- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question for Libertarians Regarding Interdiction
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:03 pm to Joshjrn
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:03 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Libertarians never promise utopia. We promise freedom. Nothing more, nothing less.
But shouldn't the overarching theme of organizing a society be towards reaching the closest thing to "utopia"?
If not, why sacrifice any part of your complete personal autonomy?
This post was edited on 1/19/14 at 1:05 pm
2
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:06 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
A libertarian might ask why you have the right to make what is ultimately the arbitrary distinction that someone is incapable of handling their own affairs. If they want to spend all of their money on bubblegum instead of rent, who are you to tell them they can't?
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:06 pm to Joshjrn
I presume they would. I'd just be worried about a coverage gap where private charity/religious groups can't take care of all the destitute/mentally ill.
I can see the argument that this 'harsh' reality would inspire more private charity in the long run, but I think it'd be messy until we got there.
I can see the argument that this 'harsh' reality would inspire more private charity in the long run, but I think it'd be messy until we got there.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:07 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
quote:
The community coming together and agreeing amongst themselves to not do business with the person
This, essentially. You can't seize a person's property, of course, but neither can you make others do business with the person in question. I see this as a community-based, non-violent way to deal with those who undergo abortion (in the case that the community is heavily against such things).
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:08 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
quote:A free society can be harsh.
That seems like an incredibly harsh society to live in.
Surely communist see the US as a harsh society.
quote:As opposed to government legislation?
And I understand why the "responsibility of the family" line makes sense in theory, but I don't trust that it would be that clean in application.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:09 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
No, utopia is not an appropriate goal. Striving for utopia is an inherently utilitarian paradigm which most people reject. Just as we don't sacrifice the one healthy individual to donate organs to the six sick people, I see no reason to sacrifice the self for even more aetherial "benefits."
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:09 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
quote:
But shouldn't the overarching theme of organizing a society be towards reaching the closest thing to "utopia"?
People have varying views on what a utopia would be. It is far harder to centrally organize a society towards the ends of individuals than it is to let them make their own decisions.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:09 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
A libertarian might ask why you have the right to make what is ultimately the arbitrary distinction that someone is incapable of handling their own affairs. If they want to spend all of their money on bubblegum instead of rent, who are you to tell them they can't?
And in an ideologically pure answer, you're right; they have the complete personal autonomy to spend their money as they see fit.
But I don't want to live in a world where a guy with a ton of bubblegum is dying on the streets and/or committing petty crimes to get money to eat.
Is it really that morally reprehensible to get involved on the front-end (obviously with a high standard to meet to interdict them)?
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:12 pm to Joshjrn
quote:Funny thing is. . .hypothetically, utilitarians are the only people who could ever achieve utopia
Striving for utopia is an inherently utilitarian paradigm which most people reject
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:12 pm to Roaad
Libertarianism is one of the more fascinating ideologies I've come across. I like some tenets of it, but it bothers me how much its proponents care only about being ideologically pure and not so much so what the real-world application of libertarian principles would be.
I think this is one of those theory vs. reality situations. I enjoy the debate on message boards, but I think I'd rather message boards is where Libertarianism stay.
I think this is one of those theory vs. reality situations. I enjoy the debate on message boards, but I think I'd rather message boards is where Libertarianism stay.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:13 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
I don't want to live in that world, either. That's why I would donate to those who might make his life a little easier. I'm simply not willing to force you to help him, or force him to give up autonomy. Even putting philosophical ideals aside, I consider it a greater evil to see his freedom forfeited than to see him live what some might consider a wasted life.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:14 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
The best arguments on this board are between Conservatives and Libertarians. The most animus that exists on this board is that which the Libertarian Superman has for the impure Conservative.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:15 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
No, utopia is not an appropriate goal. Striving for utopia is an inherently utilitarian paradigm which most people reject. Just as we don't sacrifice the one healthy individual to donate organs to the six sick people, I see no reason to sacrifice the self for even more ethereal "benefits."
And you'd rather live in a society where you have more freedom, but humanity as a whole may not operate in such an efficient (cue the 'are you suggesting government is efficient' jokes) manner?
I just can't get past the warlord problem( or SFP's Nino Brown paradox or whatever he called it). Help me- is there a way to get past the warlord problem?
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:16 pm to Lsupimp
I save my strongest animosity for the "only bad people need rights" folks as I consider them both the most dangerous and most enraging 
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:18 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you asking how an anarchist law and order system would work?
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:19 pm to Lsupimp
Libertarianism is certainly one of the more interesting political ideologies I've studied. I'm pretty young, so I don't know if it has always been as popular as it is now, but I see it as the logical counterpoint to the increased government spending we've seen of late. I see it as the polar opposite of the socialism/communism strand of thought (anarchism is too radical to be taken seriously in my opinion). I think it does bring value to the discussion, but like most things, the optimal path is probably some shade of gray (between pure libertarianism and pure socialism).
But it does make for interesting discussion on the internet.
But it does make for interesting discussion on the internet.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:19 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
quote:
I like some tenets of it, but it bothers me how much its proponents care only about being ideologically pure and not so much so what the real-world application of libertarian principles would be.
There are, now at least, many more utilitarian libertarian/market-anarchist thinkers than what there had been before. Most of the libertarians you find on the internet will have a moral, rights-based foundation for their ideology. It is becoming more common, though, for certain economists/thinkers to advocate libertarianism based on end results, rather than advocating due to moral conviction.
David Friedman is by the the most popular thinker in the consequentialist camp. Check out Machinery of Freedom when you get a chance.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:22 pm to TheLankiestLawyer
quote:
Help me- is there a way to get past the warlord problem?
This is a fairly short explanation, I will try to find something meatier that can help dispel more doubts.
Law Without the State - It has a paragraph titled Warring Agencies
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:23 pm to Joshjrn
Pimp's Political Maxim # 420:
Libertarians punish Conservatives for the small differences and reward Liberals for the small agreements.
Libertarians punish Conservatives for the small differences and reward Liberals for the small agreements.
Posted on 1/19/14 at 1:23 pm to Joshjrn
I guess I should start with I don't really know what your ideal form of government would look like? Are you a minimalist libertarian or an outright anarchist? That's probably a foundation we should lay.
What I meant by the rest of my question is that government, as it exists now, does provide some conduit for the efficient use of capital and wealth creation. It is still individuals taking risks with their private capital, but government does provide a uniform system of laws to 'grease' the process along. Government and our forced taxation also provides for the defense of that capital through the military. I'm certainly not suggesting our government is perfect, but I think on a macro, ideological level, having a government makes for a more efficient system of utilizing capital than a system where there would be no centralized government and it would just be up to individual groups to fend for themselves against other individual groups. I just don't know if the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts in that scenario.
What I meant by the rest of my question is that government, as it exists now, does provide some conduit for the efficient use of capital and wealth creation. It is still individuals taking risks with their private capital, but government does provide a uniform system of laws to 'grease' the process along. Government and our forced taxation also provides for the defense of that capital through the military. I'm certainly not suggesting our government is perfect, but I think on a macro, ideological level, having a government makes for a more efficient system of utilizing capital than a system where there would be no centralized government and it would just be up to individual groups to fend for themselves against other individual groups. I just don't know if the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts in that scenario.
Page 3 of 15
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News