Libertarians

[Kathianne]

... 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.



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.



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.

So you really are for all intrusive government, one that agrees with you.

[Drummond]

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

Very well said ! Yes, I miss them both.

[Perianne]

[/B]
So you really are for all intrusive government, one that agrees with you.

So, in the Libertarian view, people should be able to do whatever they wish (short of being harmful to others), and let the laws of nature and consequences determine the outcome?

[Gunny]

... 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.



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.



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.

You've got a different definition to libertarianism than I do. Might be a North Atlantic disconnect.

If you've ever seen the paradigm, libertarians are lumped from the far left to the far right and labeled mostly as anyone who won't fall into the "d" or "r" sheeple herds. I don't have a problem with government when it's doing what it's supposed to do. When it becomes more concerned with itself than the people it is supposed to serve, THEN I have a problem.

[Perianne]

Very well said ! Yes, I miss them both.

As when my husband died, sometimes people leaving this Earth creates a great void.

[Kathianne]

So, in the Libertarian view, people should be able to do whatever they wish (short of being harmful to others), and let the laws of nature and consequences determine the outcome?

Not at all, as I've explained several times. Certainly not for a state of nature, just for what the people feel is needed, where they live. States and counties/parishes, townships, cities, and even neighborhoods differ in their needs. Government, community groups, police should be and mostly are aware of those differences-not the fed or even the state capitol.

Common Core is a prime example of government failing by intrusiveness.

[Drummond]

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

I'm surprised at the question. Haven't I already answered this ?

The example of the UK circa 1978-79 surely gave a good illustration. In that example, the welfare of the majority was served by outlawing specific freedoms which had previously been abused. The welfare of the majority had been seriously violated, for example, by Unionists choosing to employ secondary picketing in order to intimidate those they were in dispute with. They were indulging in crippling strikes, and our society was, slowly but surely, going to hell in a handbasket.

Their tactics were curbed, their freedoms to be destructive likewise, and the welfare of the majority was served by having our society freed from the Trade Union tyranny that it had been previously free to inflict on everyone.

Perhaps you think it 'decent' for Trade Unions not to allow (to use the American term for it) garbage disposal ? Or to prevent freedom to travel ? Or to remove protection from outbreak of fires ? Or to prevent ambulance services from operating ? Or to call a strike that prevented the dead from being buried ???

Kathianne, none of what I describe is any exaggeration. My society suffered EACH AND EVERY VIOLATION OF ITS WELFARE THAT I HAVE LISTED. Margaret Thatcher applied the necessary remedy ... that of State powers enacted to make such outrages significantly harder to arrange in the future.

And we haven't seen such a bombardment of Trade Unions' wrecking actions at ANY TIME SINCE MRS THATCHER ACTED AS SHE DID.

[Perianne]

Not at all, as I've explained several times. Certainly not for a state of nature, just for what the people feel is needed, where they live. States and counties/parishes, townships, cities, and even neighborhoods differ in their needs. Government, community groups, police should be and mostly are aware of those differences-not the fed or even the state capitol.

Common Core is a prime example of government failing by intrusiveness.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but rather to understand. So please be patient.

You believe in a minimal role of big government? The bigger the government, the less in touch it is with the needs of the people, and therefore rules should be set by the locality?

[Kathianne]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but rather to understand. So please be patient.

You believe in a minimal role of big government? The bigger the government, the less in touch it is with the needs of the people, and therefore rules should be set by the locality?

I understand.

Basically our Constitution set up a Federated Republic, with Democratic features. We are not, never have been a 'Democracy.'

I'm strongly in favor of the Federated emphasis, as you put it, "The Federal Government" should only do what the states cannot effectively or efficiently do on their own. By the same token, the lower levels of government should only do what the individual cannot or should not do on their own.

If you have a problem with traffic patterns where you live, you probably can get a response in a day or so. Call City Hall.

While the national political scene certainly is what we are most interested in, where we get news about, where the 'action' is, our lives are much more impacted by the cop down the street or the school board members.

