Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-03-25 10:23:54

I have recently joined the Libertarian party. It is the largest 3rd party in America, by the way. It has one major goal - reduce the size and power of the federal government.

I believe that people who call themselves anarchists would like this party. It basically wants people to stop trying to control others.

Libertarian ideas can fix all our social ills (theoretically of course). :;): But, it all boils down to two simple laws:

1. Don't force anyone to do anything.
2. Don't lie.

These laws are for interactions between individuals mainly but apply to government-individual relations as well. The only time the govt. can step out of these rules is to enforce them (ex. police can use force to uphold the law). But, the govt. should never be able to lie. They can remain silent (like in times of war), but not actively lie.

The govt. should operate on this premise. If it can be done locally then do it locally. For example: schools are local entities therefore they should not recieve federal funding or federal mandates.

I could go on and on about this but I really want to see if there are any loopholes in my 2-Law system. So, fire away.

P.S. This Libertarian system will take forever to gain momentum here on Earth, but it might take off faster on Mars (especially if I get to select the crews). :;):

clark · 2003-03-25 10:37:00

I'm ready to play.... :angry:

1. Don't force anyone to do anything.

What if through inaction, all are endangered?

The federal government cannot force anyone to do anything.

Fine, we are being threatened with imminent invasion, and all males 17-35 do not want to fight. What now?

I don't want to recycle my paint in an environmentaly sound way, I would rather dump it into the local water supply.

I like to yell fire in a crowded theater, what can you do legitamitley to stop me?

I don't like taxes, I ain't payin.

I like to drive on the left side of the road, against traffic. What are you going to do?

I think fire codes are silly. I am opening a chain of hotels, ignoring the fire codes, and building them out of straw. What are you going to do about it?

2. Don't lie.

So the federal government can only answer with silence, not outright lying? So I need only ask questions with the answer already embedded, therby deriving the answer with their affirmation in silence.

has the government drawn up plans, or executed plans, to assaignate politcal targets of opportunity in Iraq?

Silence = yes.

Palomar · 2003-03-25 11:26:23

1. Don't force anyone to do anything.

*How does Libertarianism view the current jury duty process/obligation of registered voters?

Guess who's been called to jury duty? ::waves hand reluctantly::

--Cindy

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-03-25 11:43:28

Let's see if I can deflect some of your bullets.

1. Imminent invasion and nobody wants to fight. Fine - If you think it better to die than kill I'd say your going to heaven. Otherwise you will either be killed by the invaders or be put under subjugation. It's still your choice. There's no law against trying to convince people to join the army, though. p'ting...deflected.

2. With the paint dumping you may have partially penetrated my armor. But, you can't lie about it. Therefore, the people of your community should just convince you to do otherwise. They may even boycott you and not let you get a job or buy anything in the area. The courts may also rule that you are forcing someone to drink contaminated water. p'ting...

3. You yell fire and there is no fire. p'ting...you're a liar.

4. Taxes...alas that is one where the govt. can use force. They could only use it it a very constrained way, though. For the military, law enforcement, and the rest are debatable (eg. roads could all be privately owned).

5. Left side driver eh... If you FORCE another driver to swerve or crash into you, you are in violation of the 1st law. The norms of society will still be in place. A jury wouldn't let you off. Now, if you ran a stop sign on a country road and nobody was in sight, you wouldn't have a problem. p'ting...

6. If you open a chain of dangerous hotels you must simply tell everyone how dangerous they are. If you mislead them in any way you are in violation of the 2nd law. p'ting... If they are stupid enough to stay there that is their problem. I'd say you would go out of business very fast. p'ting...

7. If you ask a question about military/political plans they can simply say, "We cannot divulge any information about our military plans until the crisis has past." I would suggest they say that every time so you can't derive anything. p'ting...

That was easy. Anybody else.

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-03-25 11:52:17

I'm still kind of new to this Libertarian thing so I'm not sure about everything. But, here are two libertarian responses.

