Here has been my political journey since coming to Jow Forums:
>Centrist
>Neocon
>libertarian
Can anyone give me argument on why this is wrong/right. I’m not looking for the “ideal” political system (Nat Soc) just the one that would work best in the US.
Freedom
>AnCap
>dumbass
Yep the math checks out boys
the modern 'Freedom' is an idiotic concept you've been fed under the presuppositions of neoliberalism. No society should have freedom as it's highest goal. That just leads to degeneracy and rampant individualism where everybody is rimmoral and sinful.The highest goal for a society should be morality and concepts of virtue based on objective morals, not this garbage secular shit we've been sold. Secularism, Freedom, Liberalism; all of it was a lie so Goldberg Inc can exploit you and destroy tradition. Reject these modern systems and become a traditionalist instead of a libertarian.
If you're looking for a political ideology, you'll fail. What really matters at the end of the day is principles and more specifically moral principles. Libertarianism is fundamentally based on the idea of a moral principle which is the initiation of violence is wrong. Everything else is derived from that princple through logic and reasoning.
All that really matters in life are the presuppositions you're willing to accept, everything else is downstream of that.
Actual libertarianism is a solid framework for reasoning about politics in my view.
Ayn Rand niggers and other anarcho capatilist fedora faggots suck my dick forever. That shit is not libertarianism you just were fooled by an advertising campaign that a bunch of brain dead rich flunkies launched as they struggled to justify the idiotic neo feudalism they had brought to the world.
libertarians only exist in the vacuum in their head.
Free markets are too susceptible to subversion and foreign influence.
Libertarianism and all forms of liberalism are the reason we're in this mess.
no, modern libertarianism has always been a totally irrelevant political ideology. no one cares about it except autistic shit heads who think they are smarter than everyone because they watch penn and teller "bullshit"
Can you explain why it doesn’t work
Like how autistic shithead think extremist ideologies like NutSucc, Fagcism and Cummunism work because screaming like PMSing psychobitch is constructive? Faggots like you get to stand by the commies when the public executions happen.
Why don't you share with me your views, and then I'll give you my criticisms? I think that would be a more clear and concrete dialogue to engage in, as opposed to me just propping up and knocking down a straw man.
>National Socialism does work, just only in white countries.
Stupid fucking mutt
>people changing political views like socks
I said the opposite of this.
Lol, I am not a proponent of those faggot ideologies. Thats because I use my brain to actually try and think about the world instead of just uncritically consuming a prepackaged world view that was likely concocted by some inbred jew retard.
I barely am even interested in hearing your thoughts on politics because you already have demonstrated your total commitment to repeating the boring and shrill words of a brain dead ideologue instead of expressing a genuine idea...
yeah yeah, ill be killed for my posts, sure, thanks for sharing. Next time just put in your diary though. no one cares you larping bitch.
I feel like the older I get, the more I realize that a true libertarian system just isn't a great system, although I truly believe a libertarian viewpoint is exactly what society needs now.
It isn't to say that libertarianism would fail, it's hard to say since real libertarianism hasn't been actually implemented anywhere, but I don't think it in itself would win. I hate to say this, but I think Karl Marx was pretty spot on with his critique of capitalism and the concept of the proletariat. We may live in an era of crony capitalism, but I firmly believe that stripping the government away from business and letting them run free wouldn't do much better.
But I do think there's a certain philosophy to libertarianism so much that I still identify with the ideology more than anything else in that the fed is way too fucking big, and the government can't just come up with a bandaid for everything. Nor should they. I think up until the 2010s, people more or less has their heads on right on what the fuck we needed, but our elected officials continued to fail us. Large bills that couldn't be tweaked, corporate lobbying, and a complete failure to implement their party views. Look at the current system, bunch of spineless fucking faggots who can't even repeal ACA. Now everybody is getting forced to buy into the system and if not the government fines you for being a piece of shit. Wouldn't have to worry about this if we didn't let the fed get so fucking big, but yet here we are.
Just my two cents.
Only when combined with a conducive set of ethics, morality and responsibilities.
