[Blue_Nose]

Murray_Smith wrote:

If pure libertarianism is enforced, what is to stop the most ruthless people from monopolizing businesses, buying out the government, and forcing the people to buy from only their own companies?

Allowing corportations to "force" anything on individuals can hardly be considered a libertarian ideal.

Murray_Smith wrote:

Eliminating a government's power is the same thing as eliminating the government itself. At that point, libertarianism is nearly identical to anarchism.

The government serves a very important role in libertarianism - the individuals within a society with a proper legal system and law enforcement are certainly more free to live their lives than an anarchistic society where they must fear for their lives and constantly protect their property.

Murray_Smith wrote:

Is laissez-faire capitalism not what libertarianism advocates as well?

It's flexible in that "liberty" has various definitions.

If one were to define "liberty" as the freedom from outside influence (as you suggested here), they'd promote a laissez-faire approach. On the other hand, if you consider "liberty" as the opportunity to do something, one might choose to restrict the economy such that more are given the chance to participate.

Someone on this board mentioned elsewhere that governments providing all citizens a guaranteed yearly salary represented the libertarian "ideal" as it gave all citizens the freedom to do what they please regardless of personal circumstance. While this is a notion I personally rejected, it gives you an idea of how flexible a philosophy can be.



Anyway, every identifiable political philosophy is based on an ideal and interpretted through personal opinions, so saying one is inherently more universally applicable over another is a bit ridiculous. We'll always have a mixed system, and that's exactly how it should be.

[Psudo]

EmperorLiam wrote:

The only campaign finance reform I'm for, is abandoning all the laws in regard to it. I think the mandatory disclosure, and contribution limits are unnecessary, I'm even ok with vote buying.

Does that include contractual vote buying in a representative democracy? That is, do you defend the legality of a contract between a political candidate and one donating to his campaign that makes the donation conditional on some legislative promise being met by the candidate?

EmperorLiam wrote:

I'd consider the most libertarian era for the USA, began in 1788, the year the constitution was ratified (or after the bill of rights). And ended in 1860 when Abraham Lincoln decided the Federal gov. had the right to enslave the south.

So 1788 to 1860.

Why is the United States under the Constitution more libertarian than the United States under the Articles of Confederation? I thought taxation and legal restriction were less common and less possible under the latter system.

In your opinion, was libertarianism better implemented by the pre-Civil-War North or the South under the Confederate Constitution?

EmperorLiam wrote:

What do you think of my answer Psudo

If you mean the US history answer specifically, I addressed that above. Otherwise, read on.

I don't think your answers are wishy-washy, but I do think they exemplify the diversity of libertarian thought. I've debated with anarchical libertarians before, but you condemn anarchy in favor of minarchy (which I, too, prefer); you believe economic freedoms are more relevant than social freedoms, but I've heard libertarians argue the reverse; you like direct democracy but do not believe democracy is necessary to create a libertarian society, something which I've not heard argued by a self-described libertarian before; you condemn Ayn Rand as straw man argument when debating libertarianism, she herself would agree, but that often seems counterintuitive even to self-described libertarians when the two conclusions have so much in common.

I also think you enjoy being a jerk to people who disagree with you; this describes, but does not affect the validity of, your answers.

[hr]Your opinions are quite interesting to me, Liam. I have two additional questions for you:

1) What do you think is the most important source of liberty? Some possible answers: legally protected natural rights; equal protection under a consistent system (eg, law); government by consent of the governed (eg, democracy); a relative lack of violent force from any source (eg, peace). I'm sure there are others.

2) What (if anything) do you suggest be done to address voter fraud as it currently stands in the USA?

[Quantum_Wizard]

EmperorLiam wrote:

Some equate libertarianism with liberalism, but liberalism has just as many differences with libertarianism as it has in common, so although Finland is certainly very liberal country, citizens and gov., and they sometimes champion economic liberty (the main diff between liberalism and libertarianism), overall the government is just too big to consider it even remotely libertarian.

I have one more thing to say about this. Do not be fooled by names, because in Europe and in America the word liberalism is used often to describe different and sometimes completely opposite things. Those Liberals I mentioned are quite market liberal, just like libertarians in US (but probably not to same degree).

[EmperorLiam]

"providing all citizens a guaranteed yearly salary"

Sounds like the Social Credit Party in Alberta, which was recently reborn.


Psudo: "do you defend the legality of a contract between a political candidate and one donating to his campaign that makes the donation conditional on some legislative promise being met by the candidate?"

