Ron Paul is leading in the straw polls and being talked about non-stop, but...

[Ardentfrost]

I don't think ideals can ever be achieved, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to achieve them... especially when even a move toward the ideal is good economically

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I don't think ideals can ever be achieved, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to achieve them... especially when even a move toward the ideal is good economically

Yeah, that's why I tend to make a distinction between what's "practical" and what our "goal" should be.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

It was libertarian-leaning. Do you disagree?

The question is irrelevant, it was not a libertarian war therefore the relative degree it may be to an ideology - especially one that only crystallized into a formal ideology about 40 years ago does not matter.

It's quite easy to create a set of ideals after the fact and say it aligns with something in past - but that doesn't mean it is the same, or the set of ideals where what the intentions where of the past event.

Jeffersonian libertarianism pretty much reflects the application of my ideology, but not the ideology itself. We could do better, but that's the best application of it that has been used.

In any event, I don't understand why you're getting so hostile here. I never said that the Revolution was 100% libertarian. I understand full well that the Founders did not act in unison, hence The Great Compromise and Philadelphia Convention, right? But that's all irrelevant to what I was saying.

Because people like to put words and ideas in the founders mouth that are untrue or at best guesses in the attempt to appeal to someone's patriotic side to sell their point...I've seen on a few occasions you citing examples such as Declaration of Independence, the Revolution etc to justify your ideology

I think you're confusing anarchy with anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism can exist in a minarchy. My knee-jerk response to your question would be: tax the citizens and use that capital to pay the private sector.

What definition are you using? Everything I've heard about anarcho is the elimination of the state and privatization of things a government does like law enforcement.

If that is true, then in your world the private sector would have to enforce the court decision, you don't see a problem with that?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

What definition are you using? Everything I've heard about anarcho is the elimination of the state and privatization of things a government does like law enforcement.

If that is true, then in your world the private sector would have to enforce the court decision, you don't see a problem with that?

DD lists himself as a paleolibertarian, which is certainly not that. There are different levels that anarco-capitalists want privatized, most, though, are basically paleolibertarians, which does not mean a private police force, or military, etc..

Personally, I see anarchy (a realistic anarchy based on capitalism with very limited government) as the IDEAL that libertarians want to achieve. Libertarianism is the political movement intent on offering short and long term solutions (as well as politicians) to move toward that ideal.

So, basically what we've been talking about in that later part of this thread: the difference between the ideal and realism.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

DD lists himself as a paleolibertarian, which is certainly not that. There are different levels that anarco-capitalists want privatized, most, though, are basically paleolibertarians, which does not mean a private police force, or military, etc..

Personally, I see anarchy (a realistic anarchy based on capitalism with very limited government) as the IDEAL that libertarians want to achieve. Libertarianism is the political movement intent on offering short and long term solutions (as well as politicians) to move toward that ideal.

So, basically what we've been talking about in that later part of this thread: the difference between the ideal and realism.

Yeah, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. "ideal vs. realism" or as I put it earlier, "ideal vs. application." Same thing, but it's good to emphasize it because people tend to attack the ideology when they mean to attack the application of it.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Yeah, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head. "ideal vs. realism" or as I put it earlier, "ideal vs. application." Same thing, but it's good to emphasize it because people tend to attack the ideology when they mean to attack the application of it.

If the bottom line of the ideology is harmful - no matter how good it's intentions may be - then the application of it in whatever form is wrong. It does not matter what the ideal vs application of it is because inheritably, the application of it will strive to be like the flawed ideology therefore it will be harmful.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

If the bottom line of the ideology is harmful - no matter how good it's intentions may be - then the application of it in whatever form is wrong. It does not matter what the ideal vs application of it is because inheritably, the application of it will strive to be like the flawed ideology therefore it will be harmful.

that's fine... if application is proven to be harmful, back out of that particular piece of application. Our problem is that we (the US) never back out of shit. If we say "let's try to let the government do X" and then by doing that, shit for apeshit fucking crazy, we say "lets throw more money at X! hurry!"

The ONLY exception that I can think of is alcohol prohibition. They wised up and realized that making it illegal was a bad idea, however there is still a lot of prohibition out there that has resulted in the exact same shit alcohol prohibition did, and we still haven't learned (as a society).

Again, just because you might not agree with an ideology that a group is trying to achieve doesn't mean all their ideas are faulty. Take each prospective application independently if you refuse to adhere to the ideology. No Libertarian (or democrat or republican or communist or ... ) expects any different

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

that's fine... if application is proven to be harmful, back out of that particular piece of application. Our problem is that we (the US) never back out of shit. If we say "let's try to let the government do X" and then by doing that, shit for apeshit fucking crazy, we say "lets throw more money at X! hurry!"