Maybe you consider covering all sides next time retard. Condemning an ideology you don't like while totally ignoring ideologies that are much worse can say a lot about someone. :^)
depends what kind, typical libertarianism is hednositic individualism devoid of any attention to tradition, family, religion,race
think Hoppe,Janusz Kowrin-Mikke,Jared Taylor
If you value liberty but are still a traditionalist that values family,racial identity, tradtitionalism,the nation state, the concept of the free market, that's the most ideal form of libertarianism and the one I adhere to personally
Lmfao, what a retarded, contrived post you've made. And all just so you can avoid learning something!
Tell me, what exactly does the fact that I criticize anarcho capaitlism as opposed to fucking maoism or scientology or something, "say" about me? Does it say that I read the OP and saw that this thread was about anarcho capaitlism and wrote a post on that subject? Does it say I am a big meanie for not posting about the strawmen you cart around to try and justify your worthless ideas?
no
and the examples of people I mentioned aren't
dumb hedonisitc individualists, they're the figures that are actually decent libertarians that speak about the most viable form of libertarianism
No, it's a wet blanket for fencecucks who won't take the time to learn economics or political ideologies past a 3rd grade level
Think agnostics with guns but a reading level on par with a high school graduate from 1976
>the modern 'Freedom' is an idiotic concept
why?
y tho?
Yeah "Freedom" is what leads to slavery. Nice. Good point.
I mean national socialism worked for the time it was running...
But Communism starved its own people
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Read a little about history and you will find that the people who controlled the soviet government (the so called Bolsheviks) were not in fact starving their own people. The people with the power and the people who were being exterminated, were very different.... I won't spoil anything... just look into it...
Freedom in and of itself has no value.
The freedom to pursue noble goals is, noble, the freedom to pursue virtue is virtuous, the freedom to safely raise a family is good, etc.
However, the freedom to degeneracy is degenerate. The freedom to suicide is suicidal. The freedom from obligations is stupid, etc.
Thus, freedom is only good as much as the things it makes free are good. To hold freedom, as a theoretical concept, in highest regard is simply illogical.
No it is a subversion. Rockefeller was a libertarian.
and who judges what is degenarate, stupid, etc
Furthermore, there is generally some strange idea among libertarians that freedom includes the freedom to democracy, and that democracy inherently has more liberty than any other system.
This is patently false, of course, since a democracy will inevitably adopt more socially-strict policies to enforce the will of the masses.
Libertarians would, in an ideal world, be monarchists because that is the optimal system for ensuring liberty. But they are not, or if they are do not tend to labor the point.
Which makes me unable to take them seriously since as a democratic libertarian you advocate the right of the majority to deny thr minority's liberty and strive only to make libertarians the majority, not to enact any sort of meaningful reform.
i hate democracy
people that don't know shit about politics shouldn't vote
It is not illogical, because in order to attain noble goals, and the highest most virtuous existence possible, a man must be free. Without freedom, a man who is led to those outcomes, is just a puppet being led along by a puppeteer. Those accomplishments are not accomplishments unless it was a free many who accomplished them.
Men are free by their very nature, and in order for a man to realize his purpose in life, he must be free and he must remain free. Freedom is like nutritious food, clean water, and clean air.
As a side note... I do not believe that free men freely choose the path of degeneracy... I believe that men must be coerced into degeneracy.... a free man always pursues his purpose, one way or the other, and will only stray from the path if forced.
3 things
1, religion. Any society worth it's salt should be built upon a common moral and religious belief system for the purpose of uniting them and their view on right and wrong.
2, tradition. Tradition serves to determine what is stupid - if experience and tradition judge actions or thoughts to be impractical or simply ill-conceived, they will reject them.
3, culture. In truth, this is a synthesis of religion, tradition, and literally everything else people have in common. A single culture, like a single religion, is the basis for a functioning society and will, just like codified religious beliefs, contain and pass on a set of values, the dos and don'ts of life in that society.
Whatever falls outside the framework or religion, tradition, and culture has no place in a stable, unified society and freedom to it should be denied or abridged.
