View Full Version : What you think the Most Compelling Argument for Liberty is?
AlexMerced
08-11-2010, 01:04 PM
Check out the Poll?
Elwar
08-11-2010, 01:18 PM
The Constitution is the most popular even though it's only on the road between here and liberty.
ChaosControl
08-11-2010, 01:21 PM
Virtues of Decentralization
It can appeal to someone no matter their preference for government. Whether one is a communist or socialist or free market capitalist or something in between. A local government is better for them since it is the easiest to influence and change to meet their needs.
brenden.b
08-11-2010, 01:26 PM
It can appeal to someone no matter their preference for government. Whether one is a communist or socialist or free market capitalist or something in between. A local government is better for them since it is the easiest to influence and change to meet their needs.
Agreed. I have had splendid results talking with socialists about the benefits of American federalism. My formerly socialist friend (still my friend, but no longer a socialist) admitted (while he was a socialist) that if New York wanted a strong state government than it should be allowed to do so and if New Hampshire wants a weak state government it should be allowed to do so. He also admitted that the state government are meant to have more power and that the federal government should have little say in how the states operate.
Wesker1982
08-11-2010, 01:35 PM
ron paul
Slutter McGee
08-11-2010, 01:43 PM
Just to drive yall a little nuts, and because it works for me..... The Chicago School of Economics
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
LibertyMage
08-11-2010, 01:51 PM
None of the above.
The best tool for recruitment is dependent upon the person you are looking to recruit. You have to connect with them on the ground that they stand, not the ground that you stand. That requires you figure out what is most important to them and that changes from person to person.
brenden.b
08-11-2010, 02:03 PM
None of the above.
The best tool for recruitment is dependent upon the person you are looking to recruit. You have to connect with them on the ground that they stand, not the ground that you stand. That requires you figure out what is most important to them and that changes from person to person.
Well said. I couldn't agree more.
Fredom101
08-11-2010, 02:14 PM
I said Individualist Philosophy but I would add Molyneux to that list.
t0rnado
08-11-2010, 02:26 PM
The idea that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't impede upon the rights of others. That's my definition of libertarianism and everyone I've said that to has liked the idea.
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 02:49 PM
The Constitution is the most popular even though it's only on the road between here and liberty.
That's crazy. The Constitution prior to 1913 was as close to liberty as you can get in the real world.
Romulus
08-11-2010, 03:07 PM
None of the above.
The best tool for recruitment is dependent upon the person you are looking to recruit. You have to connect with them on the ground that they stand, not the ground that you stand. That requires you figure out what is most important to them and that changes from person to person.
Ok.. Handouts. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor via the Gov. Where do you start with them?
erowe1
08-11-2010, 03:12 PM
The 10 Commandments.
Mini-Me
08-11-2010, 03:13 PM
None of the above.
The best tool for recruitment is dependent upon the person you are looking to recruit. You have to connect with them on the ground that they stand, not the ground that you stand. That requires you figure out what is most important to them and that changes from person to person.
+1776.506849315...or so.
BuddyRey
08-11-2010, 03:29 PM
The Non-Aggression Principle. It's just so intuitive, I'm amazed so few people observe it.
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 03:37 PM
The Non-Aggression Principle. It's just so intuitive, I'm amazed so few people observe it.
I've been in the Libertarian Party since 1990, and it frankly doesn't work that well. It is a theoretical ideal that cannot be attained in reality. It is a good supplemental argument to bring along behind the US Constitution. Ron Paul opened my eyes to this.
Slutter McGee
08-11-2010, 03:43 PM
Actually I think you left out one really important tool. Probably the most important tool I have used for converting traditional conservatives to a more libertarian line of thought.
Federalism.
Sincerely,
Slutter McGee
Jordan
08-11-2010, 03:49 PM
Cost.
Austrian Econ Disciple
08-11-2010, 04:22 PM
Natural Law e.g. Natural Rights/self-ownership.
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 04:27 PM
Natural Law e.g. Natural Rights/self-ownership.
Great, you support natural law. That means you support the Law of the Jungle.
heavenlyboy34
08-11-2010, 04:34 PM
That's crazy. The Constitution prior to 1913 was as close to liberty as you can get in the real world.
Great, you support natural law. That means you support the Law of the Jungle.
Wow. Just, wow. I didn't realize this kind of ignorance was rampant on RPFs. :eek:
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 04:41 PM
Wow. Just, wow. I didn't realize this kind of ignorance was rampant on RPFs. :eek:
Hey, the Indians were decentralized, just like the AoC. How did that work out for them?
ChaosControl
08-11-2010, 04:44 PM
Hey, the Indians were decentralized, just like the AoC. How did that work out for them?