1. Extreme libertarians say that you shouldn't have to serve on a jury if you don't want to. Concerned citizens could register for jury service if they felt like it. Any problems of a jury pool becoming corrupt or one sided could be mitigated if the (normal, good, fair, or whatever) people would simply register once they saw things getting out of hand.

2. Moderate libertarians say jury duty is one of the powers of government. Tough luck you have to help out.

If there are any other Libertarians in here, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Bill White · 2003-03-25 12:00:07

Okay - as for your two rules -

What are the consequences for lying?

Who decides who is lying and who isn't lying? Who decides who gets to decide?

Who imposes consequences on those determined to be lying? Are all lies treated equally, meaning the same punishment for liars who say "Sorry, I already have plans Saturday" and liars who say "I didn't murder clark, byron did."

Sorry for that last bit.

clark · 2003-03-25 12:02:00

Hmm, seems there has been a slight alteration of the laws:

No lying. Your previous post, at least to me, seemed to only apply to the government. Now I see that is applies to everyone. No one is allowed to lie. Perhaps that should be the actual rule.

Don't force anything. Apparently some things CAN be forced, as you admit, such as tax payment. How do you reconcile this with the text of your two laws? Either you cannot be forced to do anything, or you can be forced to do SOME things. Which is it?

1. Imminent invasion and nobody wants to fight.

No, you'rwe avoiding the point: What can be done when a neccessary segment of society refuse to cooperate, even though their inaction endangers EVERYONE else?

How about this example: All the nuclear techanicans go on strike, they will not return to work unless they are each paid 40 million dollars. While they are on strike, all nuclear facilities are either closed down, or, left operating, at extreme danger to the surronding communites. The government is powerless to compel them to work, so hundreds of thousands of people are put at risk.

Say a small town decides to reinstutite slavery for those who declare bankruptcy. Is the federal government without recourse to force the community to change their local laws?

I also don't have to answer questions regarding my chain of dangerous hotels.

"Are the hotels dangerous?"

"We are not at liberty to discuss the design specifications of our hotels as that is a trade secret."

the point is, the truth can be bent, which even your own response demonstrates.

The courts may also rule that you are forcing someone to drink contaminated water.

So if I post a sign saying that I dump paint in the water, wouldn't i be absolved of any wrong doing?

What if I post the sign in Mandarin chinese? Am I forced to post all warnings or truth in a language the community can recognize and understand?

the fact of the matter is that rule one kills you: You very much intend to FORCE some types of compliance from people.

and rule two can be bent to such a degree as to make it absolutely meaningless ( the only way to fix it is to FORCE people to not lie in certain ways... i.e . more laws)

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-03-25 13:42:50

Well, first of all, what do we mean by a system which promotes liberty? What, indeed, is liberty? Is it merely the lack of an organization called government? Does it matter what this organization consists of, ie, whether it is a dictatorship or a democratic arrangement?

In my opinion, the current "libertarianism" is a perversion of the original, classical liberal, ideal. The classical liberals believed in markets, but generally they did so because they thought markets would lead to equality. You won't find many classical liberals talking about how large inequalities must be preserved. Anybody with their head screwed on can percieve that "competition" between a billionaire and a poor man is nonsense. Today, with the rise of industrial capitalism, the moneyed interests which were already becoming, much to his dissatisfaction, visible to Jefferson in his final years dominate society. Such interests, with their vast control over its main institutions, now force the majority by their very nature into a life of servitude, further enriching their wealth and power.

Today, if you want a libertarian society, it will be necessary for the majority of the population and rise up and take back control of our institutions. Oppression at the hands of elites shouldn't be tolerated. That's what propagandists for years have demonized, so much so that we now percieve elite control as liberating, while anything resembling democratic control is seen as enslavement. Literally, liberty is slavery.