What libertarian goes out of their way to shill for democracy? Libertarians always maintain the liberty (or sometimes utility) is what ultimately matters.
Also what you said is totally retarded. You point out that in a democracy, it is possible for the majority to inhibit the freedom of the minority, meaning that democracy is not an ideal system for a proponent of liberty. Thats fine. But you also say that a consistent libertarian would be a monarchist, failing to realize that the powerful rulers of such a monarchy could also inhibit the liberty of their subjects in the same way as before.
Sorry man that was a really retarded thing to say, no idea where you came up with that bullshit...
>what a contrived post... so you can avoid learning something
What is so hard to understand? As someone who touts their ideological and intellectual superiority, you sure seem oblivious to subversive debate tactics. A lot of people these days would rather focus on non-issues rather than actually solve the problem they're complaining about because the point of it all is to get people to ignore the burning farmlands.
So basically you want a system that will allow you to be a degenerate pothead?
Hmm.... doesn't seem like you answered his question... personally I am still wondering, "who judges what is degenarate, stupid, etc?"
All you did was name institutions and avoid the question. Who are the people who decide the answers to those questions?
then there's no problems since if people does something degenerate society as a whole will condemn it
freedom should include degenerate things
yes
No, it's putting the "cart before the horse". Freedom does not exist in an absence of authority. It exists in the wake of virtue.
>Freedom does not exist in an absence of authority
Does the government give you freedom?
and fuck you for that gif
No.
In a perfect world, it would work ok.
Much like communism, capitalism, Scientism, and most, if not every other ism, it fails because it relies on people to not be immoral pieces of crap.
That's why dictators work. They accept the truth and use it for their own advantage. They play whatever ism is on the top of the list that decade.
All fall short of the glory of God.
my political journey
>centrist
>neocon
>Fascist
>Full-on 1488
>Lolbertarian
>Anarcho-Fascist
>Anarcho-Fascist
??????????????????????
The Libertarian Party chose open borders as a tenet. I'm out.
Libertarianism makes some sense.
Where it falls apart for me is where we don’t have the will to allow people to suffer as a result of their mistakes.
The NAP is great when coupled with a solid adherence to negative rights. Once you start throwing positive rights in the mix it falls apart. If society has to bear the cost of your fuckups, libertarianism kinda sucks.
It makes it possible, yes. But I was more referring to the metaphysical. Without proper authority teaching the posterity "what is right", and holding them accountable to these moral standards, there is no reason to expect it to be practiced within your society. No matter how limited your govt., a degenerate and moralless society will not preserve what freedoms you may have and before you realize it, your govt will be larger and more pervasive then ever before. This is what happened to America and the rest of the West.
Solid analysis.
Why would you trust Timothy to tell the truth? Tim sounds like a fucking liar to me.
It's that thing you get when you grow up with conservatives that you respect but also are still under 25.
After 25 and working a regular steady job for a while. You realize it's not a real long term solution for either you or a family you intend to create
Exactly what happened to me. Went through a libertarian phase. Came out of it a conservative with some libertarian leanings.
sick burn
>you also say that a consistent libertarian would be a monarchist, failing to realize that the powerful rulers of such a monarchy could also inhibit the liberty of their subjects in the same way as before
The fact is that other options beyond some pipe-dream anarchy simply do not exist. An oligarchy will limit rights and freedoms to the ruling class. A republic will degenerate into either democracy or oligarchy, without fail.
What then is left? Rule of all (democracy) is stupid. Rule of a few (oligarchy) is stupid. Republicanism will turn into one or the other.
What is naturally left is rule of one. That is not to say absolute rule of one, but some sort of monarchical institution MUST exist to sustain liberty in the long-term.
I disagree:
What authority is capable of teaching "what is right" while also justly holding them accountable to these moral standards? You claim that without such an institution, we should not expect these moral standards to be realized among the people. I don't see why we should expect that even with such an institution.
>What authority is capable of teaching "what is right"
Church, State and Family
Theoretically, you are right. A free society would be able to shame outliers to enforce a moral code.