The ONLY exception that I can think of is alcohol prohibition. They wised up and realized that making it illegal was a bad idea, however there is still a lot of prohibition out there that has resulted in the exact same shit alcohol prohibition did, and we still haven't learned (as a society).

Again, just because you might not agree with an ideology that a group is trying to achieve doesn't mean all their ideas are faulty. Take each prospective application independently if you refuse to adhere to the ideology. No Libertarian (or democrat or republican or communist or ... ) expects any different

War on poverty, war on drugs etc...what a waste of tax money and it prolly harmed way more people than it helped

That is a defect of civilization itself, Rome did the same thing and I'm sure the ancient Greeks were similar. To me it's the consequence of leaders married to their ideology - it's all they know and it must work for them to feel justified so whatever the problem is they throw more money, resources and troops at it thinking it will solve the problem. It's something all ideologies that had power is guilty of (and was ultimately it's downfall).

Libertarianism has many good points - though I don't believe in it's central ideals - but I fear if/when the libertarians gain power they will do the exact same thing because in the end, it's human nature.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

War on poverty, war on drugs etc...what a waste of tax money and it prolly harmed way more people than it helped

That is a defect of civilization itself, Rome did the same thing and I'm sure the ancient Greeks were similar. To me it's the consequence of leaders married to their ideology - it's all they know and it must work for them to feel justified so whatever the problem is they throw more money, resources and troops at it thinking it will solve the problem. It's something all ideologies that had power is guilty of (and was ultimately it's downfall).

Libertarianism has many good points - though I don't believe in it's central ideals - but I fear if/when the libertarians gain power they will do the exact same thing because in the end, it's human nature.

You're probably right about the individuals that may be voted in one day... that is, after all, how we got to this point in the first place. The libertarian ideal is a "back to basics" approach to government, undoing all the bullshit the "evolved" libertarians have enacted through the years. I say evolved because a classic liberal and a classic conservative and a libertarian are all the same thing, it's just the liberals and conservatives moved in new directions away from the ideals that got them into office in the first place.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You're probably right about the individuals that may be voted in one day... that is, after all, how we got to this point in the first place. The libertarian ideal is a "back to basics" approach to government, undoing all the bullshit the "evolved" libertarians have enacted through the years. I say evolved because a classic liberal and a classic conservative and a libertarian are all the same thing, it's just the liberals and conservatives moved in new directions away from the ideals that got them into office in the first place.

Right they are the same..and changed once they gained power and then a new group took their place with a different name...libertarians would do much more good staying out of high politics (but staying in local politics) and focus on changing government from the outside

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Right they are the same..and changed once they gained power and then a new group took their place with a different name...libertarians would do much more good staying out of high politics (but staying in local politics) and focus on changing government from the outside

The government cannot be changed that way from the outside. You're suggesting that libertarians just vote in republicans/democrats that shit on their views the least, while sitting on the sidelines complaining that we have a better solution and no one will listen to us? I'm sorry, but that is retarded.

libertarians are generally (at this point in time) more politically motivated than other voters. Getting enough voters to open their eyes to what libertarians in government positions have to offer could change the status quo for the better, and if enough voters stay attentive, will keep the politicians that are there honest. Incumbency spoils politics, as even the worst politicians get elected over and over again because the voters in their areas don't care. That's just one more thing that libertarians throughout the nation are trying to address so that elected officials (no matter what party they're associated with) get their feet held to the flames.

I don't understand why you're so against libertarians in office. Either you don't understand what they're trying to do, or you've bought too much into the "government is the cure" rhetoric to believe that it isn't so. Either way, just look at the issues instead of the party affiliation. Bring forward an issue you don't agree with (with an open mind preferably, though for most people that is too much to ask), give reasons why, and open a discussion. Saying "libertarians want X and I don't agree with it because of Y" is completely acceptable, but saying "libertarians just want [insert straw man]" without opening the floor for discussion is unproductive.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The government cannot be changed that way from the outside. You're suggesting that libertarians just vote in republicans/democrats that shit on their views the least, while sitting on the sidelines complaining that we have a better solution and no one will listen to us? I'm sorry, but that is retarded.

libertarians are generally (at this point in time) more politically motivated than other voters. Getting enough voters to open their eyes to what libertarians in government positions have to offer could change the status quo for the better, and if enough voters stay attentive, will keep the politicians that are there honest. Incumbency spoils politics, as even the worst politicians get elected over and over again because the voters in their areas don't care. That's just one more thing that libertarians throughout the nation are trying to address so that elected officials (no matter what party they're associated with) get their feet held to the flames.