Fine, until we came in and butchered them.
low preference guy
08-11-2010, 04:47 PM
Hey, the Indians were decentralized, just like the AoC. How did that work out for them?
LOL! Didn't know there were Hamiltonians pro central government statists at RPF. Finally got a good reason to add Galileo to my ignore list.
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 04:47 PM
Fine, until we came in and butchered them.
The Indians were butchering each other for thousands of years. They were endlessly fighting amongst themselves. They refused to accept the scientific discoveries of Galileo. That's one of the points of our Constitution, mutual protection from outsiders.
heavenlyboy34
08-11-2010, 04:47 PM
Hey, the Indians were decentralized, just like the AoC. How did that work out for them?
The Indians were Feudalist, not decentralized. Nice try, though.
heavenlyboy34
08-11-2010, 04:48 PM
LOL! Didn't know there were Hamiltonians pro central government statists at RPF. Finally got a good reason to add Galileo to my ignore list.
There are quite a few, actually. :(
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 04:49 PM
LOL! Didn't know there were Hamiltonians pro central government statists at RPF. Finally got a good reason to add Galileo to my ignore list.
No, I'm in favor of a small central government that our Founders supported, with about 2% of the GNP for the central government during peacetime and 4% during war time. You are a fanatic. That how we did in the US before 1913, excepting Lincoln.
heavenlyboy34
08-11-2010, 04:50 PM
The Indians were butchering each other for thousands of years. They were endlessly fighting amongst themselves. They refused to accept the scientific discoveries of Galileo. That's one of the points of our Constitution, mutual protection from outsiders.
Actually, not really. You're thinking of the militarist aspect of the Federalist regime. Again, see "The Myth Of National Defense".
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 04:50 PM
The Indians were Feudalist, not decentralized. Nice try, though.
Great, let's go back to the Middle Ages.
heavenlyboy34
08-11-2010, 04:56 PM
Great, let's go back to the Middle Ages.
:rolleyes: That has nothing to do with what I said, but enjoy your red herring.
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 05:02 PM
:rolleyes: That has nothing to do with what I said, but enjoy your red herring.
You are just playing word games. The fact is, your extreme brand of decentralization leads to disaster. It lead to disaster in South America and it lead to disaster for the Indians.
I'm in favor of a small limited central government defined by the Constitution prior to 1913, which means a 2% of GNP share for the central government in peacetime and 4% in wartime. All the US presidents prior to Wilson stuck to this, excepting Lincoln, who won in a fluke election. This is as close to 100% liberty as you can get. You live in a fantasy world.
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 05:04 PM
Great, Austrian economics is in second place. How'd that work out for Peter Schiff, besides extracting 3 million out of the pro-liberty movement.
low preference guy
08-11-2010, 05:13 PM
You are just playing word games. The fact is, your extreme brand of decentralization leads to disaster. It lead to disaster in South America
Just want to chime in that as someone from South America, this statement is hilariously wrong. If you want to see strong central governments, look at the present and past of South America.
Vessol
08-11-2010, 05:14 PM
Great, Austrian economics is in second place. How'd that work out for Peter Schiff, besides extracting 3 million out of the pro-liberty movement.
Who pissed in your cheerios?
low preference guy
08-11-2010, 05:17 PM
Who pissed in your cheerios?
He is still hurt that Schiff made fun of truthers.
Schiff was a joke, and all he did was lecture people about Austrian economics and make stupid comments about 9/11.
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 05:21 PM
Just want to chime in that as someone from South America, this statement is hilariously wrong. If you want to see strong central governments, look at the present and past of South America.
South America doesn't have a central government. The states there have been fighting each other and living in poverty since the early 1800s. If not for the Monroe Doctrine, the South American states would have been chopped up and exploited even worse by European powers like they did to Africa in the late 1800s. You are completely full of it. If you think things are so bad here, then please get out and move down there.
Sentient Void
08-11-2010, 05:22 PM
Point out the gun in the room. Talk about respect for individual rights and the idea that 'my freedom extends to where yours begins'.
Then point out that they live their life and interact with people on a day-to-day basis by mostly libertarian principles as is... yet when it comes to the federal government (which is really just an abstraction, it's just another group of individuals) - there's a logical disconnect, and we give other individuals rights that we ourselves don't have.
I'm not saying try to convince people of anarcho-capitalism or voluntarism, etc... most people will shut down because of their stockholm syndrome to the state... but talk about wanting to *maximize* individual liberty and *minimize* state coercion as much as possible.
Point out that throughout history and to this day, private enterprise has done anything and everything the federal government does - but better and cheaper, and without coercion or taxpayer dollars.
I could go on, but I usually *start* with finding out what the person personally cares about and then focus on that in regards to libertarian philosophy and why the libertarian solution is the best one. For attempted rebuttals, point out the logical fallacies and slippery slopes, but in a non-condescending and non-combative way... use the 'Socratic Method' if possible in order to get them to come to the conclusion you want themselves - that way they own it and won't be so defensive.
Vessol
08-11-2010, 05:25 PM
South America doesn't have a central government. The states there have been fighting each other and living in poverty since the early 1800s. If not for the Monroe Doctrine, the South American states would have been chopped up and exploited even worse by European powers like they did to Africa in the late 1800s. You are completely full of it. If you think things are so bad here, then please get out and move down there.
North America doesn't have a central government either.
Just an FYI.
low preference guy
08-11-2010, 05:25 PM
South America doesn't have a central government. The states there have been fighting each other and living in poverty since the early 1800s. If not for the Monroe Doctrine, the South American states would have been chopped up and exploited even worse by European powers like they did to Africa in the late 1800s. You are completely full of it. If you think things are so bad here, then please get out and move down there.
Countries in South America have strong central governments. South America is not a country. I said South America is bad because their governments are so centralized... and from that you take that I like South America better? You forgot to take your thinking pills today.
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 05:30 PM
North America doesn't have a central government either.
Just an FYI.
It does. The United States encompasses almost all of North America, excepting the frozen tundra of sparsely populated Canada.
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 05:35 PM
Countries in South America have strong central governments. South America is not a country. I said South America is bad because their governments are so centralized... and from that you take that I like South America better? You forgot to take your thinking pills today.
If you think things are better in South America than North America, then you need your pills. The independent states there never unified like in North America. Face it pal, your extreme version of decentralization doesn't work. James Madison proved this a long time ago, and subsequent history has only confirmed it. Your ideas simply don't work in the real word. All you do is try to play word games to ram them into your bogus theory. Take a look at the concept of manifest destiny like our Founding Fathers did.
Vessol
08-11-2010, 05:37 PM
He has never once said that he thought South America was better. Stop throwing strawman's dude.
He just simply said that the nations in South America have a very long history of tyrannical central governments which treat their people like garbage.
low preference guy
08-11-2010, 05:37 PM
If you think things are better in South America than North America, then you need your pills.
Where did I say things are better in South America?
Face it pal, your extreme version of decentralization doesn't work.
Do you have any quote to back up that I have an "extreme version of decentralization"?
Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else?
Are you drunk?
djdellisanti4
08-11-2010, 05:41 PM
No option for Friedman?
Tons of people loved him!
Sure he isn't a "perfect libertarian", but he did get some of our ideas implemented and he inspired many people I think.
Galileo Galilei
08-11-2010, 05:42 PM
He has never once said that he thought South America was better. Stop throwing strawman's dude.
He just simply said that the nations in South America have a very long history of tyrannical central governments which treat their people like garbage.
Great. And South Carolina had a tyrannical government. But South Carolina recovered.
low preference guy
08-11-2010, 05:43 PM
No option for Friedman?
Tons of people loved him!
Sure he isn't a "perfect libertarian", but he did get some of our ideas implemented and he inspired many people I think.
One of the fathers of tax withholding who also blamed the Great Depression on the Fed not printing enough money is a really good representative of statism.
Vessol
08-11-2010, 05:46 PM
Great. And South Carolina had a tyrannical government. But South Carolina recovered.
What? You're making zero sense in what you are saying..
All we've simply said is that South American nations have had and continue to have a long history of centralized governments. This is a fact. Oftentimes they were supported by America also. Look at Pinochet or Videla.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/SouthAmerica.html
Good list of South American dictators. All whom ran a very large and powerful central government.
low preference guy
08-11-2010, 05:48 PM
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/SouthAmerica.html
Good list of South American dictators. All whom ran a very large and powerful central government.
Nice website. Saved the URL. Neat examples of what extreme decentralization looks like.
djdellisanti4
08-11-2010, 05:51 PM
One of the fathers of tax withholding who also blamed the Great Depression on the Fed not printing enough money is a really good representative of statism.
Never said he was perfect but Friedman was well known and I'm sure he brought a lot of people in the libertarian fold.
Great, you support natural law. That means you support the Law of the Jungle.
Two things: if you conclude this about "natural law" then you don't know what the term means. Next, why do you need to be so strident in your responses? It is counterproductive.
WhiteHaven
08-11-2010, 06:26 PM
The Constitution. It should be the only Law of the land as far as a federal government goes.
heavenlyboy34
08-11-2010, 06:31 PM
The Constitution. It should be the only Law of the land as far as a federal government goes.