In effect, though, that is almost,impossible to have in a libertarian society. Because libertarianism is about the idea of freedom for freedom's sake. That will pervade society, and people will mistake freedom for good things for license to do as they wish.
And when people have this idea that freedom is good, they will not try to abridge others' freedom on a personal level because doing so is in-virtuous - since freedom becomee virtue, not a conduit for virtue.
What about the other option? The one you dismissed as a pipe dream? That one may have some merit, why do you dismiss it? Anarchy was the prevailing way of life for 100s of thousands or possibly millions of years before attempts at civilization began (all of which have brought ruin to humanity thus far)
>freedom: The condition of being free of restraints.
how does the government provide this, if anything it restricts it.
>Without proper authority teaching the posterity "what is right"
can a government be wrong about what is right? and why does authority have to teach this?
>and holding them accountable to these moral standards
Lying is "immoral" in a lot of cases. should the government punish lying?
And what makes those authorities capable of teaching what is right? I guess they must also be impervious to degeneracy in your mind?
>not being a National Transhumanist
Libertarians never get anything and is always subverted because giving freedom to your enemies will destroy you, libertarianism sounds nice on paper, but only hard fascism can fix the West today, libertarians are naive, they trust people to do the right thing too much, it's too abstract.
Anarchy is stupid and a waste of resources, people naturall form personal and societal bonds which require a state to regulate. It is rather telling that the only time anarchy existed was when people were barely smarter than an ape.
The issue, it seems, is that you - quite rightly - feel that no institution can be perfect and some bad things will be allowed and good things denied. This is true. Institutions are human, and thus reflect the flaws of humanity. But they are also necessary to a society and having an accepted moral code laid out by official institutions, while it may not be perfect, is better for society than a total lack of any commonly prescripted morals. One must not stray too close to the sun, as the saying goes. Flaws will always exist and no perfect libertarian society can exist just like no perfect Marxist society can exist. But society must exist, and must exist stably and competently, and institutions ensure that regardless of flaws.
The problem with libertarianism is that it totally ignores practical considerations. By itself libertarianism is nothing more than the belief that the government should be small and people should have lots of freedom. That's great and all but without knowledge of economics and political science to inform that ideal it's nothing more than a bunch of screeching about how taxes are theft and other incoherent nonsense that nobody sane wants anything to do with.
There's also the basic failure of libertarianism, which is that every small and free state ends up as a ridiculously bloated authoritarian monstrosity sooner or later. That's inevitable unless you fully account for things like minimizing corruption, minimizing the misappropriation of government funding, keeping the government and economy separate, having strong border controls and a strictly meritocratic military and police force, among other concerns. If you want a libertarian government you have to design a system that can maintain a state of libertarianism over time, and to shed excess power easily once in a while when the government becomes too burdensome.
> A free society would be able to shame outliers to enforce a moral code.
I dont see how this is true... a free society would not enforce any kind of moral code, except the one which promotes freedom.... If someone is behaving according to firmly held principles, 'shame' doesn't even factor in, they will continue to hold their principles.
>except the one which promotes freedom
how do you interpret freedom.
because if deception, excessive greed, etc included in freedom.
would society ideally not care about these traits
>And what makes those authorities capable of teaching what is right? I guess they must also be impervious to degeneracy in your mind?
>can a government be wrong about what is right? and why does authority have to teach this?
As I began to touch upon in , you libertarians seem to have 2 lines of thinking that I disagree with.
Firstly, that government is the only institution. Church must also have some role and will have different characterists and goals, adding balance to the equation.
Secondly, you feel as though a not-perfect institution is bad. That is, in my view, a silly line of reasoning. Men are flawed - should we kill men just like you would have use remove institutions? In the end, there must be some uniting factor and institutions or you cannot have a society. Even when they are flawed, they provide more benefits than would anarchy. The goal of good men must not be to destroy these flawed institutions but to do their best to become or reform them.
minimizing government interference is good in a lot of cases because the people who become bureaucrats are even bigger retards than the general population. taking it to extremes is autistic and counterproductive. not everything needs to be deregulated
just like every other ideology Jow Forums shills, it doesn't do anything to address moral and ethical decay. you can legislate punishment for deviancy but that doesn't solve the problem and just leaves you with incompetent cunts ruling over the country
>a free society would not enforce any kind of moral code
And that's why lolbertarians are autistic, as I said in freedom has no value, morals have value. Your idea that freedom leads to a more fulfilling virtue that simply instilling virtue via society is stupid. Virtue is virtue, good is good, right is right. Freedom is nothing.
