Jump to content

Welcome to The OFFICIAL Pure Pwnage forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Libertarianism In A Nutshell...


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
the thread on electoral reform meandered off topic...
the discussion started revolving around libertarianism...

here is a good introduction to the major pillars of libertarian philosophy


Edited by JimRaynor, 14 June 2009 - 09:24 AM.

QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#2
Dohregard

Dohregard

    Master Dohbator

  • GA Private
  • -32,944 posts
  • xfire:dohreguard
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Kansas City, KS
  • Steam ID:dohreguard
  • Xbox / GFWL:Dohregard
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
  • Wii:209737188728753
  • Rofl-Rupees:5
  • Gamer Army ID:3070
  • Company:Foxtrot
This is a very flimsy topic, tbh.

Dohregard
Crap IT Manager
Flickr
cdyw1.gif


#3
TubularLuggage

TubularLuggage
  • Members
  • 5,221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sackville, NS
  • Interests:Rock/Metal, Drumming, film making, my woman
Basics of Libertarianism;

Socially liberal. Fiscally conservative. Emphasis on personal liberties and smaller government.

Thread over.
IPB Image

#4
Emotive

Emotive
  • Members
  • 2,175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 14 2009, 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Socially liberal. Fiscally conservative. Emphasis on personal liberties and smaller government.


all of that sounds great. where do i sign up?

#5
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 14 2009, 02:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Basics of Libertarianism;
Socially liberal. Fiscally conservative. Emphasis on personal liberties and smaller government.
Thread over.

<face palm>
http://www.libertari...rtarianism.html
straight from the Libertarian Party of Canada Web Site.
"The Libertarian answer is that government power must be used only to protect the individual from the use of force or fraud by others."

Without Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead the philosophical foundation for libertarianism would not exist.
Absolutes and principles... no "emphasizing" personal liberties.

You better start doing 3 hail marys every time Ayn Rand's name is mentioned around your "libertarian" friends.. or you'll get kicked out of the club.

Seriously, do you socialize with any established Canadian libertarians?
or do you just like the party logo?

QUOTE (Emotive @ Jun 14 2009, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
all of that sounds great. where do i sign up?

do a google search on "Ayn Rand" or "Nathaniel Branden" ...
in the USA the Libertarian Party is clearly #3 behind Republicans and Democrats.
If you believe in the views espoused in the video by Miss Rand.. then you might like the philosophy and the political movement.

QUOTE (Dohregard @ Jun 14 2009, 12:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is a very flimsy topic, tbh.

i think the topic is deep.

Edited by JimRaynor, 14 June 2009 - 05:57 PM.

QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#6
TubularLuggage

TubularLuggage
  • Members
  • 5,221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sackville, NS
  • Interests:Rock/Metal, Drumming, film making, my woman
There's a difference between an ideology and a political party.

For example, the Conservative Party of Canada is not at all fiscally conservative.
I realize I have a LPC logo as my avatar, but that's only because it's a clear identifier of libertarianism.

I find your attitude regarding the whole thing kind of sickening. You're being a smug douche for absolutely no reason.

Edited by TubularLuggage, 14 June 2009 - 06:18 PM.

IPB Image

#7
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 14 2009, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There's a difference between an ideology and a political party.
For example, the Conservative Party of Canada is not at all fiscally conservative.
I realize I have a LPC logo as my avatar, but that's only because it's a clear identifier of libertarianism.


straight from the Libertarian Party of Canada Web Site.
"The Libertarian answer is that government power must be used only to protect the individual from the use of force or fraud by others."

QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 14 2009, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I find your attitude regarding the whole thing kind of sickening. You're being a smug douche for absolutely no reason.

you're right on that point.. i apologize.. i just get excited when talking libertarianism... and sometimes.. i just cant control myself.

The Libertarian Party of Canada will never endorse socialized medicine because the proper purpose of government is to ban force and fraud from human relations. This is because man's mind is his method of survival. Therefore, to live as human ... human beings must always deal with each other through reason and not force. Therefore, the Libertarian government could never enforce government run medical care. Each interaction/relation between doctor and patient would be voluntary.