To be clear, does this mean you favor repealing the USC (United States Code)? I've long been a fan of this myself. :cool:
AlexMerced
08-11-2010, 07:22 PM
Who checked off Nativist? I figured someone would check that (facepalm)
How about our rights come from our creator God, not from the govt and that God gave us all free will. Therefore, the govt should be as small as possible by not having an income tax, and massive regulaton so that we can be as free as possible to keep the fruits of our labor and own our on bodies. You would gain a lot of points with the people of faith
Vessol
08-11-2010, 07:39 PM
How about our rights come from our creator God, not from the govt and that God gave us all free will. Therefore, the govt should be as small as possible by not having an income tax, and massive regulaton so that we can be as free as possible to keep the fruits of our labor and own our on bodies. You would gain a lot of points with the people of faith
Come on little timmy, you know you want to turn to the dark side of Ancap!
AlexMerced
08-11-2010, 07:48 PM
Come on little timmy, you know you want to turn to the dark side of Ancap!
FTW
Ancap for the win, but once the era of Anarchy begins, people are free start voluntary communities of any system long as they don't attack my lovely Ancap community
Come on little timmy, you know you want to turn to the dark side of Ancap!
lol I'm pretty damn close to being for no govt at all, just not quite there yet. I will say I think govt is to big at 1% of GDP.
BuddyRey
08-11-2010, 08:19 PM
point out the gun in the room. Talk about respect for individual rights and the idea that 'my freedom extends to where yours begins'.
Then point out that they live their life and interact with people on a day-to-day basis by mostly libertarian principles as is... Yet when it comes to the federal government (which is really just an abstraction, it's just another group of individuals) - there's a logical disconnect, and we give other individuals rights that we ourselves don't have.
I'm not saying try to convince people of anarcho-capitalism or voluntarism, etc... Most people will shut down because of their stockholm syndrome to the state... But talk about wanting to *maximize* individual liberty and *minimize* state coercion as much as possible.
Point out that throughout history and to this day, private enterprise has done anything and everything the federal government does - but better and cheaper, and without coercion or taxpayer dollars.
I could go on, but i usually *start* with finding out what the person personally cares about and then focus on that in regards to libertarian philosophy and why the libertarian solution is the best one. For attempted rebuttals, point out the logical fallacies and slippery slopes, but in a non-condescending and non-combative way... Use the 'socratic method' if possible in order to get them to come to the conclusion you want themselves - that way they own it and won't be so defensive.
+1776!!!
AlexMerced
08-11-2010, 08:36 PM
lol I'm pretty damn close to being for no govt at all, just not quite there yet. I will say I think govt is to big at 1% of GDP.
read the last two months worth of articles at LibertyIsNow.com and you'll drop the 1 and carry the 0
michaelwise
08-11-2010, 08:44 PM
I would add, "Complete and total economic collapse" to the poll.
Romulus
08-12-2010, 08:00 AM
Humanity.
wizardwatson
08-12-2010, 08:10 AM
"One of the best reasons for guarding ourselves against doing harm to anyone is to preserve our capacity for compassion. For we cannot pity those we have wronged." "One would rather see the world run by men who set their hearts on toys but are accessible to pity, than by men animated by lofty ideals whose dedication makes them ruthless. In the chemistry of man's soul, almost all noble attributes - courage, honor, hope, faith, duty, loyalty, etc. - can be transmuted into ruthlessness. Compassion alone stands apart from the continuous traffic between good and evil proceeding within us." "It is compassion rather than the principle of justice which can guard us against being unjust to our fellow men." - Eric Hoffer, The Passionate State of Mind
Bruce Lee reprinted this (bolded part) in his "Tao of Jeet Kune Do" but I think Hoffer is the source.
People talk a lot about "justice" and "logic" and all that crap a lot, but I like to believe that most of us here actually have compassion for humanity, that is why we care so much about justice, its the only tool the compassionate have to protect others. But as the quote says, it isn't "justice" that brought us to justice, but compassion.
Galileo Galilei
08-12-2010, 10:29 AM
What? You're making zero sense in what you are saying..
All we've simply said is that South American nations have had and continue to have a long history of centralized governments. This is a fact. Oftentimes they were supported by America also. Look at Pinochet or Videla.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/SouthAmerica.html
Good list of South American dictators. All whom ran a very large and powerful central government.
There is nothing close to a central government in South America. Each of the many states have been involved in continuous civil war, anarchy, and tyranny since 200 years ago. There has been a never ending array of alliances, backstabbing, coup d'etats and other abuse.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.