The end. You won. Beautifully written and analyzed. I knew something was bugging me about the other user's responses, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. But you did, and it is clear now that he is only trying to find a perfect system, and that anything less is not worth considering. That's completely flawed logic, as you have pointed out.
> Anarchy is stupid and a waste of resources, people naturally form personal and societal bonds which require a state to regulate.
A waste of resources? How so? Anarchic primitive societies barely wasted anything because that harm their changes for survival... "waste" is a property which belongs only to mass society, and the problem only gets worse the more civilization "progresses"
> It is rather telling that the only time anarchy existed was when people were barely smarter than an ape.
Human physiology was pretty much the same as it is now in the time period to which I am referring -- human kind with our contemporary genetic formulation, but before civilization developed... this period may have lasted as long as a few million years, or be as short as 200k years
Human beings are flawed and their institutions are flawed... we agree on that. One thing you seem to overlook is that an individual man does not have a massive power advantage that allows him to enforce his system of morals on people at large. An institution, however, does. So we can agree that the institution spreads its flaws to all those unfortunate enough to be subject to it, whereas a man's flaws remain his own. Can the same be said for the merits of the system of laws adopted by an individual or the institution? Arguably no. This is because the merits which the institution would bring to its subjects are not merits in the eyes of the subject. If the subject's values align with the institutions, then the institution was not needed. If the values do not align, than these supposed merits are actually flaws in the eyes of the subject.
should the moral code be implemented into law?
A good argument, actually. The problem is that immoral men CAN spread their flaws to others just as easily as an institution. Virgin-shaming, for example. Peer-pressure. Men can and do destroy the value in others, and your idea that only therefore the most pure and strong men have lives worth living is to me repugnant, since the goal of society should be to sustain society and not wittle it down to the barebones.
Furthermore, you seem to assume that moral estimations of good and bad can vary. I am religious. Good and bad and right and wrong are not in the eyes of the beholder. They are in the eyes of God, and God will ensure that Satan does not seize power and enforce his evil will unless the minds of the people first turn to Satan. Government follows society, but it is not a passenger but a chariot-driver struggling to make sure both that he does not fall off and also that the horse stays along the path. It is hard to do, but as long as man exists such a struggle will exist.
I agree with earlier definitions which have been given... something like, "an ability to act or change without constraint."
Excessive greed is no problem in a free society: this is because property rights would not exist. Its obvious that the claim "you may not interact with this part of the universe without my approval" or "you may not enter this part of the universe without my approval" inhibits the freedom of every other person except the person claiming the property. Before you all call me a commie... realize that people's interpersonal relationship would determine these sorts of boundaries, and these relationships would be based on mutual consent and the freedom to choose with whom you associate.
Deception is a more interesting case in my view. I think deception is less of a moral principle in this case, (hear me out), and more like a technology. Deception is a weapon system... its use is in psychological warfare. I think deception is justified in rare circumstances. Like when an animal camouflages itself from predators. However, I do think it is wrong to try and deceive another in order to gain power over them and exploit them. But more importantly, it is wrong to succumb to deception. So anyway, I think deception may not be relevant in regards to freedom from this perspective
Glad to hear, posts that not only present new views but clarify your own are always nice. Just the other day I had a similar moment; discussing so-called "hatred" of gays. I'd never personally felt hatred to these people yet was unable to defend myself. Then another user made a brilliant analogy - that people like me and him hate gays as much as liberals hate heroin addicts. That is to say, not at all. We hate their habits, not them. Was really a eureka moment
>Excessive greed is no problem
Well then we have fundamentally different moral codes and thus can never agree. For me, greed is a sin and thus always a problem. Likewise anything similar. Clearly you believe that if it doesn't affect others, it doesn't matter. I believe sin is never not an issue and we should do all we can to save others.