If the Libertarian Party of Canada began endorsing government run medical care it would have to change its name.
QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#8
way2lazy2care

way2lazy2care
  • Members
  • 10,808 posts
  • Xbox / GFWL:way2lazy2care
  • PSN:A1R5N1P3R
QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 14 2009, 01:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Basics of Libertarianism;

Socially liberal. Fiscally conservative. Emphasis on personal liberties and smaller government.

Thread over.

this...
SPAMBOTSTOOKOVERMYSITE D:
Give me LoL Referals.

QUOTE (Virus52 @ Mar 3 2008, 09:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND MIGHTY MOTH!

QUOTE (SN3S @ May 6 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No sensuality; this is all for fitness.

#9
Majiffy The Magic Admin

Majiffy The Magic Admin
  • Banned
  • 152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, NY
  • Xbox / GFWL:MJFI
  • PSN:41R5N1P3R
QUOTE (way2lazy2care @ Jun 14 2009, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
this...

tbh. Also, seeing as how this is an informative thread, it really doesn't belong in debate. Reported for a move.

EDIT- Nvm, already been reported... lol

Edited by Majiffy The Magic Admin, 14 June 2009 - 07:20 PM.


#10
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (way2lazy2care @ Jun 14 2009, 08:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
this...

yes this thread is over.
TubularLuggage is incorrect
i am correct.
<<standing ovation>>
<<applause>>
"this IS John Galt speaking...."


QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#11
Majiffy The Magic Admin

Majiffy The Magic Admin
  • Banned
  • 152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, NY
  • Xbox / GFWL:MJFI
  • PSN:41R5N1P3R
QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Jun 14 2009, 08:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
yes this thread is over.
TubularLuggage is incorrect
i am correct.
<<standing ovation>>
<<applause>>
"this IS John Galt speaking...."

Let me correct you here.
This thread is over.
TubbularLuggage is a cool guy, who respects others opinions and thinks about things before he types.
You are a self absorbed buttfag who likes to watch gay midgets cum all over each other.
<<standing ovation>>
<<applause>>
"you can piss off now"

#12
DethFanatic

DethFanatic

    Best RTS Contributor 08!

  • GA Private
  • 3,079 posts
  • xfire:dethfanatic533
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Melbourne, Aus
  • Interests:STARCRAFT 2 BETA YEAAAAAAH<br /><br />Studying Journalism at University (First year).
  • Wii:0129147163791720
  • Gamer Army ID:1048
QUOTE
JIM:
you pretty much just restated my definition. Unless you just copied and pasted without really understanding what I said.
i did not say the neurosurgeon was in violation of libertarian principles.


then you would not qualify as a libertarian nor does the other guy with the libertarian logo for an avatar.
there would be no "control" of the healthcare system. Each health care practitioner would perform his or her duties as they see fit.


vague bromide.... nice copy paste
Libertarian philosophy delineates a precise purpose for government.
Government is never a "necessary evil".


vague bromide.
LOL great copy and paste job.
libertarianism works well because it is congruent with human nature.


ah bahahaha i love these accusations of copy pasta. Just because you think you are so smart because you somehow have a heightened sense of knowledge about libetarianism, right?

Only thing i copied was the quote, the other material in my post is 100% my own reasoning and opinions from what I have developed over the years.

I would label you as a fundamentalist libertarian (like the fundamentalist definition i posted in the other thread), simply because you are one of these types (see: fundamentalism and fundamentalist christians) that believes that your definition and practice of libertarianism is very closed, and unopen to change/deviations from previously established principles.

You say libertarianism works well because it is congruent with human nature? Well i disagree. It is humanities greed, and chaos that has so many people striving for power. People with power over others in contrast with libertarian views is commonplace in the world today - it is for this reason that I have a firm conviction that a fundamental practice of libertarianism is impossible due to human nature.

