Libertarians

[Gunny]

On drug taking ... you could indeed argue that a drug taker is exercising choice by being self destructive in that way. They may, arguably, be 'at liberty' to do as they choose.

BUT ... two objections surely come from this. One, each such drug taker is helping to perpetuate an 'industry' which exists, not only to make profit, BUT TO DO HARM. And, two .. such drug takers may influence others to do what they themselves do. They spread their harm, and its poison. They act as a societal cancer if left totally to their own devices.

A very strong law and order position on this is the only sensible one to adopt, in my opinion. Snuff out such a cancer by aggressive measures taken to eradicate it .. and NOT to find soft, destructive, LIBERTARIAN, excuses to indulge any of it.

I am a Conservative. That therefore makes me anti-Libertarian. Libertarianism is individualism perverted ... taken to dangerously destructive lengths.

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?

[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?

[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.

[Kathianne]

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.

Again, not trying to be disrespectful, but that explains YOUR reasons for your anti-libertarian stand, which I'll take your word for in UK c1970's. It doesn't however address how you favor achievement of your goals regarding 'the welfare of the majority' or 'decency.'

To illustrate just how close our true stands are though, libertarians that I agree with are anything but 'pro-union,' in fact quite the opposite. They likely are against over emphasis on group projects in school too.

[Drummond]

Again, not trying to be disrespectful, but that explains YOUR reasons for your anti-libertarian stand, which I'll take your word for in UK c1970's. It doesn't however address how you favor achievement of your goals regarding 'the welfare of the majority' or 'decency.'

See what I've just posted. This is all a clear cut issue to me, with my case already proven through history.

The only ultimately decent outcome is not to allow Libertarian types to feel that they have a right to fight the machinery of Government beyond a certain point. The UK's history already proves how ruinous that can be.

I've seen a three day working week visited on a country because 'the workers' wanted to take a stand against Government. That meant ... no power to homes. No power to businesses either, unless they provided essential services that couldn't safely be done without.

In my early career, I sat in an office for two days out of five, in wintertime, knowing it would remain unheated. I'd then go home to a house without electricity and electric heating. Since gas and oil supplies were also disrupted, no guarantee of ANY form of heating for MILLIONS of people existed.

Does such a scenario conform to your idea of 'decency', Kathianne ?

No. In a struggle between Leftie Libertarianism and solid, dependable Government, I say that Libertarianism's goals are counterproductive to the greater good. Mrs Thatcher knew it, and we prospered as a result, with Union wrecking stopped in its tracks through good Government.

Her laws have guaranteed that we have never revisited the dark (literally so) days of the 1970's.

[Kathianne]

See what I've just posted. This is all a clear cut issue to me, with my case already proven through history.

The only ultimately decent outcome is not to allow Libertarian types to feel that they have a right to fight the machinery of Government beyond a certain point. The UK's history already proves how ruinous that can be.

I've seen a three day working week visited on a country because 'the workers' wanted to take a stand against Government. That meant ... no power to homes. No power to businesses either, unless they provided essential services that couldn't safely be done without.

In my early career, I sat in an office for two days out of five, in wintertime, knowing it would remain unheated. I'd then go home to a house without electricity and electric heating. Since gas and oil supplies were also disrupted, no guarantee of ANY form of heating for MILLIONS of people existed.

Does such a scenario conform to your idea of 'decency', Kathianne ?

No. In a struggle between Leftie Libertarianism and solid, dependable Government, I say that Libertarianism's goals are counterproductive to the greater good. Mrs Thatcher knew it, and we prospered as a result, with Union wrecking stopped in its tracks through good Government.

Her laws have guaranteed that we have never revisited the dark (literally so) days of the 1970's.

Once again, your examples are not applicable to what we are talking about here. There is obviously a problem with definitions.

Unions are for big government, mega regulations, i.e. the antithesis of libertarians.

Libertarians are not for abolishing government or anarchy. They are for small government, especially cutting the federal government in size and control.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.