> Secondly, you feel as though a not-perfect institution is bad. That is, in my view, a silly line of reasoning. Men are flawed - should we kill men just like you would have use remove institutions?
Why should a flawed institution have authority and power over an individual? We agree both are flawed, but what justifies the power over the individual which you claim the institution ought to have? I imagine the individual organism knows what is best for themselves... and frankly, the individual is the only one who determines that, so really, the institution can't win in that debate.
I dont see what benefits these institutions provide. I think they provide only a subservient slave mentality, dependency, weakness, and they erode the spirit and breed degeneracy.
I think these institutions should be destroyed if they can't justify their existence and it is shown they are harming people and the world, which they appear to be.
Okay, captchas are starting to sperg and I'm tired. Good night all, I'll try to consider your points and hopefully you'll consider mine. God bless
>freedom: The condition of being free of restraints.
An addict is restrained by his addiction. The narcissist by his ego, etc. If govt. refuses to uphold moral virtues, man does not remain free, but instead becomes enslaved to his own weaknesses.
>can a government be wrong about what is right?
Of course.
>and why does authority have to teach this?
Because man does not exist in the isolated world of "nature", absent of all authority. Man does not "opt in or out" of society, he is born and raised up within it. As such, values and morals are passed down by the accepted authorities in your society whether you like it or not. Your libertarian worldview was given to you via authority, for example. This abstraction of the atomized being, unaffected by society is just that, an abstraction. It does not actually exist. In other words, to put it as simply as possible: authority exists. You can deny it if you want, but your denial does not make it so.
We could also put it this way. Why should a libertarian society, remain libertarian? Why should "freedom" be desired at all? On whose authority is this true? To adhere to any of this, is to adhere to what you are trying to do away with. "You should just be free, you don't need someone to tell you what to do" - Is that true? If so, why should I accept it, as it is derived from your authority? See how that works? It's internally contradictory. If you desire to have a free society, you must also require an authority to uphold what you deem desirable, which is to say "freedom".
>Lying is "immoral" in a lot of cases. should the government punish lying?
This would imply you now agree that there moral codes that should be upheld within society. How do you propose to uphold the virtue of honesty, without actually upholding the virtue of honesty?
But to answer your question, yes. Govt., Church and Family should all orient themselves towards "what is good" and should be held accountable to these laws.
>Excessive greed is no problem in a free society
is excessive greed good?
Freedom is a virtue,it means you aren't dependent on another or enslaved to another (these are one in the same, in fact). Is being fully autonomous and self sufficient a virtue? Thats what actual freedom amounts to in practice.
white nationalist libertarian is the final redpill
You shouldn't just cheer lead and declare a winner like this, you detract from the quality of the discussion... Im not saying you can't chime in to say you agree and share your views or why you don't like what Im saying, but don't you see why its wrong to just declare victory like this? Thats not how pursuit of knowledge works, you are never "done"
libertarians realized they were cucked when the libertarian party started doing cucked degenerate shit and libertarians were unable to say it wasn't real libertarianism.
>WRONG!
As Kant said: Morality is freedom and freedom is having control over your physical desires like drugs and porn. so restricting drugs and porn would actually give you more freedom
Lolbertarians don't realize that when drugs and porn are legal they enslave you more than they give freedom. Everyday you're addicted to your drugs and porn so you must watch it. But if you never had the opportunity to do it you would not be a slave of your physical desires
I dont agree that individual men spread their flaws AS EASILY as an institution. You really think one person among a community of equals, engaging in conensual relationships, each with the autonomy to leave the group and survive in the world on their own if they so choose, you think one flawed person in that group will be able to spread his flaws to his peers with the efficiency and with the scale of the something like our modern education system? Or the modern mass media system? Come on man... I dont know how you could say this... thats a big disagreement for us if you are really going to defend that idea...
Peer pressure and shaming is nothing for an autonomous self reliant person, who can fully express their own liberty.
