![]() |
Libertarianism: Marxism of the Right?
Quote:
Is Locke right about libertarianism and what it is as an ideology? Why or why not? |
Quote:
People naturally gravitate towards participation in families in a free society because it offers a base social safety net. It's when artificial incentives (welfare) or great economic success becomes prevalent that familial systems begin to atrophy. Why have children when society will front the bill for you, and alternatively, why take care of one's parents when society is taking care of them? The concept that Libertarians would decry the family because it limits freedom is inherently flawed, because participation in family is itself a consentual act. Quote:
It's hardly choice which is perceived as being inherently good, but the freedom to choose, and the ability to give consent. This also begs the question of comparing lives in the first place. If one could live one's life playing tiddlywinks, be happy doing it, and not infringe on the rights of others doing it, what does it matter if one has lead a life that's not as "worthy" as Churchill or George Washington? It presumes that people are incapable of determining utility. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's also inherently impossible to collect from such benefits as Highways. The assertion of this argument seems to be that Libertarianism is bunk because we'd have to be hermits living in the arctic in order to avoid being hypocrites, a flawed criticism because people are inherently hypocritical. That doesn't make Libertarian criticisms or policies any more false. Quote:
It sounds like what Locke is proposing is the preservation of freedom by maintaining a philosophical persistance, which doesn't make his position anymore legitimate than libertarianism, as libertarianism requires a philosophical consenus in order to establish itself. Quote:
Quote:
It's true that children aren't capable of determining what is best for themselves, however that doesn't mean that decisions must be made for them to their detriment, such as truancy laws. Quote:
Since it is impossible not to interact with a community, communal order develops naturally within context. It's no mystery why European defection to native societies was such a problem during the colonial period. Again, the presumtion being made here is that people are incapable of determining utility, when the entirety of history and human nature indicates otherwise. Quote:
What fault is there in attempting to convince people that liberty is the right choice? "Seizing power" would also be a very un-libertarian thing to do, which would be why no libertarian movement has ever done so, even to our detriment. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Russia's economy had also come out from a previously socialist one. When everyone starts out dirt poor, it's going to take a while to build up into a powerhouse. Russia's economic failures are also likely due, in no small part, to its inability to enforce law, and prevent extortion and fraud. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I won't tackle that whole monstrosity, but this caught my eye:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
I understand this is a criticism but I say this is just another termite chewing holes in a tasty structure that took time for people to build.
As a Christian I am called to talk about my faith and convince others to believe by presenting my own testimony and tackling failures of other belief systems with my own rule book the Bible. But this guy doesn't. He just slams and slams. This is all too common these days, people running around with axes taking swings at any sort of discipline or belief system as if its virtuous to do so and not attempt to defend their own position in contrast to the one they are attempting to tear down. His format is weak and ineffective because it doesn't solve anything or invites dialogue. Just another crybaby who is screaming for a bottle to shut him up. |
Quote:
Personally I don't find his arguments to be horribly flawed with the exception that I think he is thinking too much in terms of theory instead of actual practice. For example: Quote:
|
Libertarianism isn't a philosophy of anarchy and no rules, and trusting people to restrain themselves. People seem to believe it's like anarchy, but it's important to realize that's nothing like that.
At the core it's the idea that everyone is free to do as they want so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else. Now, that put aside - I agree with the Libertarians on most social issues. However economically they scare the shit out of me. I mean, just look at the list of questions above that Kalekkan posted. I think a "Libertarian Economy" would send this country into shambles. For one thing, I know that they want completely free immigration, and the fact is, no matter how robust our economy is, it CANNOT handle the MASSIVE influx of immigrants that want to come here every year, but cannot. That's the whole reason behind immigration limits. Well, part of it. At least that's why the limits are still in place today... Anyway, yeah. IMHO the best political system would be a mix of philosophies. Socially I like what the Libertarians have to offer, in most cases, economically...not to sure. I don't think any party has it correct there at the moment. |
Quote:
It helps me to know where the critique starts and attempts to finish. |
Quote:
I really think the following paragraph addresses your question to an extent: Quote:
|
Maybe I don't understand enough about Libertarianism, but isn't excessive drug & alcohol use indirectly very harmful to family, friends, etc? In which case I can see why it would be outlawed, unless Libertarians only outlaw things that directly infringe on the rights of others.
