Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 128

Thread: I sometimes struggle with the concept of Libertarianism.

  1. #1

    I sometimes struggle with the concept of Libertarianism.

    For instance, I know Ron Paul is for an open border but Libertarianism for me in a nutshell is the freedom for a person to do as he/she pleases as long as it does not negatively affect the lives of others.

    An open border does help benefit people south of this country looking for opportunities, but at the same time we have to protect the people in this country and their jobs. In my view, Trumps style of politics is not necessarily the same as Ron Paul, I don't see him as an authoritarian as some others do. I see no problem with Nationalism either as Trump puts this nation's concerns first, and concerns of other nations second.


    I could go on and on with examples of this personal conflict, but my point is, "Don't tread on me" means to me that sometimes we have to regulate our freedoms in order to protect other freedoms.

    My stances are still pretty much the same as I support Trump as they were when I supported Ron Paul. I wish the two forces were more aligned.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    "Sometimes tread on me"? Regulated freedom is as oxymoronic as "free speech zones".

    Anything that isn't libertarian is authoritarian. Trump is unequivocally authoritarian.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by 4_God_N_Country View Post
    For instance, I know Ron Paul is for an open border but Libertarianism for me in a nutshell is the freedom for a person to do as he/she pleases as long as it does not negatively affect the lives of others.

    An open border does help benefit people south of this country looking for opportunities, but at the same time we have to protect the people in this country and their jobs. In my view, Trumps style of politics is not necessarily the same as Ron Paul, I don't see him as an authoritarian as some others do. I see no problem with Nationalism either as Trump puts this nation's concerns first, and concerns of other nations second.


    I could go on and on with examples of this personal conflict, but my point is, "Don't tread on me" means to me that sometimes we have to regulate our freedoms in order to protect other freedoms.

    My stances are still pretty much the same as I support Trump as they were when I supported Ron Paul. I wish the two forces were more aligned.
    You cannot have open borders without eliminating the entire govt funded welfare system, every last ounce of it .

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III View Post
    Trump is unequivocally authoritarian.
    I would love to hear of some examples.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III View Post
    "Sometimes tread on me"?
    More like, Don't tread on me, don't tread on others and I won't tread on you.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    You cannot have open borders without eliminating the entire govt funded welfare system, every last ounce of it .
    Open borders are a dream of George Soros and the NWO. I can only imagine how much worse the refugee crisis would be if they opened the borders in Europe to all of the middle east.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by 4_God_N_Country View Post
    I would love to hear of some examples.
    You claim to have supported Ron Paul, have you heard anything Trump has said, ever?

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III View Post
    You claim to have supported Ron Paul, have you heard anything Trump has said, ever?
    On a daily basis. Like I mentioned above, protection of my freedoms is part of Libertarianism for me. Trump is very proactive in the protection arena.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    I know Ron Paul is for an open border
    Where did you get that impression? An interview from several decades ago?
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Where did you get that impression? An interview from several decades ago?
    No, I just saw current video from his show where he was against Trumps border wall.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by 4_God_N_Country View Post
    On a daily basis. Like I mentioned above, protection of my freedoms is part of Libertarianism for me. Trump is very proactive in the protection arena.
    Then how do you not know how incredibly authoritarian Trump is?
    I am the spoon.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by 4_God_N_Country View Post
    No, I just saw current video from his show where he was against Trumps border wall.
    So you concluded Ron is for open borders?
    I am the spoon.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by 4_God_N_Country View Post
    On a daily basis. Like I mentioned above, protection of my freedoms is part of Libertarianism for me. Trump is very proactive in the protection arena.
    Protection from what? Your freedoms?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by 4_God_N_Country View Post
    On a daily basis. Like I mentioned above, protection of my freedoms is part of Libertarianism for me. Trump is very proactive in the protection arena.
    Just bite the pillow and relax your 'huge' protection will only hurt if you fight...