Phobos · 2003-03-25 16:17:45

I have recently joined the Libertarian party. It is the largest 3rd party in America, by the way. It has one major goal - reduce the size and power of the federal government.
I believe that people who call themselves anarchists would like this party. It basically wants people to stop trying to control others.

Welcome aboard! I've been a member of the Libertarian party since I was old enough to register to vote. I'm very much against having a huge government with virtually unlimited power to coerce its citizens as it pleases. The last thing we need is some bloated, all powerful government.

Palomar · 2003-03-25 16:32:04

I have recently joined the Libertarian party. It is the largest 3rd party in America, by the way. It has one major goal - reduce the size and power of the federal government.
I believe that people who call themselves anarchists would like this party. It basically wants people to stop trying to control others.
Welcome aboard! I've been a member of the Libertarian party since I was old enough to register to vote. I'm very much against having a huge government with virtually unlimited power to coerce its citizens as it pleases. The last thing we need is some bloated, all powerful government.

*Hey Phobos! :;):

I actually dislike political party (no offense) affiliation (I vote independent), mostly because of the "guilt by association" tag that comes with joining something. I also rarely find a lot of grounds for agreement with any party; I feel many of them become top-heavy in their idealism and lean too far in one direction or another.

I dislike "having to" answer for any group...especially when I know I'll have areas of disagreement with them. But it's the nature of the beast, I guess: Things are often accomplished better and more quickly when done in a collective fashion.

Politically speaking, I'm a bit of a square peg.

However, I am very curious by nature. Do you or MarsGuy have a favorite Libertarian link?

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-25 19:00:53

I believe that people who call themselves anarchists would like this party. It basically wants people to stop trying to control others.

Most anarchists, well... don't like the Libertarian party or most of its ideals, and some are even disgusted that the party took the common name associated with anarchism (the word ?libertarian? meant anarchist much longer before it meant ?The Libertarian Party of the United States?) in kind of a double think sort of way.

I know you weren't asking me, Cindy, but my personal favorite link about Libertarianism (as in the US Party) is here: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

There are, of course, things where they mix up anarchy in their arguments, but I since I find that Libertarianism (with a big L) contridicts the tenents of anarchism, I can't find their arguments valid.

Palomar · 2003-03-25 19:17:07

I know you weren't asking me, Cindy, but my personal favorite link about Libertarianism (as in the US Party) is here: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

*Aw, Josh...I didn't mean to exclude anyone.

I should have worded my request a bit more carefully (not just to Phobos or Mars Guy).

Thanks for the link.

--Cindy

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-03-26 00:31:59

Well, as I said before, I'm not an expert on Libertarianism... but Phobos is... ask Phobos!!! ::pionts a finger at phobos and covers eyes with other hand::

I would say I'm more of a conservative Libertarian. Therefore, I wouldn't push the two law idea. But I would base all other laws on the two. The main thing is to keep it simple.
No one person knows all the laws of this land. Even policemen have to get out their handbooks when they receive a complaint. For example: Here in Alamosa, CO a man hung a flag upside down in his own store window. A couple of old veterans got angry and called the police. The cop had to get out his lawbook, and it turned out that in Colorado its illegal. Stupid law. And there are many more like it. And the tax code...I won't even go into that.

The main point is to put as many lawyers and accountants out of business by making the laws (and tax code) simple. (Maybe more people would go into something useful like...oh, I don't know Martian Engineering?) Also, we need to limit the govt. as much as possible. Like repealling the patriot act.

The Libertarian party just wants to downsize the government and give people back their own stuff.

Here's a little tidbit of info for those who think that liberty leads to poverty: If the govt. would let us put our Social Security taxes into our own retirement accounts we would all retire millionaires. Even people who make minimum wage. Do the math.

Here's the Libertarian Party's home page:
www.lp.org

Palomar · 2003-03-26 06:42:13

Well, as I said before, I'm not an expert on Libertarianism... but Phobos is... ask Phobos!!! ::pionts a finger at phobos and covers eyes with other hand::
IHere's the Libertarian Party's home page:
www.lp.org

*LOL!!

