Libertarians

[Perianne]

They pay or they die. You're being simplistic. Our current government thinks everyone should pay for everyone else. You can't leave that out of the equation.

I am not being simplistic. I argue exactly what you say: "they pay or they die". Perhaps you haven't followed my previous statements concerning such matters.

In a Libertarian world? No one but themselves.

And for this, my appreciation of you increases (doesn't that just make your day! lol)

Again, I live in the world where (off the top of my head) more than half of all my patients suffer from conditions brought on by their own actions. For example (I'll use layman's terms):

Patient #1 has endocarditis (inflammation of the heart and valves of the heart) presumably caused by drug injections. He is 31 years old and has made choices that will now kill him. He is on Medicaid because he has low income. Should society have to pay for HIS choices?

Patient #2 has a diabetic ulcer on her foot. Without medical care this would likely result in death. She is 46 and weighs 320 pounds with uncontrolled diabetes. Had she chosen to eat less food, she would likely not have diabetes and certainly would not be morbidly obese. She is on Medicaid because she is morbidly obese and cannot work. Should society have to pay for her choices?

Patient #3 is 24 and is pregnant with her 5th child. She has no skills as she became a mother at 15 and dropped out of school. She and her children are on welfare and Medicaid. Now she expects free prenatal healthcare. Should society have to pay for her choices?

Where does it all stop? My philosophy is to live as you want (as long as it does no harm to anyone else) but be responsible for the consequences of those choices. That is the way I was raised and is the way I will be until my dying days.

[Drummond]

Because you make ridiculous incongruent statements. On the one hand you state that Libertarians are leftie and then in another thread you state individualism is conservative yet those same Libertarians are advocating for individualism. It makes no sense no matter the intellectual gymnastics you put yourself through to get there.

The rest of your post is equally ridiculous and based upon your imaginative interpretation.

I stated - at least twice - that Libertarianism is a perverted form of individualism. And it is, because it takes matters to extremes, and for reasons already cited.

See my reply to Kathianne, FJ. You, as a supposed 'Thatcherite', be it 'Ultimate' or 'The One True ..' ... place yourself in opposition to Libertarianism. The case is clear. Margaret Thatcher wasn't averse to curbing individual freedoms if she judged that, in doing so, social order and social cohesion benefitted.

Either you are a supporter of Margaret Thatcher, or you're not. Libertarianism has been the tool of the Left in my country. Margaret Thatcher used State powers to counter it. THIS IS VERIFIABLE HISTORICAL FACT.

So pick your side, FJ, and stop the nonsense. Thatcherism, or the Leftie tool of Libertarianism.

CHOOSE.

[Kathianne]

I'm not British, don't live there. You are likely right that we're talking apples and oranges, I'll give you that.

I'm not involving myself in the circular arguments you have regarding Thatcher, not going there.

I've explained what I mean and why I lean 'libertarian,' by my understanding. Which is all that matters to me.

I do think the purpose of government in general should be to serve the individual in the true sense of letting each develop themselves as they see fit. Government does that by providing for the common defense; is the means to providing for the common good-(roads, sanitary projects, police, etc). We, the people-many individuals-elect those that agree on the ideas and projects we most value.

The federal government has no place, imo, regarding marriage laws, education, seat belt laws, shopping cart laws, etc.

Indeed a good argument could probably be made that the South, pre-Civil War was espousing very libertarian ideals.

[Gunny]

Perhaps there's some fundamental flaw in my reasoning I'm unaware of. But, surely .. if drug taking is decriminalised, you legalise the use of those drugs. That means that drug dealers, the ones 'pushing' those drugs, are engaged in a LEGAL activity ??

So on what grounds, in that scenario, could drug dealers be regarded as fair game to 'go after' ?

No: all of this is a total nonsense. Many drugs are known to have harmful effects, so any effort made to decriminalise them is completely counterproductive. That goes for 'hard' drugs .. very obviously. It also goes for 'soft' drugs, since too many of them open gateways to the taking of the 'harder' varieties.

Besides, new discoveries are being made all the time. A previously supposed 'harmless' drug might be belatedly seen to be harmful.

I ask: why take risks ? Why not just tighten up laws on it all, across the board ??

Libertarians would hate that. For my part, I hate Libertarian Leftie destructiveness. Strong and uncompromising laws are the only sensible option.

I'd actually like to be able to go to the doctor and get some. The problem here is the reverse psychology. If you're asking for a pain killer you're a drug abuser. No, I'd like to have the medicine for what it's intended for. I just can't figure out how all these illegal drug users can get the crap and I can't get it legally because of them. What's the purpose of even having the damned stuff if you can't freakin' legally get it?

All libertarians are not lefties.

Strong and uncompromising laws are forcing your will on others.

[Perianne]

I'd actually like to be able to go to the doctor and get some. The problem here is the reverse psychology. If you're asking for a pain killer you're a drug abuser. No, I'd like to have the medicine for what it's intended for. I just can't figure out how all these illegal drug users can get the crap and I can't get it legally because of them. What's the purpose of even having the damned stuff if you can't freakin' legally get it?

All libertarians are not lefties.

Strong and uncompromising laws are forcing your will on others.

I feel for you, Gunny. Have you tried dedicated pain clinics?

[Drummond]

Not a good definition. Being Republican or Democrat is being a government stooge. Walking around mindless, believing everything you're told, and doing what you're told. No one wants to look at the words they sling around.

The meaning of "liberal" is not fascist, but they have somehow become the same thing.

Being "conservative" does not mean being a fascist on the other side of the aisle.

I don't even know where the term "libertarian" came from. People sling around names and words they don't even know how to look up. It just depends on which side of an argument a free thinker is on which one they get called. I've been a lib, a rightwinger, a Republican, a libertarian and all kinds of other stuff just for disagreeing and thinking for myself.

Maybe we should use more brain cells and less blind labels?

The case you're making is essentially one where you're classifiable as 'a stooge' if you support any brand of Government. Given this, then at minimum, you cannot define Libertarianism as pro-Conservative, since you reject the formation of one as worthy of support.

But people have to believe in SOMETHING. If you refuse to, and if EVERYONE then followed suit ... then how would chaos and anarchy fail to be the result ?

I am pro social order. Pro law and order. Pro the welfare of the majority, wishing decency to prevail on a widespread scale.

I am therefore not a Libertarian. Libertarianism apparently puts 'self' above others, always, and if fully enacted, threatens anarchy.

Isn't that the enemy of shared values ? How does shared decency stand a chance of survival, under conditions which oppose it ?

[Kathianne]

The case you're making is essentially one where you're classifiable as 'a stooge' if you support any brand of Government. Given this, then at minimum, you cannot define Libertarianism as pro-Conservative, since you reject the formation of one as worthy of support.

But people have to believe in SOMETHING. If you refuse to, and if EVERYONE then followed suit ... then how would chaos and anarchy fail to be the result ?

I am pro social order. Pro law and order. Pro the welfare of the majority, wishing decency to prevail on a widespread scale.

I am therefore not a Libertarian. Libertarianism apparently puts 'self' above others, always.

Isn't that the enemy of shared values ? How does shared decency stand a chance of survival, under conditions which oppose it ?

Question regarding what I bolded, how perchance do you define 'welfare of the majority,' and 'decency'? How do you favor achievement of those goals?

[Perianne]

The case you're making is essentially one where you're classifiable as 'a stooge' if you support any brand of Government. Given this, then at minimum, you cannot define Libertarianism as pro-Conservative, since you reject the formation of one as worthy of support.

But people have to believe in SOMETHING. If you refuse to, and if EVERYONE then followed suit ... then how would chaos and anarchy fail to be the result ?

I am pro social order. Pro law and order. Pro the welfare of the majority, wishing decency to prevail on a widespread scale.

I am therefore not a Libertarian. Libertarianism apparently puts 'self' above others, always, and if fully enacted, threatens anarchy.

Isn't that the enemy of shared values ? How does shared decency stand a chance of survival, under conditions which oppose it ?

Drummond, you should move to America, Kentucky specifically. I would love to hear more of your thoughts.

[Drummond]

Strong and uncompromising laws are forcing your will on others.

In that case, you must hate what Margaret Thatcher did. She used strong and uncompromising laws to curb freedoms WHICH HAD BEEN ABUSED.

Gunny, there is no chance at all that I'm wrong about this. I lived through a period in which Trade Union Lefties tried to use their individual freedoms to do maximum damage against all the members of society they had a grievance against. This led to chaos, and this chaos feeding into all aspects of social life. Had Margaret Thatcher not adopted an ANTI Libertarian approach, I seriously doubt that our society would have survived the outcome.

Margaret Thatcher is seen to be the great Conservative leader that she WAS. If Libertarianism was 'conservative', then history would record her as a betrayer of Conservatism.

But it does nothing of the kind.

Libertarianism is ultimately destructive. That is where it must lead, if taken to its logical outcome. But Conservatism is not. The two are, in the real world, very different.

