For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[mydoghasfleas]

No. Here's some more webster for you:



Responding to force initiated against you is not 'aggression'. Refusing to initiate force against another is not 'pacifism'.

You need to really give a little thought to the definitions of the words you are using.

Wiki says;
Pacifism is opposition to war and violence, even to the point of allowing self-harm rather than a resort to violent resistance

And Webster says;
2
: an attitude or policy of nonresistance

This seems to fit in the initial take of what most think of when they hear non-aggression. I would stop using it and stick with liberty if it is not the meaning they wan to get across.

 

[mrjarrell]

Wiki says;
Pacifism is opposition to war and violence, even to the point of allowing self-harm rather than a resort to violent resistance

And Webster says;
2
: an attitude or policy of nonresistance

And that has nothing to do with non-aggression. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[steveh_131]

Wiki says;
Pacifism is opposition to war and violence, even to the point of allowing self-harm rather than a resort to violent resistance

And Webster says;
2
: an attitude or policy of nonresistance

Good, I'm glad you're doing some research on the definitions of words.

Now that you have discovered the definition of 'pacifism', you should now understand that it not the same thing as 'non-aggression'.

 

[Liberty1911]

You keep saying that and have yet to provide anything resembling proof of your assertions. I don't know a single libertarian, party member or otherwise, who matches your spurious descriptions. The party and individual libertarian in no way match what you're saying. Quite the opposite in fact. But don't let that get in the way of a good bashing.

I've also explained it several times, you just don't want to admit it's true.

The Libertarian party advocates drug legalization, homosexual marriage, and open borders, just to name a few items in their platform, and they demand that these things be immediately implemented, i.e. freedom.

However, they don't demand personal and legal accountability first, before unleashing the free-for-all onto the already overburdened social and legal "safety net", i.e., no responsibility.

There. I've explained it again, and hopefully you'll pay attention this time.

Again, the bottom line is, they demand freedom without responsibility.

 

[Liberty1911]

It's written right here on the Internet so it's true. Bon Jour.

I already went over the issue with you and you claimed my assertion was a "trap". Yeah, a trap if you don't want anyone to know what you really believe.

To your credit, you said that you personally won't support drug legalization until we establish personal responsibility, i.e. zero government money for anyone using drugs.

However, that isn't the position of the Libertarian party platform, in fact, it's quite the opposite, which makes me wonder why you would support the Libertarian party if you want responsibility first.

 

[88GT]

There is no contradiction between the non aggression principle and self defense.
Self defense is consistent with the non aggression principle.

At what point is it acceptable to react with force? Obviously in the immediate defense of one's life/limb.

What do you do when the crime has already been committed? Go cry in your beer?

 

[mrjarrell]

I've also explained it several times, you just don't want to admit it's true.

The Libertarian party advocates drug legalization, homosexual marriage, and open borders, just to name a few items in their platform, and they demand that these things be immediately implemented, i.e. freedom.

However, they don't demand personal and legal accountability first, before unleashing the free-for-all onto the already overburdened social and legal "safety net", i.e., no responsibility.

There. I've explained it again, and hopefully you'll pay attention this time.

Again, the bottom line is, they demand freedom without responsibility.

And, again. You're wrong. While the party may advocate for freedom, (not sure what your problem is with it. Maybe it's just not your cup of tea), they have been more than clear that individual bear the responsibility for their actions. There does not need to be a statist framework in place for freedom, which seems to be what you're calling for. The LP has been pretty vocal about your safety net. They want it withdrawn. It has no place in a free society. Let private charities do those things, if they desire. They seem to be doing a good enough job, as it is. You can keep saying what you're saying, but it won't make it correct, no matter how many times you try to make people believe it's correct. It's still flat out wrong.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

At what point is it acceptable to react with force? Obviously in the immediate defense of one's life/limb.

What do you do when the crime has already been committed? Go cry in your beer?

When the gun is pointed at you, you must wait until the projectile leaves the barrel and is on a path towards you.

 

[downzero]

I already went over the issue with you and you claimed my assertion was a "trap". Yeah, a trap if you don't want anyone to know what you really believe.

To your credit, you said that you personally won't support drug legalization until we establish personal responsibility, i.e. zero government money for anyone using drugs.

However, that isn't the position of the Libertarian party platform, in fact, it's quite the opposite, which makes me wonder why you would support the Libertarian party if you want responsibility first.

The path to a free society is a fiercely debated topic among libertarians.

The endpoint, not as much.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing about the path to dismantling the statist society of today. That is one of the biggest challenges we, as libertarians, face.

 

[steveh_131]

What do you do when the crime has already been committed? Go cry in your beer?

I'm confused by this question. Do you think that the non-aggression principle excludes criminal or civil court proceedings once force has been initiated and damage has been done?

 

[poptab]

At what point is it acceptable to react with force? Obviously in the immediate defense of one's life/limb.

What do you do when the crime has already been committed? Go cry in your beer?

Well I have had my home burglarized. The police never found the bad guy. So I claimed the stuff I lost on my insurance. What else can you do?

I could have hired a PI to find my stuff but that is no guarantee.

I dont think your question is half as clever as you think it is.

 

[88GT]

I already went over the issue with you and you claimed my assertion was a "trap". Yeah, a trap if you don't want anyone to know what you really believe.

To your credit, you said that you personally won't support drug legalization until we establish personal responsibility, i.e. zero government money for anyone using drugs.

However, that isn't the position of the Libertarian party platform, in fact, it's quite the opposite, which makes me wonder why you would support the Libertarian party if you want responsibility first.