I'd love for corporations to sue candidates they had contracts with, with a legal contract, it is much more likely for voters to be aware of it. I'm pretty sure elected representatives would stick with the current verbal contract and bribe method though. This is the flaw with representative democracy... or humans depending on how you look at it. Wouldn't it be nice if public donations could be handed over in exchange for a contract, so if elected, he is legally bound to the contracts. Bush could be sued for breaking his promise to not nation build. I think a contract stating what the politician will do in exchange for donations is an EXCELLENT idea, but I wouldn't make it mandatory and I doubt few politicians would risk it (theres nothing stopping them right now to my knowledge).


"In your opinion, was libertarianism better implemented by the pre-Civil-War North or the South under the Confederate Constitution?"

The Confederate Constitution was a step down from the Constitution. Since things like post offices, early copyright law, habeas corpus suspended in emergencies, outlawed new foreign slaves, outlawed freeing specifically negro slaves, and that escaped slaves must be returned to their owner... you can easily see that it is less libertarian, both economically and socially.


"I also think you enjoy being a jerk to people who disagree with you"

Spot on. I'm here for entertainment and to better educate others and myself, in that order. Although some are seeing insults where mere categorization using generalizations is all that is in play.


1) The most important source of liberty is within the individual. The most effective way to protect liberty, is strength in numbers (Democracy). Laws are only ever any good if they are upheld, so although they are a necessity for a large society to function smoothly, I think they are a byproduct of those that value liberty, not the source. Liberty isn't free, its an ideology that individuals have to uphold and fight for... which is exactly what Marc Emery is doing.


2) Assuming you mean minimal changes, I'd say copying Canada's standardized paper ballot system is the way to go. Right now the problem seems to be the variety of systems used in the US, without standardization there will be more opportunities for fraud.

I'm no fan of Diebold, theres no excuse for not having a paper trail. I am in favour of moving the election system to the internet and not tying it to a single day. But Diebold has soured that idea for most, I'm optimistic that we will eventually have an e-vote... a few countries have begun to flirt with the idea.


Quantum_Wizard: "Do not be fooled by names"

Of course, they are just generalizations to begin with. I find 'conservative' the most vague and meaningless title nowadays.

[Murray_Smith]

EmperorLiam wrote:

Murray_Smith: "Allowing votes to be bought effectively destroys democracy."

1. People sell their vote already.
2. The courts do nothing about it.
3. Theres more voter fraud going on than you can shake a stick at, lets worry about that before we shit our pants over something you can't stop to begin with.
4. Secret ballot, they have no guarantee you voted for em.

That doesn't make me happy at all.

Quote:

"The correct term..."

Your right, there are no solids in blood at all, and it is illegal to be creative with old cliche sayings.

Blood is a solution. Solutions do not sublimate; they boil. Be creative, by all means, but when I'm creative with my language, I use the terms correctly.

Quote:

"It does if libertarian values include basic human rights. Without democracy, it is easy to destroy social liberties."

Critics of libertarianism, have no problem associating it with Pinochet's dictatorship, don't waste my time trying to pretend libertarianism is tied to democracy, it is not at all. Democracy is the WHO governs, libertarianism is the METHOD. It's close minded to believe democracy is required; personally I'm into direct democracy.

Direct democracy in a country with a population like the US would bring the lawmaking process to a standstill. We'd need to set up an election in order to do almost anything.

Quote:

"the South did not have a right to secede from the Union in the first place"

Then you should have no problem finding the law that says that they gave up that right. I'm not gonna hold my breath.

The South literally committed treason by seceding. Treason is illegal in (nearly?) every single nation that has ever existed.

Quote:

"it would have directly infringed on one of their economic liberties"

Yeah, and the founders never infringed anyones economic liberties by violently revolting against British rule, no tea thrown into the water ... its not like thousands of people were made refugees, pillaged, raped and murdered by American revolutionaries as they fled. Its not like slavery was ended in other countries by buying their freedom or government decree... so your right, the founders could never have ended slavery, and there certainly aren't historical records PROVING that they debated that very issue.

I didn't say there was no debate on the issue. But let's look at what was going on. When the Founders were writing the fundamental law of their new country, they knew that slavery was a way of life in numerous parts of the country, and that people would rather keep their slaves than pledge allegiance to a country which might not survive the decade.

I ask you, if you owned slaves, remembering that you paid out of your own pocket for them, and you were being asked to join a country in which slavery was plainly illegal, and you had no idea just how strong or stable this country would be, what would you do?

Quote:

"what is to stop the most ruthless people from monopolizing businesses"

Yes, socialized welfare states have done a great job stopping monopolies...

Socialized welfare has absolutely nothing to do with that argument.

Quote:

"buying out the government"

How does one buy a democratic government without convincing the voters?