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Just bite the pillow and relax your 'huge' protection will only hurt if you fight...
    *Yuge
    I am the spoon.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III View Post
    *Yuge
    I've got this speech impediment that comes with age and geographical location and am unable to type such succinct verbiage..

    Thank you so much for the edit.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Eh. "Libertarians", themselves, struggle with libertarianism. Now they're contending, under the banner of Liberty itself, that they'd send men from the government with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their principal supporting right to Life and Liberty itself and that it's also worthy consideration to sign off on an official illegal transfer of power from The People over to a King along with being open to Universal Basic Incomes derived from carbon tax revenue. That's just scwewy. And if you're not with us, well then, by golly, you're against us. Heh. Makes me want to whistle freakin Dixie alright.

    Apparently Liberty doesn't mean, today, what it meant back in the day when our founders declared it.

    At least Trump doesn't have the stones and blatant dishonesty to maintain that he's going to force Individuls and groups of Individuals to lick government boots at the ends of the barrels of their guns under the banner of Liberty.

    Is Trump an authoritarian? Absolutely. But he sure as heck doesn't try to disguise his authoritarianism under the cloak of Liberty. At least he's honest about his authoritarianism. He's not a sneak. He's at least a right proper, in your face, respectable kind of tyrant and not the kind that'd sit down with you at your own table, in your own house, break bread with you and smile at you until the second you turn around and shoves a knife in the middle of your back.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-22-2016 at 05:51 AM.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by 4_God_N_Country View Post
    sometimes we have to regulate our freedoms in order to protect other freedoms.
    Another product of the Publik Kollectivist Factory.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Eh. "Libertarians", themselves, struggle with libertarianism. Now they're contending, under the banner of Liberty itself, that they'd send men from the government with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their principal supporting right to Life and Liberty itself and that it's also worthy consideration to sign off on an official illegal transfer of power from The People over to a King along with being open to Universal Basic Incomes derived from carbon tax revenue. That's just scwewy. And if you're not with us, well then, by golly, you're against us. Heh. Makes me want to whistle freakin Dixie alright.

    Apparently Liberty doesn't mean, today, what it meant back in the day when our founders declared it.

    At least Trump doesn't have the stones and blatant dishonesty to maintain that he's going to force Individuls and groups of Individuals to lick government boots at the ends of the barrels of their guns under the banner of Liberty.

    Is Trump an authoritarian? Absolutely. But he sure as heck doesn't try to disguise his authoritarianism under the cloak of Liberty. At least he's honest about his authoritarianism. He's not a sneak. He's at least a right proper, in your face, respectable kind of tyrant and not the kind that'd sit down with you at your own table, in your own house, break bread with you and smile at you until the second you turn around and shoves a knife in the middle of your back.
    Can you give me one example of his authoritarianism?

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Suzanimal View Post
    Protection from what? Your freedoms?
    Go back and read the point I made. Sometimes we have to limit freedoms (such as open borders) in order to protect the freedom (a wall) of the people living here from outside threats.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Another product of the Publik Kollectivist Factory.
    So you are ok with refugees and illegals coming over the border taking jobs and committing crimes?

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I've got this speech impediment that comes with age and geographical location and am unable to type such succinct verbiage..

    Thank you so much for the edit.
    Its ok I understand, you are a little special.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by 4_God_N_Country View Post
    Libertarianism for me in a nutshell is the freedom for a person to do as he/she pleases as long as it does not negatively affect the lives of others.
    That's a good nutshell definition.

    An open border does help benefit people south of this country looking for opportunities, but at the same time we have to protect the people in this country and their jobs.
    But this is why nutshells are best left for snacktime. Clear definitions of concepts are needed to analyze complex issues like immigration.

    Libertarians advocate (in your phrase) "the freedom for a person to do as he/she pleases as long as it does not negatively affect the lives of others" but have a very precise definition of what it means to "negatively affect the lives of others." It doesn't mean any action which causes anything which anyone doesn't like (the color I paint my house annoys my neighbor, me selling my house depresses property values for my neighbors, etc). It means a property rights violation: seizing or causing damage to someone else's property (including their body).