I'm no fan of the utopian libertarians either, but this nonsense is beyond silly.

I support drug decriminalization and I don't give a rat's ass about personal responsibility. Except my own. If someone wants to snort his way into the next life, more power to him.

I support gay marriage because a) marriage isn't what happens when you sign a marriage license, despite the use of the term; b) there's no logical reason same-sex relationships of a consensual nature can't enjoy the same privileges of state-sanctioned marriage that heteros do (assuming for the sake of argument that the state should have a role in the whole thing anyway) since those privileges are a matter of contract; c) what do I care what two other people do with their bodies, their lives, their assets? I don't care what my hetero neighbors do? Why should I care what my gay neighbors do? And, yes, I hold a Biblical view of homosexuality. But I am not my brother's keeper, am I?

I'm curious about how you implement personal responsibility first. I was always under the impression that it was something some had in his core worldview and valued as a priority character trait, or it wasn't?

 

[Cerberus]

I've also explained it several times, you just don't want to admit it's true.

The Libertarian party advocates drug legalization, homosexual marriage, and open borders, just to name a few items in their platform, and they demand that these things be immediately implemented, i.e. freedom.

However, they don't demand personal and legal accountability first, before unleashing the free-for-all onto the already overburdened social and legal "safety net", i.e., no responsibility.

There. I've explained it again, and hopefully you'll pay attention this time.

Again, the bottom line is, they demand freedom without responsibility.

Libertarians don't want any safety net, so in reality all your actions become your own resposibility, not everyone else in society.

I don't think zero-aggression is the best terminology to use. I think non-preemptiveness would best describe the actual ideological stance. In other words, we will not strike first, but we will defend and put an end to assault.

 

[poptab]

I'm no fan of the utopian libertarians either, but this nonsense is beyond silly.

I support drug decriminalization and I don't give a rat's ass about personal responsibility. Except my own. If someone wants to snort his way into the next life, more power to him.

I support gay marriage because a) marriage isn't what happens when you sign a marriage license, despite the use of the term; b) there's no logical reason same-sex relationships of a consensual nature can't enjoy the same privileges of state-sanctioned marriage that heteros do (assuming for the sake of argument that the state should have a role in the whole thing anyway) since those privileges are a matter of contract; c) what do I care what two other people do with their bodies, their lives, their assets? I don't care what my hetero neighbors do? Why should I care what my gay neighbors do? And, yes, I hold a Biblical view of homosexuality. But I am not my brother's keeper, am I?

I'm curious about how you implement personal responsibility first. I was always under the impression that it was something some had in his core worldview and valued as a priority character trait, or it wasn't?

I dont know any libertarians who believe in a utopia. We have gone over this before but apparently you care less about reality than those you accuse.

 

[88GT]

Do you think that the non-aggression principle excludes criminal or civil court proceedings once force has been initiated and damage has been done?

How does one use a tool that one has defined as one big giant act of aggression?

Well I have had my home burglarized. The police never found the bad guy. So I claimed the stuff I lost on my insurance. What else can you do?

I could have hired a PI to find my stuff but that is no guarantee.

I dont think your question is half as cleaver as you think it is.

Well at least I can spell clever. But you're right, it's not half as clever as I thought. It's twice as clever as I thought.

 

[lucky4034]

I've also explained it several times, you just don't want to admit it's true.

The Libertarian party advocates drug legalization, homosexual marriage, and open borders, just to name a few items in their platform, and they demand that these things be immediately implemented, i.e. freedom.

However, they don't demand personal and legal accountability first, before unleashing the free-for-all onto the already overburdened social and legal "safety net", i.e., no responsibility.

There. I've explained it again, and hopefully you'll pay attention this time.

Again, the bottom line is, they demand freedom without responsibility.

Just cause you say its so doesn't make it so.... What personal or legal accountability is there for drug legalization or homosexual marriage? How would the legalization of these negatively affect society and how in the hell are these void of personal responsibility?

And please name a Libertarian that wants open borders?

 

[poptab]

How does one use a tool that one has defined as one big giant act of aggression?



Well at least I can spell clever. But you're right, it's not half as clever as I thought. It's twice as clever as I thought.

Thanks for the spelling lesson.

 

[88GT]

I dont know any libertarians who believe in a utopia. We have gone over this before but apparently you care less about reality than those you accuse.

Anyone who believes a libertarian society can exist is dreaming of that long lost place over the rainbow.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm curious about how you implement personal responsibility first. I was always under the impression that it was something some had in his core worldview and valued as a priority character trait, or it wasn't?

I've had this debate with him before, and I think I understand where he's coming from.

His point is that libertarians want to implement liberty, but there is still a safety net in place that is paid for by the tax payers. So the only path to liberty, in his opinion, is to remove the safety net first and then offer more liberty. It's more about the path than the end goal.

He is not saying the government should enforce personal responsibility, he's saying the government should remove itself as the safety net that prevents any consequences for our actions.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree, just trying to clarify.

 

[88GT]

I've had this debate with him before, and I think I understand where he's coming from.

His point is that libertarians want to implement liberty, but there is still a safety net in place that is paid for by the tax payers. So the only path to liberty, in his opinion, is to remove the safety net first and then offer more liberty. It's more about the path than the end goal.

He is not saying the government should enforce personal responsibility, he's saying the government should remove itself as the safety net that prevents any consequences for our actions.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree, just trying to clarify.

So he's mixing theoretical with practical? That always works.