Any libertarians here?

[JD Barleycorn]

Ehh, I'm definitely against people taking away acts of will, just because that individual could act badly on his own behalf. I don't find anything immoral with an action unless it causes the infringement of someone's rights, and if you are the victim of yourself, then to arrest you would be to blame the victim. Makes no sense. However, I'm kind of unsure of myself regarding the economy. I agree with Ayn Rand when she says, "Where a gun begins, morality ends," but then I think it comes down to utilitarian ethics vs deontological ethics (Sorry, philosophy nerd here). While it is immoral to take someone's money by force, I also wonder if it is a huge benefit to society to have a safety net there to catch those that fail or just fall via horrendous luck. Of course, a voluntary safety net would be ideal, but impractical. So, again, I haven't made up my mind. Is it realistic to run a country without any form of safety net? Maybe it is. However, I do think pollution should be prevented by government at least to some extent, because that does infringe on the rights of others. I'm not a hippy about it, but I do think it needs some consideration.


You leave this wide open. Fascism is a government where the interests of business are subjugated to the interests of government. In this case pollution controls. You are advocating fascism. The libertarian would at most use the government to spread the message and set a standard. The people who would be informed would take their own action to punish businesses who pollute. People would also decide if a realistic standard were being set because global warming is not real but the government has siphoned billions out of the economy to pay for new government programs to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Be very careful, the Nazis were able to convince the average German to vote for Hitler's party in order to save the country. The country, if I might add, was bombed into the stone age for supporting Hitler. Don't buy into fascism for the good of the country (or children or the environment).

[dratsab]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Ehh, I'm definitely against people taking away acts of will, just because that individual could act badly on his own behalf. I don't find anything immoral with an action unless it causes the infringement of someone's rights, and if you are the victim of yourself, then to arrest you would be to blame the victim. Makes no sense. However, I'm kind of unsure of myself regarding the economy. I agree with Ayn Rand when she says, "Where a gun begins, morality ends," but then I think it comes down to utilitarian ethics vs deontological ethics (Sorry, philosophy nerd here). While it is immoral to take someone's money by force, I also wonder if it is a huge benefit to society to have a safety net there to catch those that fail or just fall via horrendous luck. Of course, a voluntary safety net would be ideal, but impractical. So, again, I haven't made up my mind. Is it realistic to run a country without any form of safety net? Maybe it is. However, I do think pollution should be prevented by government at least to some extent, because that does infringe on the rights of others. I'm not a hippy about it, but I do think it needs some consideration.


You leave this wide open. Fascism is a government where the interests of business are subjugated to the interests of government. In this case pollution controls. You are advocating fascism. The libertarian would at most use the government to spread the message and set a standard. The people who would be informed would take their own action to punish businesses who pollute. People would also decide if a realistic standard were being set because global warming is not real but the government has siphoned billions out of the economy to pay for new government programs to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Be very careful, the Nazis were able to convince the average German to vote for Hitler's party in order to save the country. The country, if I might add, was bombed into the stone age for supporting Hitler. Don't buy into fascism for the good of the country (or children or the environment).

I'm going to avoid mentioning Godwin's law, but I don't think it matters whether global warming is real or not. Besides, that should be left up to scientific consensus. However, let's say it becomes a case in which EVERYONE agrees that some pollution is doing damage, and causing negative effects for people, and infringing on their rights (damaging their property and their drinking water, for example). Surely, you would agree that if it was an individual poisoning the water, that that person should be punished, so why would it change just because the intention moves from harm to apathy, and just because it is a business? Again, if it was one person who was destroying a person's property, you would have no problem with the government using it's monopoly on power to stop that person, would you?

[CuteOldGuy]

I find it interesting how non-Libertarians on here know exactly what Libertarians should believe and think. Unlike many liberals and conservatives on here, most Libertarians think for themselves, and do not strictly adhere to a political dogma. However, we do start with the basic premise that government should leave us alone, unless we are trying to deny someone else's right to life, liberty or property by force or fraud.

Liberals and conservatives start with the idea that government has a right to control certain aspects of our lives. Now, on some issues we may end up in the same place. It is the starting point that sets us apart, far apart from the brainwashed "mainstream".

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by dratsab

I'm going to avoid mentioning Godwin's law, but I don't think it matters whether global warming is real or not. Besides, that should be left up to scientific consensus. However, let's say it becomes a case in which EVERYONE agrees that some pollution is doing damage, and causing negative effects for people, and infringing on their rights (damaging their property and their drinking water, for example). Surely, you would agree that if it was an individual poisoning the water, that that person should be punished, so why would it change just because the intention moves from harm to apathy, and just because it is a business? Again, if it was one person who was destroying a person's property, you would have no problem with the government using it's monopoly on power to stop that person, would you?

Science is not about consensus. It is about empirical evidence, you know, proof. The global warming crowd does not have that (back to the topic) it is a poor thing to make laws that oppress people on a "consensus". It used to be the consensus that black people were not as smart as white people. Everyone knew that. It used to be consensus women could not handle complicated thoughts like engineering, science, medicine, and politics. Everyone knew that.

If a business were damaging someone elses property through the pollution of a local water supply won't that be violating the rights of the other people? Remember, it is not considered protected when you are depriving someone else of their rights. What I am talking about is when regulations are made unrealistically stringent and it is next to impossible to meet that new standard. Look at the Clinton mercury regulation when he left office. As Clinton literally had one foot out the door he signed a ten year mercury reduction which he would not have to enforce. The level would have gone below what is found in nature and was unenforceable. Bush countermanded the executive order and the democrats broke into a fury. Remember the EPA had not done anything for the entire eight years of Clinton and suddenly it was life threatening. The EPA had set up an unrealistic standard that would allow them to enter factories, test them, and likely close them for something that was unreasonable. Just another form of fascism using the environment as a tool.

Remember Cap and Trade? A company that pollutes excessively can buy carbon credits from a company that does not use all of their exemptions. Sounds okay but what about a company that produces next to nothing but has many carbon credits to sell. Company A can buy those credits from company B. Company B makes money off it's credits, in fact that is the only money Company B makes. They are scamming the people and taking money made by another company for doing nothing.

[dratsab]

Sorry to resurrect a dead topic, but also being a leftist-libertarian touches on things like abortion and God. I'm an atheist (don't think laws should be based on religion), and I believe in the right to get an abortion, which are both contentious within the Libertarian party. Also, to the guy above, I do suppose I agree with you regarding consensus, but scientific consensus isn't just based on opinion, but is based on evidence. Depending on how you conduct a study, though, things can be interpreted different ways, so that is why consensus comes into play. It's the same thing with the liberals and their stupid resistance to vaccinations.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by dratsab

Sorry to resurrect a dead topic, but also being a leftist-libertarian touches on things like abortion and God. I'm an atheist (don't think laws should be based on religion), and I believe in the right to get an abortion, which are both contentious within the Libertarian party. Also, to the guy above, I do suppose I agree with you regarding consensus, but scientific consensus isn't just based on opinion, but is based on evidence. Depending on how you conduct a study, though, things can be interpreted different ways, so that is why consensus comes into play. It's the same thing with the liberals and their stupid resistance to vaccinations.

Yes, but in the global warming community consensus means that they do no more research and just harass the dissenters until they shut up. That is not science. They don't have the evidence to support their claims or they would just let the evidence speak for itself.

Allan Dershowitz wrote a chapter in one of his books about how morality can be based on more than religion. You should read his arguments on abortion, the death penality, and the use of torture in the war on terrorism. They may surprise (and vex) you.

[James1588]

Originally Posted by dratsab

I'm a leftist libertarian. I say we need to do legalize prostitution and every drug. I think seat belt laws are horse-shit; just a way to save the reputation of a town over caring about the individual. Speaking of, any Penn Jillette fans?

Definitely not a big-L "Libertarian." And certainly I have nothing but contempt for the alleged "big two" parties, which are really just show caucuses of a single party: the War/Corporate Party. I'm probably something approximating an anarchist.

And yes, there should obviously be no laws against people trading sex, nor against anyone taking any drug they're foolish enough to take. That much is surely clear.

[IIFFOFRDB]

How do lefty libertarians feel about Israel?

[CuteOldGuy]

This lefty libertarian thinks Israel can take care of herself. Or not. Either way, it's not worth our money or blood.

[dratsab]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Yes, but in the global warming community consensus means that they do no more research and just harass the dissenters until they shut up. That is not science. They don't have the evidence to support their claims or they would just let the evidence speak for itself.

Allan Dershowitz wrote a chapter in one of his books about how morality can be based on more than religion. You should read his arguments on abortion, the death penality, and the use of torture in the war on terrorism. They may surprise (and vex) you.

What's the name of the book? But I do believe in an objective morality free from religion, thanks to insights by both Sam Harris, Ayn Rand, and Immanuel Kant, and also my own views on the issue. I doubt I could hear a convincing argument against abortion, because I believe for it to be murder there needs to be a conscious being that can perceive either pain or some form of suffering/anxiety. Since a fetus is incapable of that, I don't see a problem. The death penalty I find barbaric, and intrinsically evil, so even if statistics could be used to prove it reduces crime, it wouldn't matter for me. However, I've read books on the death penalty already, and I've seen the stats interpreted for both points of view. Not to mention how arbitrary the death penalty is used, and how serial killers like Gary Ridgway avoided it while people who only killed one person get it. Ohh, and like 20% of the lawyers who are appointed in death penalty cases are disbarred or suspended. And it costs more to kill a person than it does to keep them in prison. I could go on... Torture is something I could be more flexible on if I heard a convincing argument for it, and it was only used in extreme cases and was heavily regulated.

[Yssup Rider]

why does Slobbrin give a fuck about Israel?

How about providing some insight into your devotion to the Jewish State, M'dinat Israel?

I'm pretty fucking sure you couldn't find Israel on a Google Map!

Moron!

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

why does Slobbrin give a fuck about Israel?

How about providing some insight into your devotion to the Jewish State, M'dinat Israel?

I'm pretty fucking sure you couldn't find Israel on a Google Map!

Moron!

Because I'm a ZIONIST... Hamas Rider, unlike you... Hamas Rider

[dratsab]

I think our allegiance with Israel is pretty retarded. However, I also could be considered an "Islamophobe" by today's liberals, because I think many religions are inherently evil. Especially so with Islam. There is one new tax I'd be happy to see though: Taxing churches.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by dratsab

I think our allegiance with Israel is pretty retarded. However, I also could be considered an "Islamophobe" by today's liberals, because I think many religions are inherently evil. Especially so with Islam. There is one new tax I'd be happy to see though: Taxing churches.

"Taxing churches"... That real libertarian of ya... WTF?

[I B Hankering]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." First Amendment, 1789.


"[T]he power to tax involves the power to destroy," Chief Justice John Marshall (1819).