[Drummond]

Not at all, as I've explained several times. Certainly not for a state of nature, just for what the people feel is needed, where they live. States and counties/parishes, townships, cities, and even neighborhoods differ in their needs. Government, community groups, police should be and mostly are aware of those differences-not the fed or even the state capitol.

Common Core is a prime example of government failing by intrusiveness.

You know, Kathianne, I think you're only imagining the level of disagreement being perceived.

There is one difficulty here, and only one, when you really get down to it. Libertarianism is unworkable unless severely curbed. Pure Libertarianism defies all organised social order, because it refuses to recognise it as valid. It is therefore destructive.

It's basically a poison. In very small doses, it does no real harm. Taken beyond a certain level, and it is the antidote to social order, and therefore destructive.

You and I both agree that individual liberty is important and should always be a paramount consideration. But what I see, and I suspect you do not, is that Libertarianism is a perversion of liberty. It is anti-society, therefore, ultimately anti the greater good.

I don't want ruinous anarchy. No Conservative could ever want that. But unrestrained Libertarianism can lead to nothing else.

[Drummond]

As when my husband died, sometimes people leaving this Earth creates a great void.

What would have been true for your husband was most certainly true of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Each in their own way had priceless value, and we will never see their like again.

[Kathianne]

You know, Kathianne, I think you're only imagining the level of disagreement being perceived.

There is one difficulty here, and only one, when you really get down to it. Libertarianism is unworkable unless severely curbed. Pure Libertarianism defies all organised social order, because it refuses to recognise it as valid. It is therefore destructive.

It's basically a poison. In very small doses, it does no real harm. Taken beyond a certain level, and it is the antidote to social order, and therefore destructive.

You and I both agree that individual liberty is important and should always be a paramount consideration. But what I see, and I suspect you do not, is that Libertarianism is a perversion of liberty. It is anti-society, therefore, ultimately anti the greater good.

I don't want ruinous anarchy. No Conservative could ever want that. But unrestrained Libertarianism can lead to nothing else.

I think we have a failure to communicate due to English language. What you consider 'fact' regarding libertarianism, I consider opinion. We're not going to reach consensus, probably because we are speaking of differing definitions.

I think too it comes from our differing realities in where we live. We have states larger in size and population than many countries. Our 'DC' is thousands of miles from where I live, over a thousand from IL. London isn't all that many miles from most populated areas of England. We don't necessarily have much in common with our Federal government 'rulers' and many don't trust them to get things right for our schools, police, libraries, or even highways.

[Drummond]

I think we have a failure to communicate due to English language. What you consider 'fact' regarding libertarianism, I consider opinion. We're not going to reach consensus, probably because we are speaking of differing definitions.

I think too it comes from our differing realities in where we live. We have states larger in size and population than many countries. Our 'DC' is thousands of miles from where I live, over a thousand from IL. London isn't all that many miles from most populated areas of England. We don't necessarily have much in common with our Federal government 'rulers' and many don't trust them to get things right for our schools, police, libraries, or even highways.

Yes, well said. You make a very good overall point.

I'd disagree to a certain extent. YES, geographically, we're very much more compact than America is. Alienation is bound to be a factor when dealing with the great distances from State to State. But even so, I think the range of social differences even in the UK might surprise you. The 'Welsh Valleys' have their own social identity. So does the North of England. The 'North-South divide' is seen to be very real, containing peoples with significantly divergent worldviews.

That said ... we're still a more unified society because of compact size. One big Union decides to exercise its muscle ... the whole of our society is bound to suffer its consequences. This is one reason why Mrs Thatcher had to wield her big stick ...

I suggest that you see Libertarianism as more workable in the US, because it actually IS. But, why is that ?

I suggest this is because its poisonous effect is unlikely to be anything as widespread, so as damaging, as it would be in my part of the world.

But Conservatism is NOT about inflicting damage. Unrestrained Libertarianism, IS.