I agree with you about morality, actually... wouldn't say I am religious though... actually, I seem to be returning to god lately though, so we'll see...
Anyway, I agree:
> Good and bad and right and wrong are not in the eyes of the beholder. They are in the eyes of God, and God will ensure that Satan does not seize power ... unless the minds of the people first turn to Satan.
This is why I think its immoral for individual men to force into existence these large scale institutions which attempt to function in the role of god... determining what is right and wrong and guarding against evil.
Each individual man lives out a struggle similiar to what you describe. Should a man rely on a flawed, man-made institution to help him on the path and protect him? Or should he turn to god? In my view, he should turn to god: he should look to the world and his relationship to it. God will show him, if the man wants to see.
Another individual cannot function as god. No one knows what is correct to do in life for any individual... only god 'knows' that. So I agree there is a universal morality, objective good and evil... but its so complicated that man could never conceive of laws which could lead us to a moral, decent life.
Keep reading, its not that I think greed is acceptable, I just mean that it is only possible within civilization, and not a free, primitive, anarchic way of life.
No political party in the US could be called a "solid ideology". They're just reference points that people are drawn toward based on vague principles.
My opinion is that the country will continue to gentrify and beef up regulations and automation will continue to spread...until the economy collapses.
I think the only way to avoid it is to open the markets way up. Remove nearly all regulations on medicine, food, and housing. Accreditation can stay, but people should have the freedom to take risks on unregulated CHEAP products.
>Lowers the homelessness threshold.
>Makes owning a small business possible.
>Lowers cost of living.
I would call this Libertarianism. On the other hand, the Libertarian candidate in my state recently was pro-open-borders, so I voted R. I think Libertarians are slightly less prone to groupthink than R/D constituents, but they are by no means homogeneous, so it's hard to answer your question without a definition.
k im just gonna import a bunch of foreign labor so i can produce goods cheaper and provide a lower cost to the consumer also you wouldnt even know im doing this since there's no regulatory inspections from any centralized government going on
The reason libertarianism loses is because it is inefficient relative to group sublimation in cooperative society. Cooperation, coordination, and centralization are natural human tendencies. A libertarian society may be more resilient, but it cannot go as far as fast. And because most people are weak and desire luxury, they join cooperative society.
Read the rest of the post, I dont mean no problem in the sense that its acceptable, I mean no problem in that it doesn't even make sense in a decent society.
Damn, I was enjoying our conversation... have a good night brother
Exactly. Being addicted to drugs is not freedom. It means you are a slave to whoever controls your access to drugs.
>Why should a flawed institution have authority and power over an individual? We agree both are flawed, but what justifies the power over the individual which you claim the institution ought to have? I imagine the individual organism knows what is best for themselves... and frankly, the individual is the only one who determines that, so really, the institution can't win in that debate.
That is what political science is for. It tells you how to minimize corruption and incompetence so you can maintain a government that does its job. The job of the government is nothing more than to maintain civil order, to ensure that private contracts are enforced within reason, and to keep society from being usurped by the interests of a few oligarchs or generational aristocrats. We need the institution because it accomplishes things which individuals on their own could not, or which they would do poorly.
>An addict is restrained by his addiction. The narcissist by his ego, etc. If govt. refuses to uphold moral virtues, man does not remain free, but instead becomes enslaved to his own weaknesses.
>Freedom: The condition of being free of restraints
i understand being restricted by addictions and the like but shouldn't you be free to be as bad as you want if your not harming anyone besides yourself and to get restricted if you want to. I.E. Contracts
>This would imply you now agree that there moral codes that should be upheld within society.
yes i do agree that there should be moral codes upheld by society. but laws shouldn't punish something not harmful to anyone but the individual I.E. you can harm yourself as much as you want but not other people
How do you propose to uphold the virtue of honesty, without actually upholding the virtue of honesty?
>But to answer your question, yes.
do you mean that the government should criminally punish lying?
>and why does authority have to teach this?
i think you misunderstood my question i don't care if society, church, family or even a government teach or uphold a moral code
i have a problem when authority decides this and punishes you for going against it if it is not directly harming anyone except yourself