And no, I dont consider myself a libertarian.

P.S. also, you did say that you thought the neurosurgeon was in violation of libertarian principles,
QUOTE
A libertarian is someone who believes physical force ought to be banned from all human relations. Including tax collector, government bureaucrat and neurosurgeon.


Just sayin.

And my definition left room for retaliation of force in self defence, whereas yours did not. So no jim, i was not simply restating your definition.


QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 15 2009, 09:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There's a difference between an ideology and a political party.

For example, the Conservative Party of Canada is not at all fiscally conservative.
I realize I have a LPC logo as my avatar, but that's only because it's a clear identifier of libertarianism.

I find your attitude regarding the whole thing kind of sickening. You're being a smug douche for absolutely no reason.



QUOTE (Majiffy The Magic Admin @ Jun 15 2009, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Let me correct you here.
This thread is over.
TubbularLuggage is a cool guy, who respects others opinions and thinks about things before he types.
You are a self absorbed buttfag who likes to watch gay midgets cum all over each other.
<<standing ovation>>
<<applause>>
"you can piss off now"



Also, these.

(lol'd hard guys).

Also, I definately accept Tubular's modern definition of libertarianism. Those 3 principles are basically the underlying key of any libertarian philosophy that could possibly work in todays society, even though i doubt the world would ever really embrace such large change to our existing political systems.

#13
Majiffy The Magic Admin

Majiffy The Magic Admin
  • Banned
  • 152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, NY
  • Xbox / GFWL:MJFI
  • PSN:41R5N1P3R
I think we should just make everyone worldwide eat half an ounce of mushrooms and veg out for a few days. Then we can come back and all discuss the problems of the world, we'll have a healthy, peaceful society by the end of the week.

#14
Internet Casualty

Internet Casualty
  • Members
  • 15 posts
QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Jun 14 2009, 03:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
the thread on electoral reform meandered off topic...
the discussion started revolving around libertarianism...

here is a good introduction to the major pillars of libertarian philosophy



1) Libertarianism is neither 'philosophy' nor 'a philosophy'.
2) Ayn Rand sucks ass, brah!

QUOTE (TubularLuggage @ Jun 14 2009, 07:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Basics of Libertarianism;

Socially liberal. Fiscally conservative. Emphasis on personal liberties and smaller government.

Thread over.


That definition only holds any sway in the US and Canada. Libertarianism, from a political science point of view, has always referred to social libertarianism principles, i.e. lack of intervention in the private lives of citizens. The notion of it being connected to right-wing economic policies - for most of the world, atleast - is complete anathema. Historically it was predominantly applied to various strains of anarchism, democratic socialism and social democratic movements.

QUOTE (JimRaynor)
The Libertarian Party of Canada will never endorse socialized medicine because the proper purpose of government is to ban force and fraud from human relations. This is because man's mind is his method of survival. Therefore, to live as human ... human beings must always deal with each other through reason and not force.


All forms of goverment are inherently based upon the application of force, fraud and violence to human relations; how can you possibly think that the proper task of something is to fix that which it is by definition designed to do?
As for the rest, you took that straight out of Rand; as such, its entire basis is one of neo-aristotelianism. The entire reasoning process for this (rather petty and banal) observation's prescriptive power is Aristotle's notions of entities deriving meaning from the fulfillment of a preordained essence, the human essence being that which is connected to the logos, or the intellectual order of the universe, in the same way that an axe's essence is that of hacking. This notion is based upon a telelogical view of nature - and given your obvious Randroidism, I'll go ahead and assume you're an atheist, and as such cannot possibly defend the view that the universe is as it is due to a progression towards a preexisting goal and purpose in and of itself. As such, you really have no grounds to prescribe reason as better than non-reason, nonviolence as better than violence; all you're really saying is "people should act like people!!!", without actually producing anything that is compelling. A description of action does not have have any prescriptive power; if you disagree, take it up with Hume.
You're glossing over two thousand years of philosophical debate upon the nature of morals, also. There are very good reasons to think that morality is innately ILLOGICAL - a belief which completely undermines any notions of rational personal interactions you may have.