    (for more rigorous definitions of "property rights violation" and other key concepts, see here)

    A Mexican outcompeting an American in the labor market (e.g. because he's willing to accept lower pay) in no way violates the property rights of the American. The state forcibly preventing an employer from hiring who he pleases, or forcibly preventing a worker (of whatever nationality) from doing a job he was hired to do is a violation of both of their property rights.

    From a libertarian point of view, there is zero difference between immigration restrictions to "protect our jobs" and labor unions.

    Both involve the state using force to violate the rights of some workers (and employers) to subsidize others.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 08-22-2016 at 10:22 AM.

  27. #24
    Regulated freedoms are not freedoms. They are permissions. There are some things for which we should never have to ask for permission. They are in the Constitution.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That's a good nutshell definition.



    But this is why nutshells are best left for snacktime. Clear definitions of concepts are needed to analyze complex issues like immigration.

    Libertarians advocate (in your phrase) "the freedom for a person to do as he/she pleases as long as it does not negatively affect the lives of others" but have a very precise definition of what it means to "negatively affect the lives of others." It doesn't mean any action which causes anything which anyone doesn't like (the color I paint my house annoys my neighbor, me selling my house depresses property values for my neighbors, etc). It means a property rights violation: seizing or causing damage to someone else's property (including their body).

    (for more rigorous definitions of "property rights violation" and other key concepts, see here)

    A Mexican outcompeting an American in the labor market (e.g. because he's willing to accept lower pay) in no way violates the property rights of the American. The state forcibly preventing an employer from hiring who he pleases, or forcibly preventing a worker (of whatever nationality) from doing a job he was hired to do is a violation of both of their property rights.

    From a libertarian point of view, there is zero difference between immigration restrictions to "protect our jobs" and labor unions.

    Both involve the state using force to violate the rights of some workers (and employers) to subsidize others.
    I think your definition is more like anarchy. Jobs is one thing, but what about crime? If crime is on the increase from outsiders then I think a solution to curve that crime rate is to take preventative measures like a wall to protect the people who live in this country.
    Last edited by 4_God_N_Country; 08-22-2016 at 10:29 AM.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    Regulated freedoms are not freedoms. They are permissions. There are some things for which we should never have to ask for permission. They are in the Constitution.
    Show me one freedom that is not regulated.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Eh. "Libertarians", themselves, struggle with libertarianism. Now they're contending, under the banner of Liberty itself, that they'd send men from the government with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their principal supporting right to Life and Liberty itself and that it's also worthy consideration to sign off on an official illegal transfer of power from The People over to a King along with being open to Universal Basic Incomes derived from carbon tax revenue.
    Are you talking about Johnson? Because the overwhelming majority of actual libertarians here have been calling him out on his bull$#@! since the last election cycle. The only positive I've seen written about him on this site is that he's got 50 state ballot access. And I'll say the same thing about that which I repeated ad nauseum about Rand: it doesn't make a lick of difference how much popularity a candidate enjoys if they're preaching the wrong things.
    Long story short: the Libertarian Party has never missed an opportunity to $#@! up the message of libertarianism, ever, and isn't going to stop now. They're going to break their 4% threshold this year, but only because even with Johnson being a turd sandwich, he is less turdy than the other sandwiches.

    Quote Originally Posted by 4_God_N_Country View Post
    Go back and read the point I made. Sometimes we have to limit freedoms (such as open borders) in order to protect the freedom (a wall) of the people living here from outside threats.
    Yeah, thanks, Lee Greenwood. We all know the "freedom isn't free" saw even though it's right there in the $#@!ing word.
    If it's not free, then by definition it's not freedom.
    You go right on believing your intellectual cage will protect you from the boogeyman. I'll go right on pointing out how full of $#@! that argument is.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    A Mexican outcompeting an American in the labor market (e.g. because he's willing to accept lower pay) in no way violates the property rights of the American. The state forcibly preventing an employer from hiring who he pleases, or forcibly preventing a worker (of whatever nationality) from doing a job he was hired to do is a violation of both of their property rights.
    I know we've had our arguments in the past, but spot on, r3v.