[Kathianne]

Yes, well said. You make a very good overall point.

I'd disagree to a certain extent. YES, geographically, we're very much more compact than America is. Alienation is bound to be a factor when dealing with the great distances from State to State. But even so, I think the range of social differences even in the UK might surprise you. The 'Welsh Valleys' have their own social identity. So does the North of England. The 'North-South divide' is seen to be very real, containing peoples with significantly divergent worldviews.

That said ... we're still a more unified society because of compact size. One big Union decides to exercise its muscle ... the whole of our society is bound to suffer its consequences. This is one reason why Mrs Thatcher had to wield her big stick ...

I suggest that you see Libertarianism as more workable in the US, because it actually IS. But, why is that ?

I suggest this is because its poisonous effect is unlikely to be anything as widespread, so as damaging, as it would be in my part of the world.

But Conservatism is NOT about inflicting damage. Unrestrained Libertarianism, IS.

Conservatism that results in the same game of powerful central government, with just differing interest groups coming out ahead is not an improvement-indeed is equally as oppressive to some and wrong on principles.

I want a US military, I don't want a US police force. I don't want the federal elite, even those I agree with defining my family or my religious viewpoints. We do not have an official church, yet.

Like I said, there are differences between cousins, even siblings. What works for one, may not be the best for another. So goes the thinking between the regions, states, even towns in US. For the most part the libertarians here are for letting the locals decide what works best for them, very much in the manner of town meetings of old. Now there are reasons for states to make laws that encompass all. Those would include driving, marriage, etc. No, we cannot allow some 'groups' in low density areas to create a hostile enclave, upon that I assume agreement.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You should educate yourself.

https://www.lp.org/platform

Go ahead and point out the left-wing positions of the Libertarian Party and how myself, Kathianne, DragonStryk, and Gunny are lefties.

SURE.. All these links are lies.. --TYR

GOOGLE
Search Results

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Wikipedia

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, left-libertarianism ..... Contrary to popular opinion, libertarian socialism has not traditionally been a ...
‎Social anarchism - ‎Luxemburgism - ‎Wage slavery - ‎Libertarian municipalism

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Wikipedia

Jump to Libertarian socialism - Libertarian socialism, libertarian communism and libertarian ... with a variety of perspectives have applied to their views.

‎Night-watchman state - ‎Autonomy - ‎Minarchism - ‎Libertarianism in the United ...

What is Libertarian Socialism? | The Anarchist Library
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ulli-diemer-what-is-libertarian-socialism

Is libertarian socialism any different from socialism as it is generally ... Most of the ideas presented here are not new, but neither are they generally accepted.
Urban Dictionary: Libertarian Socialism
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin....Libertarian+S...
Urban Dictionary

In fact, the term "libertarian" was first used by a French anarcho-communist back in ... as opposed to libertarian socialism's anti-capitalism and anti-statism ideals.
What is Libertarian Socialism? | Thoughts on Liberty
thoughtsonliberty.com/what-is-libertarian-socialism
Jun 18, 2014 - Libertarian socialism generally upholds individual liberty as one of the core values. Like most libertarians, libertarian socialists view gun control ...

On Libertarian Socialism | Libertarianism.org
http://www.libertarianism.org/column...rian-socialism
Libertarianism.org


An Anarchist FAQ - I.1 Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?
www.infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionI1
Infoshop.org
And is it compatible with libertarian ideals? What do the words "libertarian" and "socialism" actually mean? It is temping to use dictionary definitions as a starting ...

A Libertarian Socialist Critique of the “Libertarian” Party and ...
libertyandsocialism.org/.../a-libertarian-socialist-critique-of-the-libertaria...

May 11, 2012 - Libertarian socialists used the term libertarian to differentiate their views, ..... Unlike many libertarians, who view the anti-reproductive rights ...
Libertarian Socialism
www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp001631.html
May 7, 1997 - Libertarian Socialism is a term essentially synonymous with the word ... wrote "Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements" in ...