More to the point, though, WHY is force any less important a part of human interaction than reason? Both are quite obviously employed by human beings on a daily basis, and it would not be hard to argue that force is generally the more effective and productive of the two. To quote somebody I think you'll admire, "We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil": why should I not apply my force for the furthering of my own existence? Given the laissez-faire economic nature of 'libertarian' economic theory, i.e. one that is based entirely upon the exploitation of others for the economic furthering of oneself (simple example: a factory worker must, by definition, produce substantially more wealth than they recieve in payment for their services over-and-above the cost of renting the tools necessary for this service), why should I not employ force in the same way? Is not denying this part of ourselves not just another form of life-denial and self-hatred, which you are supposedly so against?

QUOTE (JimRaynor)
Therefore, the Libertarian government could never enforce government run medical care. Each interaction/relation between doctor and patient would be voluntary.

The refusal to intervene is an intervention in itself. Take a crime example: if you see a person being raped in the street, would you not only have the right to intervene to prevent it, but the duty to do so? Would the refusal to do so not be a conscious decision which itself impacted upon the world, and therefore transferred some of the responsibility of the rapist onto yourself? Healthcare is little different.
This, ofcourse, is based upon notions of innocence which can be argued not to apply - people themselves have a responsibility to provide for themselves - but what about children? How can a society that fails to provide medical care, education, social work and shelter to children be deemed 'free' or 'meritocratic', both of which being key ideals of traditional libertarianism? There is no conflict of merit in the life of a dying child - it is never given the opportunity. How could these services be fitted into a libertarian society? And if they cannot, how can it be termed 'libertarian' when it is contrary to individual liberty?

Edited by Internet Casualty, 15 June 2009 - 07:17 AM.


#15
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (DethFanatic @ Jun 15 2009, 04:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
ah bahahaha i love these accusations of copy pasta. Just because you think you are so smart because you somehow have a heightened sense of knowledge about libetarianism, right?
Only thing i copied was the quote, the other material in my post is 100% my own reasoning and opinions from what I have developed over the years.
P.S. also, you did say that you thought the neurosurgeon was in violation of libertarian principles,

can you find the statement i made where i claimed the "neurosurgeon" violates libertarian principles?
but i'm glad you agreed with me on the essentials of libertarianism.. without that this Luggage guy would've thought it was a "personal attack"...

QUOTE (DethFanatic @ Jun 15 2009, 04:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
fundamentalist libertarian

this term does not exist
the essentials defined by me, you(in your initial post), Ayn Rand and the Libertarian Party of Canada are it..
there is no distinction between a "modern libertarian" and a "fundamental libertarian" LOL
you were better off copying and pasting.. and maybe changing 2 or 3 words...maybe a verb tense of two...you were on firmer ground icon_smile.gif
TubularLuggage's definition does not describe "modern libertarianism" ..another made up term
The biggest influence on libertarian thinking in the "modern times" would be Ayn Rand. The stance on socialized medicine (the original sticking point i brought up with TubularLuggage) has not changed from 1789 to now. Libertarians oppose socialized medicine and interference by government in medical care. They did 200 years ago and they do now.
nice attempted smear job though icon_smile.gif

i dont have a "heightened sense of knowledge"
to quote Miss Rand herself: "i know what i know".... no "sensing" involved here...
i'm not a libertarian but i took a couple of courses


QUOTE (Majiffy The Magic Admin @ Jun 14 2009, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
TubbularLuggage is a cool guy, who respects others opinions and thinks about things before he types.

TubularLuggage may be all of these wonderful things.
TubularLuggae is not a Libertarian
According to the Libertarian Party of Canada's publicly published guidelines..
As already posted here...
its a nice avatar though...