Thanks for the link, MarsGuy.

And you know, there will be a problem with the "don't lie" aspect: Many women don't want to admit their age and will lie about it...so Libertarianism probably isn't that popular in Hollywood. :laugh:

--Cindy

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-03-26 16:30:06

The idea that you will "liberate" people by ending constraints on the power of the wealthy, what you will end with is an even more tyrannical system than we already have. Such an idea is like a toned down version of saying that we need to "liberate" the masses by making it legitimate to kill someone you don't like--and with almost all the guns in the hands of a few. The wealthy, with the end of social security, will be "liberated" from this "oppression", although the vast majority of the population may not feel quite as free. You might well get your wish, too--we've been generally on an economically "conservative" path for quite a while, ie, absurdly large military budgets, chipping away at social programs and civil liberties, probably at least since the Carter presidency. Of course, it accelerated under Reagan, but Carter was no liberal, either.

Auqakah · 2003-03-26 18:26:27

The only path to freedom is by being free.

You may quote me on that.

The problem with libertarianism is, that if you don't force people to act, then actions they do take infringe on the rights of others, and force others to act, thus decreasing the average number of acts allowed by the average number of people. You follow? Therefore, having laws, taboos, and social structure that 'force and coerce people to conform' are essential to the freedom of people. You can't be free unless there is a framework for freedom - oh, the irony. This, of course, isn't true in small groups. But the annoying thing is, we breed like... well, like humans. Those dirty animals.

And the more people there are, the more laws, regulations, taboos and social structures that are needed to keep the most people free for the most amount of time. Both is important. Have either one or the other, and you're not really getting the point - like a modern republic or psuedo-democratic-monarchy.

So to have more freedom, you need more guidelines. Which, of course, is paradoxical in itself - how can less freedoms equal more freedoms?

Well, it doesn't in todays society. If you were to follow that philosophy now, you end up with a police state. (See New World Order for details.)

Basically, in order to generate maximum freedom for the maximum number of people, you need a partly-democratic, partly-autocratic, partly-socialist, partly-libertarianistic system. And capitalism can go to hell.

Capitalism is too feudalistic, as KSR's characters seemed so fond of saying. And its true. The old system is failing. (See Iraq, Syria, Iran, Israel, Indonesia, North Korea, China, Libya, Cuba, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Austria, Lichtenstein, Andorra - to name a few, who all have extremist/despotic/extremely corrupt regimes - for details. And quite a few of whom are capitalist states - or socialist ones destroyed by the capitalist corruption that always devours such systems). I personally would list Australia, the US, Britain, France, and Russia on that list as well - but I know most people wouldn't agree on some or all of those.

Education, as I've said a thousand times before, is the key. Money needs to be considered less important. Sharing, human spirit, compassion, betterment of the species - /those/ should be brought to the forefront, to replace capitalism.

I'm not saying do away with money; its very a conveniant method of quantifying effort and so forth, but the current system, is unweighted and doomed to failure. (Well, any system is, but we'll ignore such petty facts.)

The only way forward is to take the emphasis away from money; destroy the 'hoarde the capital' attitude; change attitudes via careful education and social engineering so that people begin to view money as a means, not an end; illegalize financial lending/banking once /that/ is done, to keep capital flowing, so the majority of people have the majority of capital.

