In a Libertarian dreamworld...

[Matthew Zak]

I need to rant.



In a Libertarian dreamworld we might have a 100% pure Libertarian running for every office in the country. If that were the case we could support them each 100%. Wouldn't that be nice? Well it's NEVER going to happen. Ever.

In reality, there's a spectrum of sorts. It's not left vs. right, it's not black and white, it's not up or down. I'm not exactly sure what the color or shape of this variation is, but it's there none the less.

There's two ways we can go about it (and it's better if we do both).

1. WE (as in you) RUN AS A PURE LIBERTARIAN (If one isn't already running).

2. We support a candidate (or hopeful candidate) who is more Libertarian of the bunch.

Is there anyone more Libertarian than Peter Schiff running for the same seat? Is there anyone more Libertarian than Rand running in his race? Well if you're not going to challenge them as a 100% pure Libertarian, then I suggest you stop being so picky about whether or not they're 100% pure Libertarians, and throw 100% of your support behind them. They are not status quo. It's progress. It's better than the alternative.

We need to work together and show our support.

[Kludge]

In a libertarian dream-world, nobody would vote, let alone run for office.

[MelissaWV]

In a libertarian dream-world, nobody would vote, let alone run for office.

This.

Kludge stole my thunder :(

[fisharmor]

In a libertarian dream-world, nobody would vote, let alone run for office.

Another +1.

[Kludge]

Kludge stole my thunder :(

Soz. I'll erase so you can write it in.

[MelissaWV]

Soz. I'll erase so you can write it in.

I can't do that. I simply bow to your superiority. You may look down my top when I do :)

[Slutter McGee]

In a libertarian dream-world, nobody would vote, let alone run for office.

Not really. In an anarcho-capitalist dream world maybe. But most Libertarians recognize the need for some small roles of government.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[mczerone]

Not really. In an anarcho-capitalist dream world maybe. But most Libertarians recognize the need for some small roles of government.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Which are?

How would success or failure be measured for those roles?

How would limits be placed on such a govt?

Would the provisions be homogeneously distributed and supported?

Just because you haven't yet seen the problems of minarchism doesn't imply that most "libertarians" feel the same, or that a consistent political theory of "libertarianism" can even include such a minarchist govt.

If you really want "national defense", you are free to support such an agency defending such a "nation" with means that you support. I'd rather not institutionalize a system by which my resources are expropriated to defend others disproportionate to their contributions by means that I find deplorable (aggressive war, torture). In any "minarchist" system, I can't defend against these atrocities because of the monopoly granted to the chosen agency.

Doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

[Kludge]

Oh. I see my mistake, now. See how the OP & McGee are using capital "L"s while the rest of us are using lower-case? Being a Libertarian is being a member of a political party, so obviously, anarchy isn't the goal.

[Slutter McGee]

Which are?

How would success or failure be measured for those roles?

How would limits be placed on such a govt?

Would the provisions be homogeneously distributed and supported?

Just because you haven't yet seen the problems of minarchism doesn't imply that most "libertarians" feel the same, or that a consistent political theory of "libertarianism" can even include such a minarchist govt.

If you really want "national defense", you are free to support such an agency defending such a "nation" with means that you support. I'd rather not institutionalize a system by which my resources are expropriated to defend others disproportionate to their contributions by means that I find deplorable (aggressive war, torture). In any "minarchist" system, I can't defend against these atrocities because of the monopoly granted to the chosen agency.

Doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

You are right. Hayek was a fucking moron.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[__27__]

You are right. Hayak was a fucking moron.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

How did Hayek and Friedman's support for Pinochet's Chile work out?

[Slutter McGee]

How did Hayek and Friedman's support for Pinochet's Chile work out?

At least I use my logical fallacies to make smart ass remarks in order to my satisfy my ridiculous narcissistic urge to make myself laugh. I don't use them in an attempt at rational argument.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[__27__]

At least I use my logical fallacies to make smart ass remarks in order to my satisfy my ridiculous narcissistic urge to make myself laugh. I don't use them in an attempt at rational argument.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

How did Hayek and Friedman's support for Pinochet's Chile work out?

[mczerone]

You are right. Hayak was a fucking moron.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Thanks for the concession, but you avoided my questions. I'd really like to know how "national defense" can be considered part of a libertarian dreamworld.

Hayek (I think that's how he spelled it, but being a moron, maybe he was wrong about that, too) had great economic insights, but AFAIK wasn't ever concerned with libertarian theory, except insofar as placating Mises's diversions from pure economic studies.

But maybe I'm missing something, and I'd be happy to admit my failures if you could point any out.

[Slutter McGee]

I will answer your question. Lets take layman's definition of libertarian...one who wants to maximize liberty. A government is just insofar as its actions protect liberty rather than destroy it. As the threat of foreign invasion is a threat to the liberty of an individual, the forming of an army to repell or deter such invasion is compatible with idea of liberty, assuming that such an army is not used for unjust wars or against the people it is designed to protect.

We might agree that the majority of people here consider themselves libertarian. Although my leanings are more federalist with libertarian sympathies. Regardless, the majority of people here are not anarcho capitalists, which is why those who are need to stop masturbating to Rothbard every night, drop their purile fantasies and litmus tests, and stopping calling out every objectivist, federalist, and paleo-conservative who dare suggest that the term libertarian should inclusive rather than exclusive.

Now I have to go back to work.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[mczerone]

I will answer your question. Lets take layman's definition of libertarian...one who wants to maximize liberty. A government is just insofar as its actions protect liberty rather than destroy it. As the threat of foreign invasion is a threat to the liberty of an individual, the forming of an army to repell or deter such invasion is compatible with idea of liberty, assuming that such an army is not used for unjust wars or against the people it is designed to protect.

We might agree that the majority of people here consider themselves libertarian. Although my leanings are more federalist with libertarian sympathies. Regardless, the majority of people here are not anarcho capitalists, which is why those who are need to stop masturbating to Rothbard every night, drop their purile fantasies and litmus tests, and stopping calling out every objectivist, federalist, and paleo-conservative who dare suggest that the term libertarian should inclusive rather than exclusive.

Now I have to go back to work.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Do I not have liberty to defend my own property, or decide that some aspect of my property is not worth the cost of defense? You certainly, as I said before, have the liberty to support a "national defense" with your own resources, but demanding protection money from all of your neighbors is antithetical to any concept of liberty.

I never brought up Rothbard, or tried to say that anyone failed a litmus test. I merely posited that any forced solution to a real problem is inconsistent with any definition of libertarianism. You may use whatever label you'd like, but don't get pissy with me when I point out that you're using it to cover up your own collectivist, liberty-restricting final solutions.

[Matthew Zak]

"Whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute! You mean to say he's only 99.999% Libertarian? It's an insult to Libertarianism if we elect a 99.999% Libertarian over a 100% Neocon, because he isn't a true Libertarian!"

"You'd rather the neo-con won the race?"

"No! I'd rather a Libertarian won the race!"

*people scratching heads*