QUOTE (DethFanatic @ Jun 15 2009, 04:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It is humanities greed, and chaos that has so many people striving for power. People with power over others in contrast with libertarian views is commonplace in the world today - it is for this reason that I have a firm conviction that a fundamental practice of libertarianism is impossible due to human nature.

Nature of a human: man survives by the functioning of his reasoning mind...
therefore, physical force between humans is anti human.
therefore, banning force between humans is the only proper role of state
that's the libertarian vision of how its philosophy and political system is congruent with human nature

as far as "power" goes... you can attain whatever "power" you like.. as long as it does not involved the initiation of force(or its cousin fraud) upon other humans...


QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 15 2009, 08:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
1) Libertarianism is neither 'philosophy' nor 'a philosophy'.

the term has been used in a philosophical sense since 1789.
The "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" contains an extensive defintion of "Libertarianism"

Nice long post.. if a few of your "facts" were true... it'd be even better.

Edited by JimRaynor, 15 June 2009 - 12:27 PM.

QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#16
Internet Casualty

Internet Casualty
  • Members
  • 15 posts
QUOTE (JimRaynor)
Nature of a human: man survives by the functioning of his reasoning mind...


Without an aristotelian teleology, the nature of man is what man does. Man employs violence = nature of man is violent; man does not employ violent = nature of man is not violent: which of these conforms to reality?

QUOTE (JimRaynor)
therefore, physical force between humans is anti human.


So what? Why do we have a RESPONSIBILITY to be what we are? What's wrong with being anti-human? Description is not prescription. Saying what man DOES do has nothing to say on the matter of what man OUGHT to do.

QUOTE (JimRaynor)
therefore, banning force between humans is the only proper role of state


Banning force by enacting force. Rightly or wrongly (I quite honestly couldn't give a shit about politics), states work by maintaining a monopoly on the justified use of force within a society. The police, the military, tax institutions... all of these depend upon the possible threat of force against the individual or against property to gain their principle authority. So, how can a state (inherently violent) be banning force from human interaction?


QUOTE (JimRaynor)
as far as "power" goes... you can attain whatever "power" you like.. as long as it does not involved the initiation of force(or its cousin fraud) upon other humans...


Why not? Why should I not employ my abilities to further myself in anyway I see fit, violent or not?
(Again, couldn't give a shit about politics so this is hypothetical, but you've yet to provide any argument for any of this)


QUOTE (JimRaynor)
the term has been used in a philosophical sense since 1789.
The "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" contains an extensive defintion of "Libertarianism"


Political Philosophy =/= Philosophy proper, and hasn't in the mind of the majority of anglophone history for a century; it's a related field in the same way political science is a related field of economics.
Stanford also have pages on Xenophanes, Anaximander, Creationism, and fucking DERRIDA! What is and is not philosophy is a metaphilosophical question in and of itself, and as such they contain a articles about a much wider field than is generally considered correct.
I'd happily defend the proposition that not only Libertarianism is outside the field of philosophy, but also that ethics, aesthetics, politics, metaphysics and much else besides is also; and I'd be in good philosophical company doing so (Ayer, Wittgenstein, Russell, Hume to some extent, etc.)

QUOTE (JimRaynor)
Nice long post.. if a few of your "facts" were true... it'd be even better.


Everything I said was backed up with atleast some degree of reasoning; untill you punch holes in that reasoning, then this is just a whine.

Edited by Internet Casualty, 15 June 2009 - 01:09 PM.


#17
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 15 2009, 02:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Without an aristotelian teleology, the nature of man is what man does. Man employs violence = nature of man is violent; man does not employ violent = nature of man is not violent: which of these conforms to reality?



So what? Why do we have a RESPONSIBILITY to be what we are? What's wrong with being anti-human? Description is not prescription. Saying what man DOES do has nothing to say on the matter of what man OUGHT to do.