The voters don't have to be convinced of squat. People often re-elect the incumbent simply due to name recognition.

Quote:

You could buy politicians if they chose to be bought, but thats what we call representative democracy, and at the end of the day, is a separate issue from libertarianism.

The majority of people have their price.

Quote:

"forcing the people to buy from only their own companies?"

So economic liberty causes everyone to lose their economic liberty, yes that makes sense. That explains why capitalism failed mankind, and communism reigns supreme.

The only reason Karl Marx was wrong was because he didn't take into account that capitalism could be regulated.

Quote:

"There is only one unchangeable evolutionary trait"

? You can't change your genes, I double dare you. Maybe one day, in the mean time, come back to reality.

You used the word "unchangeable." Humans have plenty of evolutionary traits. Some people have evolutionarily succeeded through greed, some through cunning, some with intelligence, some with dumb luck.

Quote:

"What libertarianism fails to address is that some people are greedier than others."

No, other way around. Why libertarianism succeeds economically, is because some people are greedier than others. We call it capitalism, have you heard of it?

If a person is sufficiently greedy, what is to stop him from stepping on others for personal gain? A "whistle-blower" is an altruist who is deliberately acting against the benevolent force of greed.

Quote:

"Eliminating a government's power is the same thing as eliminating the government itself. At that point, libertarianism is nearly identical to anarchism. "

So the inverse is preferred, lets expand government power... its not like that would cause everyone to become reliant on the government for everything, and governments never abuse power.

I... never said that. I said eliminating a government's power is bad. I didn't disagree with reducing government power.

Here's an attempt at analogizing what you just said: We are walking through the woods, and suddenly, there's a big grizzly bear not even 50 meters away. It sees you. I tell you that running away would be a bad idea, so you run towards the bear. I never said running towards the bear was any better an option.

Quote:

'Power purifies, absolute power purifies absolutely,' as they say.

That is an example of using words creatively and correctly.

Quote:

"Is laissez-faire capitalism not what libertarianism advocates as well? Additionally, you don't appear to value democracy much yourself."

No, you don't seem to know much about libertarianism. WTF gave you the impression I don't value democracy? I just stated unarguable FACTS, deal with it princess.

Your statements tell me that you see democracy as optional. I inferred that if you think democracy is optional; therefore you don't find it of value. From your reaction, I can conclude that my inference was wrong.

Quote:

Thank you for wasting my time, you won't ever get the pleasure again. On the upside, you get the last word in.

False.

I didn't waste your time. You chose to respond, at length, to my post, just as I am choosing to respond to yours. I don't think you're wasting my time; otherwise I wouldn't be responding. If I thought this was a waste of my time, I would have thought to myself, "Fuggit," at some point during this post, and would have subsequently wandered to another site. Either you were wasting your own time, or you weren't. I have nothing to do right now, therefore, my time is not being wasted. If your time was wasted, you have no one to blame but yourself. I was pleased that you thought enough of my post to respond to my post as much as you did. You even took the liberty of name-calling, which is hardly something you can place on me.

In conclusion, thank you for providing me with something to do.

[JJ]

What an odd night I had yesterday.

I went to this dinner hosted by something called the "Libertarian Supper Club," on an invite from some guy I had met in passing a while back. Hardly a friend, but I appreciated that he cared to invite me to his club.

Anyway, who should drop by but Mr. Emery himself! I felt uncomfortable with him sitting just a couple of seats down from me. We did speak briefly near the end, he somehow knew who I was, or rather asked if "I was the guy that drew the unflattering cartoon of me." He seemed disinterested in actually having a discussion about the cartoon itself. I suspect he did not understand it.

Anyway, I will write more about the whole episode another time (including what it taught me about libertarians). But a most odd encounter.

[EmperorLiam]

Well it was unflattering, but it was still damn good... have you tried to get syndicated? You really should.

[ka3bour]

We ve to get rid of all the princes & queens even the Queen of England

[fire_i]

ka3bour, do you know about that marvelous skill called "reading"? I think you'd need it so you don't start rambling about things completely unrelated to the subject at hand in a thread that has been dead for weeks - it'd also help you understand grammar, syntax, ortograph and punctuation, something I do believe you'd need to improve at after seeing your other posts...

[PluggyRug]

fire_i wrote:

ka3bour, do you know about that marvelous skill called "reading"? I think you'd need it so you don't start rambling about things completely unrelated to the subject at hand in a thread that has been dead for weeks - it'd also help you understand grammar, syntax, ortograph and punctuation, something I do believe you'd need to improve at after seeing your other posts...

Wot!