Also, remove power from a centralised elected government, and shift to an advisory non-elected 'luminary' system (where great social contributors are rewarded for their efforts to improve society) style House along with a minority of Lower House selected people, sitting above a semi-elected, one quarter selected, one quarter randomly chosen citizen House, which then sits over smaller, half-elected, half-selected-from-above local area councils (who in turn sit above similarily created lower area councils, in larger countries), in a semi-republic semi-somethingelse system. Or something /like/ that, anyway, if people hate it. [shake fist at people] Which, considering people, they probably would. [/shake fist at people]

Something like:

Luminary Council - 51% selected 'luminaries' (judges, generally exceptional citizens, but NOT media-associated celebrities like tv stars and the like, or sports stars except in fantastically extenuating circumstances - nothing worse could happen than THEM gaining such power), 49% selected from lower houses by election from Lower House

Lower House - 50% elected, 25% selected by aptitude 'from below', 25% 'lottery' selected

Area Councils - 50% elected, 50% selected by Lower House by aptitude

Lower Area Councils - 50% elected, 50% selected by appropriate Area Council

The top house would be the legislative branch, and the second house would be the executive, along with a 'veto council' - a council of 15 members with no clear leader (the cabinet, essentially), but instead a First Speaker-style ceremonial head - that would have the power to veto any executive-branch directive with a super-majority vote.

The 'Veto Council' would work as follows:

Veto Council: 39% (or as close to a majority of 75% as possible) elected by populace - candidates may step forward from any government body, Luminay Council members get an additional 12% added to their vote, and a descending scale applies to introduce 'seniority' into the equation, assuming that experience=results. 36% elected by Lower House from the Luminary Council. 25% elected on an 'anyone who wants to run' basis, with 51% of the voting 'mark' being accounted for by the population, and 49% of the voting 'mark' being accounted for by existing Veto Council members (who may not run in the third category; all runners must specify their category in order for the system to work).

Anyway.

See? Its damned easy!

Socio-democratic decentralism, anyone? :;):

clark · 2003-03-26 18:37:54

Ahem.

LOL

Thank you Auqakah. I enjoyed that. :laugh:

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-03-26 22:51:39

Nice Ideas.

I'm just a business student so politics make my eyes glaze over after a certain point. As a businessman I am drawn to Libertarianism because it would make things simpler. But hey, I'm open to other ideas as well. Like capitalism...bla.. its had its day. It do value the free market though.

Maybe on Mars we could implement the co-op system where you can only own stock in the company you work for. (I know this is not very libertarian but...shut up.) :;):

Here on Earth I think I would classify myself more as a third-partyist than anything else. We are controlled by a powerful two party system. So, we need to hear some ideas from another corner if we are to keep from stagnating.

Maybe we could form the Frontier Party. We could use the idea of a need for a frontier to keep the human spirit alive. And conveniently, Mars is the best frontier to pursue...

...We're going to do what we do everyday Pinky - we're going to take over the world...ah ha ha ha ha!!! :laugh:

clark · 2003-03-27 10:41:30

The only path to freedom is by being free. -Auqakah

Unless of course you are in jail. Then the only path to freedom is to be on your best behavior.

Or a spoon and a large exercise area to dump the soil.

Hmmm, a Fronteir Party.

The Fronteir Party:

We believe that things are so screwed up here, that our only solution is to send a few of us to Mars, and start over.

Oh yeah, and less taxes.

"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others." - Kodos

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-27 11:44:15

One can argue day and night about which system is better or worse. But no one can dispute the fact that annarchism, on the face of things, is the most free system possible.

(Outside of a solipsistic virtual universe where ?physical constraints? didn't exist!)

Heh... clark... the Frontieer Party...

Auqakah · 2003-03-27 16:38:25

One can argue day and night about which system is better or worse. But no one can dispute the fact that annarchism, on the face of things, is the most free system possible.
(Outside of a solipsistic virtual universe where ?physical constraints? didn't exist!)
Heh... clark... the Frontieer Party...

I think I just did dispute that, didn't I?

??? :;):

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-27 19:25:45

Ahh, but Auqakah, there's still the matter of the state one must deal with! :;):

Starship Trooper · 2003-04-01 16:46:55

Hi All -

I just joined this forum, and noticed this topic. I've been a Libertarian since Jan 1994. It seems as though a few of you here don't quite understand the libertarian gig. It's all based on what we call the Non-Aggression Principle (or Zero Aggression Principle, as some are calling it):

The Non-Aggression Principle

Consider how that applies to any social, political or economic issue to get the libertarian take on it.

