of and held through the public society.
You can go to the dictionary and say "this is what socialism is, and it can only be this, unless I want to label Obama a practitioner of it, anyway," but that doesn't change the actual inherent mechanism of what we're talking about here.
So, while denial is very normal and natural, I think I've had enough today of illustrating your cognitive dissonance.
First, let me just say that I do not officially affiliate myself with the Libertarian Party, but I do agree with Libertarianism as a political philosophy, and with many of its tenets, and central ideas about deregulation, smaller Government, a strict adherence to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers of this Country, and individual, as well as proprietorial rights.
Prudence tells me that the reason why this project failed was not due to a Libertarian system, but because of the egos and schemes that were involved. Nothing at all to do with Conservatism, Libertarianism, Socialism, and Capitalism. Just good ol' fashioned Human greed and selfishness.
People who try to compare Anarchism with Libertarianism, remind me of an episode of South Park where Trey Parker and Matt Stone made fun of people trying to compare Goth culture to that of Emo and Vampire subcultures. Anarchists would hate a Libertarian system because of its stricter sense of both moral and legal law, as well as upholding the established role of Government. While Libertarians would hate an Anarchist system because of its absence of a civil authority to at least carry out civil law and order, and deal with disputes. Anarchists and Libertarians were on opposing sides when it came to the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011-2012.
The funny thing is though, is that if people actually studied US History from a non-biased, non-partisan perspective, and what the Founding Fathers were actually like, and what they each believed in, and what the Constitution really says word for word, almost everyone would come out of it saying that they are Libertarians.
Quote:First, let me just say that I do not officially affiliate myself with the Libertarian Party, but I do agree with Libertarianism as a political philosophy, and with many of its tenets, and central ideas about deregulation, smaller Government, a strict adherence to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers of this Country, and individual, as well as proprietorial rights.
That makes almost all of us "libertarians." The difference is in the details. If you want deregulation, which regulations would you repeal? As I see it, the purpose of regulations is to draw the line between your individual rights and my individual rights. We regulate air pollution in order to preserve my freedom to breathe clean air. Regulations like building codes are there to preserve my right to live without getting injured by something you did, or ripped off by buying something that is poorly constructed.
I would say we all have the libertarian ideals. But I would never elect someone who promises to deregulate our society until he specifies which regulations he wants to do away with. Because there are a lot of regulations that I want to keep. I am sure there are some you would want to keep, too.
Quote:That makes almost all of us "libertarians." The difference is in the details. If you want deregulation, which regulations would you repeal? As I see it, the purpose of regulations is to draw the line between your individual rights and my individual rights. We regulate air pollution in order to preserve my freedom to breathe clean air. Regulations like building codes are there to preserve my right to live without getting injured by something you did, or ripped off by buying something that is poorly constructed.
I would say we all have the libertarian ideals. But I would never elect someone who promises to deregulate our society until he specifies which regulations he wants to do away with. Because there are a lot of regulations that I want to keep. I am sure there are some you would want to keep, too.
Nope, he's fine with getting rid of every regulation.
Dioxin in the water supply for everyone!
Quote:Nope, he's fine with getting rid of every regulation.
Dioxin in the water supply for everyone!
What is wrong with you, man? That comment is completely non-productive. You know that is not true.
Quote:What is wrong with you, man? That comment is completely non-productive. You know that is not true.
Just pointing out what "less government" as a generality really means.
Quote:Just pointing out what "less government" as a generality really means.
If you want to argue the liberal point of view, there's nothing wrong with that, but deliberately distorting what other people say just so you can knock it down is the reason we have such polarization in this country. It's what Rush Limbaugh does every day on his show- attack straw men. You should try to be better than that. And besides, it's not very interesting.
Quote:If you want to argue the liberal point of view, there's nothing wrong with that, but deliberately distorting what other people say just so you can knock it down is the reason we have such polarization in this country. It's what Rush Limbaugh does every day on his show- attack straw men. You should try to be better than that. And besides, it's not very interesting.
I already did better. The thread is already finished from a logical point of view. I already made it clear why socialism and libertarianism are misnomers and pointless labels and what really matters is what you stand for.
At this point it's all just about making idiotic jokes about "the other side."
Quote:I already did better. The thread is already finished from a logical point of view. I already made it clear why socialism and libertarianism are misnomers and pointless labels and what really matters is what you stand for.
At this point it's all just about making idiotic jokes about "the other side."
I gotta hand it to you, I've rarely met someone so convinced of his own superiority before, especially in light of the weeks of posting. Good jorb.
Quote:I gotta hand it to you, I've rarely met someone so convinced of his own superiority before, especially in light of the weeks of posting. Good jorb.
They say if you travel far enough you'll meet yourself. The (lack of) content of your posts makes it clear you need to get moving.