|
The general wisdom behind anti-prohibition movements is that prohibition hurts more than it helps. There's no real indication that legal possession will lead to significantly greater instances of substance abuse, and even in the event that it did, do you think that throwing those people in prison is going to help families deal with drug problems?
Nevermind the financial concerns involved in prosecuting victimless crimes. |
Quote:
|
I said that wrong. What I mean is, some forms of drunkenness, drug usage, etc, are already outlawed due to reasons of being harmful to others (dui?) and I don't see why a Libertarian adminstration would necessarily make those things lawful.
Overall though I'm not really against legalizing drug usage. Like Capo said, usage remains constant, the overdoser's would kill themselves off, ridding society of it's idiots...so it's a win/win. |
Oh no, I completely agree with you on that point. Laws like "drugged driving" and such would have to be put in place for this to be any sort of success.
|
Quote:
Also, how can you say that people are 'conditioned' to think they can only be happy within the presence of authority? When looking at the conditions in 'lawless' countries like the Sudan or Iraq, I'm sure most people would prefer being ruled by someone than having to live by 'the rule of the jungle' that prevails in these countries. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's also important to note as well, that Libertarianism isn't anarchy. Quote:
The largest standing army belongs to the Chinese at several million, yet even their reservists couldn't even approach making up the difference between the number of Chinese troops and American gun owners. It'd be practically impossible to even think of supporting an army large enough to even approach 1/3 of that number. Casualties would be lopsided, sure, but the threat of constant harrassment from an entire nation armed and angry should be enough to give anyone (except us apparently) pause. |
Quote:
|
Kalashnikovs make decent hunting rifles from what I've heard. ;)
|
This is so disgusting...
Here is a novel idea: try to figure out what you think about the world before looking for a theory to be the meaning of your life. I doubt you even know who Nozick or Hayek are. |
There's nothing wrong with finding a specific philosophy that, as a whole, matches with your ideals. However, if you start letting that philosophy decide things for you, THAT actually IS disgusting.
I didn't discover Libertarianism until I started being disgusted with the Republican party over a lot of recent issues, and since I'm a supporter of small government (something both current major parties have totally ignored in the US) I looked around to see if there was a different party I could identify myself with. Like I said earlier, on economic issues I don't agree with them much at all, but most social issues I do. It's something I can generally identify myself by but I don't let them shape my views. Nothing wrong with labels. I don't understand this current trend of everyone wanting to buck "labels." There's nothing wrong with labels and it doesn't make you any more of a free thinker than someone who labels him/herself as a Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, whatever. |
"I regard trademarks and labels as prejudices." Anton Chekhov
It isn't about striving to be a free-thinker, because then I'd be as guilty as you are. It's about understanding the problem of living strictly to a definition, rather than living for your interests. I find it funny that you think that a enmity towards labels is a new thing. |
It's more that I've seen a surge online enmity towards it recently. It's not anything new.
But that is exactly what I said. Labels become a problem when you let them shape you. |
I find it interesting how in the past few years I've seen a lot of young people switch from Republican to Libertarian. I know that I personally was majorly turned off by the sheer number of scandals as of late. It'll be interesting to see if the party regains some of its followers after 2008.
The human mind often groups things, categorizes, and tries to make them more efficient or understandable. An unfortunate side effect from this is labelling and even things such as racism. I don't care for it much either because I believe that most people don't completely agree with a particular philosophy 100% (unless they wrote it). |
Found an essay written in 2001 that addresses a lot of those criticisms.
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.