And lines like these, well what can I say - I'll just keep on laughing:

"And the more people there are, the more laws, regulations, taboos and social structures that are needed to keep the most people free for the most amount of time. Both is important. Have either one or the other, and you're not really getting the point - like a modern republic or psuedo-democratic-monarchy."

"Basically, in order to generate maximum freedom for the maximum number of people, you need a partly-democratic, partly-autocratic, partly-socialist, partly-libertarianistic system. And capitalism can go to hell."

"The idea that you will "liberate" people by ending constraints on the power of the wealthy, what you will end with is an even more tyrannical system than we already have. Such an idea is like a toned down version of saying that we need to "liberate" the masses by making it legitimate to kill someone you don't like--and with almost all the guns in the hands of a few. The wealthy, with the end of social security, will be "liberated" from this "oppression", although the vast majority of the population may not feel quite as free. You might well get your wish, too--we've been generally on an economically "conservative" path for quite a while, ie, absurdly large military budgets, chipping away at social programs and civil liberties, probably at least since the Carter presidency. Of course, it accelerated under Reagan, but Carter was no liberal, either."

"What if through inaction, all are endangered?

The federal government cannot force anyone to do anything.

Fine, we are being threatened with imminent invasion, and all males 17-35 do not want to fight. What now?

I don't want to recycle my paint in an environmentaly sound way, I would rather dump it into the local water supply.

I like to yell fire in a crowded theater, what can you do legitamitley to stop me?

I don't like taxes, I ain't payin.

I like to drive on the left side of the road, against traffic. What are you going to do?

I think fire codes are silly. I am opening a chain of hotels, ignoring the fire codes, and building them out of straw. What are you going to do about it?"
__
- Mike Blessing / Starship Trooper

Socialism -> War
Free (Unregulated & Untaxed) Markets -> Peace
Taxation is the fuel of War
The "Assault Weapons" Ban Must Die

clark · 2003-04-01 17:11:40

Welcome.

Taken from your link:

"No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation."- L. Neil Smith

Ah, wisdom in these words.

Now, since none of us live in Shangra-La, how exactly do we ENFORCE this well thought out nugget of wisdom WITHOUT violating its very principle?

Tell em, "You shouldn't do that," to death?

And lines like these, well what can I say - I'll just keep on laughing:

Laughing right along with you. :laugh:

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-01 19:47:50

The ?Non-Aggression Principle,? would be anarchistic, not Libertarian in the right-libertarian sense. Appropriation goes completely against this Non-Aggression Principle.

One would justify being aggressive towards another as ?defending their horde,? except that they neglect to realize (or even care) that hording in the first place is also an act of aggression.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-03-25 10:23:54

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#2 2003-03-25 10:37:00

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#3 2003-03-25 11:26:23

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#4 2003-03-25 11:43:28

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#5 2003-03-25 11:52:17

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#6 2003-03-25 12:00:07

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#7 2003-03-25 12:02:00

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#8 2003-03-25 13:42:50

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#9 2003-03-25 16:17:45

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#10 2003-03-25 16:32:04

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#11 2003-03-25 19:00:53

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#12 2003-03-25 19:17:07

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#13 2003-03-26 00:31:59

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#14 2003-03-26 06:42:13

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#15 2003-03-26 16:30:06

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#16 2003-03-26 18:26:27

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#17 2003-03-26 18:37:54

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#18 2003-03-26 22:51:39

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#19 2003-03-27 10:41:30

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#20 2003-03-27 11:44:15

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#21 2003-03-27 16:38:25

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#22 2003-03-27 19:25:45

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#23 2003-04-01 16:46:55

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#24 2003-04-01 17:11:40

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

#25 2003-04-01 19:47:50

Re: Libertarians...any Libertarians in here?

Board footer