I don't understand why you're so against libertarians in office. Either you don't understand what they're trying to do, or you've bought too much into the "government is the cure" rhetoric to believe that it isn't so. Either way, just look at the issues instead of the party affiliation. Bring forward an issue you don't agree with (with an open mind preferably, though for most people that is too much to ask), give reasons why, and open a discussion. Saying "libertarians want X and I don't agree with it because of Y" is completely acceptable, but saying "libertarians just want [insert straw man]" without opening the floor for discussion is unproductive.

I've read enough about your ideology to know how dangerous it is..you guys are blind to the "market cures all", which, to borrow your word, is retarded.

I know the government is not the answer, but you dont throw the baby away with the bathwater. Your minimalist solutions are laughable as they are unrealistic. Why should I argue about one point I don't agree with when the whole model is based on a faulty premise that could not be achieved in the real world? Libertarian arguments are based on red herrings to avoid talking about the real issue of how does it work in the real world

No one seems to be able answer it beyond a basic theoretical basis. And it seems no seems to totally agree what libertarianism truly is! Your "movement" is so fractured into these little sub beliefs that you know it will eventually break off.

It's a fantasy ideology, some parts may seem appealing, but the overarching theme of it, that defines it, is only real in the mind

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I've read enough about your ideology to know how dangerous it is..you guys are blind to the "market cures all", which, to borrow your word, is retarded.

I know the government is not the answer, but you dont throw the baby away with the bathwater. Your minimalist solutions are laughable as they are unrealistic. Why should I argue about one point I don't agree with when the whole model is based on a faulty premise that could not be achieved in the real world? Libertarian arguments are based on red herrings to avoid talking about the real issue of how does it work in the real world

No one seems to be able answer it beyond a basic theoretical basis. And it seems no seems to totally agree what libertarianism truly is! Your "movement" is so fractured into these little sub beliefs that you know it will eventually break off.

It's a fantasy ideology, some parts may seem appealing, but the overarching theme of it, that defines it, is only real in the mind

I welcome you to offer alternatives to solutions offered by libertarians, or evidence as to why the solution won't work. Don't look at the ultimate ideology that will likely never come to full fruition, look at each solution individually just as you would a republican or democrat solution to something (and about half the time, one or the other is offering the same or similar solution libertarians are).

There's no reason to disagree with a solution because you don't like the ultimate ideology. All libertarian solutions are derived from Constitutional and/or economic studies. There is no baseless libertarian solution. If you have reasons or concerns about the methods used to derive or reasons you think the results won't be what is expected, then please share.

Personally I think you're scared to because your assumptions are baseless whereas libertarians are not. If you can't agree with libertarians because it doesn't "feel" right to you (which I have heard before), then admit it and let's move past it.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I welcome you to offer alternatives to solutions offered by libertarians, or evidence as to why the solution won't work. Don't look at the ultimate ideology that will likely never come to full fruition, look at each solution individually just as you would a republican or democrat solution to something (and about half the time, one or the other is offering the same or similar solution libertarians are).

There's no reason to disagree with a solution because you don't like the ultimate ideology. All libertarian solutions are derived from Constitutional and/or economic studies. There is no baseless libertarian solution. If you have reasons or concerns about the methods used to derive or reasons you think the results won't be what is expected, then please share.

Personally I think you're scared to because your assumptions are baseless whereas libertarians are not. If you can't agree with libertarians because it doesn't "feel" right to you (which I have heard before), then admit it and let's move past it.

Great job entirely ignoring the post

I've shared plenty of times what exactly I mean (in this and other threads), it gets tiring arguing with libertarians cause they do exactly what you do, ignore the facts and try to force back the conversation on their terms. It ain't going to work this time, you won't address the legitimate arguments in mine, I wont in yours

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Great job entirely ignoring the post

I've shared plenty of times what exactly I mean (in this and other threads), it gets tiring arguing with libertarians cause they do exactly what you do, ignore the facts and try to force back the conversation on their terms. It ain't going to work this time, you won't address the legitimate arguments in mine, I wont in yours

You have offered no specifics. You have just said very broadly that libertarian thought doesn't work in the real world. There is plenty of evidence that it does, as studied by economists for about 100 years now. I have real evidence, for instance, that government intervention and regulations do not help curb dangerous work environments, but personal responsibility, good information, and straight up capitalism does. I've written about it on these very forums before (in response to the coal mine collapse in WV last year).

Offer up something specifically you do not agree with and why (preferably in a new thread), and the libertarians of the board will give you evidence to the contrary. We are used to this, we have to defend our positions all the time. I mean, hell, you can't just take on the position that legalizing drugs would help the economy and cause a reduction in crime without some reasons. These sorts of ideas don't come from the ether.