[Gunny]

The case you're making is essentially one where you're classifiable as 'a stooge' if you support any brand of Government. Given this, then at minimum, you cannot define Libertarianism as pro-Conservative, since you reject the formation of one as worthy of support.

But people have to believe in SOMETHING. If you refuse to, and if EVERYONE then followed suit ... then how would chaos and anarchy fail to be the result ?

I am pro social order. Pro law and order. Pro the welfare of the majority, wishing decency to prevail on a widespread scale.

I am therefore not a Libertarian. Libertarianism apparently puts 'self' above others, always, and if fully enacted, threatens anarchy.

Isn't that the enemy of shared values ? How does shared decency stand a chance of survival, under conditions which oppose it ?

I don't disagree and I DO believe in something. The Constitution as it was written.

There has to be a balance. I'm by no means pro-anarchy. I'm pro personal responsibility. But there are always those idiots who screw everything up for the rest of us. Rules aren't required for people who take care of themselves and mind their own business. They're required for all the morons that just want to be idiots and don't care about being civilized.

At the same time, our government has made a business out of being a government from the President down to street cops. The labor unions here have put themselves out of business doing the same. The government is supposed to be here FOR the people, not to suck us dry.

[Drummond]

Drummond, you should move to America, Kentucky specifically. I would love to hear more of your thoughts.

Thank you !

But I'm always happy to share them with you, be it here, or there.

[Kathianne]

I think what Americans are speaking to regarding libertarianism and what Drummond is using as his definition based upon UK during Thatcher era are different things. Bottom line, our systems are different, while sharing some common history. Our people and experiences too are different, with again, some commonalities.

[Perianne]

In that case, you must hate what Margaret Thatcher did. She used strong and uncompromising laws to curb freedoms WHICH HAD BEEN ABUSED.

Gunny, there is no chance at all that I'm wrong about this. I lived through a period in which Trade Union Lefties tried to use their individual freedoms to do maximum damage against all the members of society they had a grievance against. This led to chaos, and this chaos feeding into all aspects of social life. Had Margaret Thatcher not adopted an ANTI Libertarian approach, I seriously doubt that our society would have survived the outcome.

Margaret Thatcher is seen to be the great Conservative leader that she WAS. If Libertarianism was 'conservative', then history would record her as a betrayer of Conservatism.

But it does nothing of the kind.

Libertarianism is ultimately destructive. That is where it must lead, if taken to its logical outcome. But Conservatism is not. The two are, in the real world, very different.

The golden years of Thatcher and Reagan. God bless their souls.

[Gunny]

At least they stood for something.

Here's a good example: They were doing interviews on the tube last night. The question was "What do you think of Marco Rubio?" Who? Republican state senator from Florida. I hate him. THAT is the kind of mindless crap I'm talking about.

Don't know who he is and never heard him speak but hate him because he's a Republican. THAT is a mindless stooge.

[Drummond]

I don't disagree and I DO believe in something. The Constitution as it was written.

There has to be a balance. I'm by no means pro-anarchy. I'm pro personal responsibility.

... all of which is fine !

But, do you realise what all of this adds up to ? A form of 'personal policing' of your own actions.

What you're saying is that there have to be workable and definable personal parameters to your behaviour in order to have it all work out.

Libertarianism rejects outside influence, since it only recognises 'self sovereignty'. That's all well and good for those sufficiently responsible to make it work with an ultimately benign effect. But this is by no means true of everyone, and it never will be.

This makes Libertarianism unworkable as any kind of 'universal' creed or yardstick. And argues for the need for Government having a means to exert influence.

I simply see no way of equating law and order-friendly Conservatism with any level of unrestrained Libertarianism. Indeed, Libertarianism is just too dangerous to be applied in any unrestrained manner.

But there are always those idiots who screw everything up for the rest of us. Rules aren't required for people who take care of themselves and mind their own business. They're required for all the morons that just want to be idiots and don't care about being civilized.

That does make sense. BUT, it also means that what you're ALSO saying is that laws don't have to apply to everyone.

But of course, they do. Nobody should be above the law.

At the same time, our government has made a business out of being a government from the President down to street cops. The labor unions here have put themselves out of business doing the same. The government is supposed to be here FOR the people, not to suck us dry.

I've never been an advocate of NEEDLESS Government interference. And it should always be the tool of the people. That said ... Libertarianism perverts things to a point where balance is lost. It is unworkable on a wide scale. This I know to be true.

Which is why truly Conservative Government cannot afford to give it freedoms which many would abuse.