Banning force by enacting force. Rightly or wrongly (I quite honestly couldn't give a shit about politics), states work by maintaining a monopoly on the justified use of force within a society. The police, the military, tax institutions... all of these depend upon the possible threat of force against the individual or against property to gain their principle authority. So, how can a state (inherently violent) be banning force from human interaction?




Why not? Why should I not employ my abilities to further myself in anyway I see fit, violent or not?
(Again, couldn't give a shit about politics so this is hypothetical, but you've yet to provide any argument for any of this)




Political Philosophy =/= Philosophy proper, and hasn't in the mind of the majority of anglophone history for a century; it's a related field in the same way political science is a related field of economics.
Stanford also have pages on Xenophanes, Anaximander, Creationism, and fucking DERRIDA! What is and is not philosophy is a metaphilosophical question in and of itself, and as such they contain a articles about a much wider field than is generally considered correct.
I'd happily defend the proposition that not only Libertarianism is outside the field of philosophy, but also that ethics, aesthetics, politics, metaphysics and much else besides is also; and I'd be in good philosophical company doing so (Ayer, Wittgenstein, Russell, Hume to some extent, etc.)

Everything I said was backed up with atleast some degree of reasoning; untill you punch holes in that reasoning, then this is just a whine.

uhhh dude.. i did not claim any of this is "correct"
i am providing the "libertarian perspective"
to review why.. to show that TubularLuggage is not a libertarian..
LOL
now if you hold this is NOT the libertarian perspective.. then we have a discussion
QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

#18
Internet Casualty

Internet Casualty
  • Members
  • 15 posts
QUOTE (JimRaynor @ Jun 15 2009, 07:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
uhhh dude.. i did not claim any of this is "correct"
i am providing the "libertarian perspective"
to review why.. to show that TubularLuggage is not a libertarian..
LOL


Right, because things like "i just get excited when talking libertarianism" totally give that perspective icon_wink.gif

QUOTE (JimRaynor)
now if you hold this is NOT the libertarian perspective.. then we have a discussion


It isn't, and there isn't, a libertarian perspective. I already said that to begin with:

QUOTE (Internet Casualty)
That definition only holds any sway in the US and Canada. Libertarianism, from a political science point of view, has always referred to social libertarianism principles, i.e. lack of intervention in the private lives of citizens. The notion of it being connected to right-wing economic policies - for most of the world, atleast - is complete anathema. Historically it was predominantly applied to various strains of anarchism, democratic socialism and social democratic movements.


It's a missuse of terms.

#19
Majiffy The Magic Admin

Majiffy The Magic Admin
  • Banned
  • 152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, NY
  • Xbox / GFWL:MJFI
  • PSN:41R5N1P3R
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 15 2009, 08:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
1) Libertarianism is neither 'philosophy' nor 'a philosophy'.

Uh, yeah it is. I don't know what your idea of "philosophy proper" is, but it's obviously far off the mark. Political philosophy is as much philosophical thought as any other... Also, wtf is wrong with Derrida?

#20
JimRaynor

JimRaynor
  • Banned
  • 1,311 posts
  • xfire:jimraynor1
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mar Sara
  • Interests:Starcraft<br />Korean girls<br />French girls<br />Black girls<br />Spanish girls
QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 15 2009, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Right, because things like "i just get excited when talking libertarianism" totally give that perspective icon_wink.gif

does that say i am a libertarian? nope.

QUOTE (Internet Casualty @ Jun 15 2009, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It isn't, and there isn't, a libertarian perspective. I already said that to begin with:
It's a missuse of terms.

not according to libertarians like John Hospers
"`Libertarianism` was one of the first full-length studies of the modern libertarian philosophy."
http://www.theadvoca...hn-hospers.html
it is this philosophy i refer to when answering the questions in the previous post...

you can also check out "encyclopedia of libertarianism"
http://books.google....J...ary_s&cad=0
lots of "libertarian philosophy" in there...

maybe you and John can argue over proper use of words like "a" and "the" as well icon_smile.gif
QUOTE (James Madison @ Aug 25 1781, 11:48 AM)
If Tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users