    We all need to make our decisions about what freedoms we're able to live without in exchange for a promise to get something done.

    Also, some of us have already determined that this promise is exactly that - a promise, and nothing more.
    There is no way to get our money back when promises aren't delivered.
    There is no way to stop them pretending to try to achieve these goals when we change our mind.

    When you cede rights to the state, you are not guaranteed any compensation.
    Even if they promise to give it to you, you don't get it.
    It's a scam, and it's about time more people started picking up on that.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by 4_God_N_Country View Post
    Show me one freedom that is not regulated.
    Show me where you get the right to regulate my life, liberty or property.

    And be careful in doing so that you do not at the same time implicitly show me where I get the right to regulate YOUR life, liberty and property to whatever degree I deem "necessary".

    Your argument is EXACTLY the same as the socialist, as the totalitarian. We need "some" regulation of the rights of people. Well, who decides how much? Because once you concede that some regulation is needed, there can be no logical limitation on how much equals "some". Now you're in a dog fight with the rest of humanity on exactly how much of everybody's stuff everyone else is "entitled" to... Unless there is some universal constant which is self-evident(i.e., apparent through reason to all humans) which has eluded me, you're either free, or you are not.
    Last edited by A Son of Liberty; 08-22-2016 at 10:47 AM.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by 4_God_N_Country View Post
    For instance, I know Ron Paul is for an open border but Libertarianism for me in a nutshell is the freedom for a person to do as he/she pleases as long as it does not negatively affect the lives of others.

    An open border does help benefit people south of this country looking for opportunities, but at the same time we have to protect the people in this country and their jobs. In my view, Trumps style of politics is not necessarily the same as Ron Paul, I don't see him as an authoritarian as some others do. I see no problem with Nationalism either as Trump puts this nation's concerns first, and concerns of other nations second.


    I could go on and on with examples of this personal conflict, but my point is, "Don't tread on me" means to me that sometimes we have to regulate our freedoms in order to protect other freedoms.

    My stances are still pretty much the same as I support Trump as they were when I supported Ron Paul. I wish the two forces were more aligned.
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    My take from another thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    ...
    There will always be some rules or laws. How they are enforced and by whom will always be a debate. What rules to have will always be controversial. The fewer the better.

    But to argue that any given law will necessarily result in horrors such as "break down your door", checking everyone's "papers", and roadblock checkpoints everywhere could be applied to almost any law, thus are not valid against any law. Rather, how they are enforced and by whom is a question for any law.

    There are laws against murder. Reasonable enforcement of that law does not include continuous questioning of the entire population to look for murderers. But for every law, this must be guarded against. For example, in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, it can and should be argued that excessive and unreasonable tactics were used (city-wide lockdowns and military door to door searches). But this does not make a case for ignoring murder.

    It is reasonable to agree with a given law, but also agree on limiting enforcement tactics and by whom.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by 4_God_N_Country View Post
    Jobs is one thing, but what about crime?
    If by "crime" you mean property rights violations (murders, rape, robberies, etc), libertarians are of course in favor of punishing criminals.

    If crime is on the increase from outsiders then I think a solution to curve that crime rate is to take preventative measures like a wall to protect the people who live in this country.
    That would prevent some crimes, but at the cost of victimizing millions of innocent people.

    This is unjust.

    By way of analogy...

    Suppose it's known that there are 1000 murderers in Kentucky, deserving of execution, but whom the police for some reason can't catch.

    Would it be just to nuke Kentucky, killing everyone in the state, in order to execute those murderers?

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •