NationStates

I have been doing some research on libertarianism (minimal government for those who don't know) became a libertarian myself, and I've seen some criticisms that make sense such as "total freedom does not guarantee happiness" and I understand that. I read through the whole list and none of the other points and my faith in libertarianism was not swayed. Yet many still say that libertarianism would not work. I looked on the lists and found that the number of socialists and iron fisted dictatorships outweighed the number of libertarians an anarcho Capitalists, so all I'm asking for is your reasoning for choosing your own political philosophy, or, more to the point, why more people aren't shouldn't have both economic and social freedom . Please explain your reasoning.

Umbradge wrote:I have been doing some research on libertarianism (minimal government for those who don't know) became a libertarian myself, and I've seen some criticisms that make sense such as "total freedom does not guarantee happiness" and I understand that. I read through the whole list and none of the other points and my faith in libertarianism was not swayed. Yet many still say that libertarianism would not work. I looked on the lists and found that the number of socialists and iron fisted dictatorships outweighed the number of libertarians an anarcho Capitalists, so all I'm asking for is your reasoning for choosing your own political philosophy, or, more to the point, why more people aren't shouldn't have both economic and social freedom . Please explain your reasoning.

People should have both Social and economic freedom, thats why the Libertarian party is the largest and fastest growing 3rd party in the US.

Umbradge wrote:libertarianism (minimal government for those who don't know
[...]
anarcho Capitalists

wat

It would.


For some people.

It would work okay. If you were a billionaire. If you are so poor that you have to work multiple jobs in order the barely scrape by, you're screwed.

Because with no government we would have no law.anyone could rob you and you couldn't do anything about it.People want justice so it wouldn't work.I am a libertarionist myself and i understand this.you need government but not too much and not too little.

Because, strangely enough, creating giant power vacuums doesn't appear to create that much stability.

Kelmet wrote:

Umbradge wrote:I have been doing some research on libertarianism (minimal government for those who don't know) became a libertarian myself, and I've seen some criticisms that make sense such as "total freedom does not guarantee happiness" and I understand that. I read through the whole list and none of the other points and my faith in libertarianism was not swayed. Yet many still say that libertarianism would not work. I looked on the lists and found that the number of socialists and iron fisted dictatorships outweighed the number of libertarians an anarcho Capitalists, so all I'm asking for is your reasoning for choosing your own political philosophy, or, more to the point, why more people aren't shouldn't have both economic and social freedom . Please explain your reasoning.

People should have both Social and economic freedom, thats why the Libertarian party is the largest and fastest growing 3rd party in the US.

If you believe people should have more social and economic freedom, you ought to try the Democratic Party, it's the only viable one that's even an option.

Libertarianism is for people who don't understand nuance or economics.

Hmm...do libertarians support trusts and business monopolies?

Because it fails to acknowledge positive liberties.

Libertarianism is the right's socialism. A fairy tale concept that sounds good on paper, until you actually try to apply it in person. In the case of libertarianism, you'll have to settle for non-Libertarian policies or else risk becoming a 2-class state though.

Mkuki wrote:Hmm...do libertarians support trusts and business monopolies?

That sounds boring and non-edgy. Smawl gubmint sounds better.

Because there's apparently mandatory naivete that comes with the idea that people should be free to do whatever the hell they want but that on their own completely if they're not well endowed. It's just begging to turn into feudalism all over again.

Uelvan wrote:Libertarianism is the right's socialism. A fairy tale concept that sounds good on paper, until you actually try to apply it in person. In the case of libertarianism, you'll have to settle for non-Libertarian policies or else risk becoming a 2-class state though.

Only socialism is utopian where libertarianism is dystopian.

Frisivisia wrote:

Mkuki wrote:Hmm...do libertarians support trusts and business monopolies?

That sounds boring and non-edgy. Smawl gubmint sounds better.

I'm not in the business of being edgy, Joe. If I were I'd be an an-cap.

Frisivisia wrote:

Uelvan wrote:Libertarianism is the right's socialism. A fairy tale concept that sounds good on paper, until you actually try to apply it in person. In the case of libertarianism, you'll have to settle for non-Libertarian policies or else risk becoming a 2-class state though.

Only socialism is utopian where libertarianism is dystopian.

One man's utopia is another's dystopia. Rich people might see Socialism as a dystopia and Libertarianism as a utopia.

The Libertarian viewpoint is quite selfish, I believe. Libertarians want more privatization of necessary services that provide for the public. If Libertarian ideals were pushed forward, there would be many people bereft of an ability to thrive. Most State governments provide a safety net, and the social contract requires cooperation from the citizen for the safety net to be maintained and for the most common good to be maintained. The harsh individualism of the Libertarian potentially ignores the rights of- and their responsibilities to -others.

Libertarians wish to be their own 'masters', with their own property held in complete bondage to them and them alone. It is a fantasy of individual power and 'freedom' for the common man that is but a dream.

Uelvan wrote:

Frisivisia wrote:Only socialism is utopian where libertarianism is dystopian.

One man's utopia is another's dystopia. Rich people might see Socialism as a dystopia and Libertarianism as a utopia.

Utopia for a small class coupled with Dystopia for everyone else is just Dystopia. Socialism is utopia for everyone.

Kelmet wrote:People should have both Social and economic freedom, thats why the Libertarian party is the largest and fastest growing 3rd party in the US.

When your party has, for example, 100 people, and you add 10 more people in that year - you can easily trumpet the fact that you have a 10% growth rate per year.

And yet, strangely enough, that doesn't mean much. Keep that in mind.

Khalite wrote:The Libertarian viewpoint is quite selfish, I believe. Libertarians want more privatization of necessary services that provide for the public. If Libertarian ideals were pushed forward, there would be many people bereft of an ability to thrive. Most State governments provide a safety net, and the social contract requires cooperation from the citizen for the safety net to be maintained and for the most common good to be maintained. The harsh individualism of the Libertarian potentially ignores the rights of- and their responsibilities to -others.

Libertarians wish to be their own 'masters', with their own property held in complete bondage to them and them alone. It is a fantasy of individual power and 'freedom' for the common man that is but a dream.

The strongest advocates of feudalism always imagine themselves to be part of the ruling class.

Frisivisia wrote:

Uelvan wrote:
One man's utopia is another's dystopia. Rich people might see Socialism as a dystopia and Libertarianism as a utopia.

Utopia for a small class coupled with Dystopia for everyone else is just Dystopia. Socialism is utopia for everyone.

Nah. But this isn't a socialism debate thread.

Gauthier wrote:

Khalite wrote:The Libertarian viewpoint is quite selfish, I believe. Libertarians want more privatization of necessary services that provide for the public. If Libertarian ideals were pushed forward, there would be many people bereft of an ability to thrive. Most State governments provide a safety net, and the social contract requires cooperation from the citizen for the safety net to be maintained and for the most common good to be maintained. The harsh individualism of the Libertarian potentially ignores the rights of- and their responsibilities to -others.

Libertarians wish to be their own 'masters', with their own property held in complete bondage to them and them alone. It is a fantasy of individual power and 'freedom' for the common man that is but a dream.

The strongest advocates of feudalism always imagine themselves to be part of the ruling class.

I do not know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. Elaborate?

Gauthier wrote:The strongest advocates of feudalism always imagine themselves to be part of the ruling class.

This applies to so many ideologies that it's rather sad.

Frisivisia wrote:

Uelvan wrote:
One man's utopia is another's dystopia. Rich people might see Socialism as a dystopia and Libertarianism as a utopia.

Utopia for a small class coupled with Dystopia for everyone else is just Dystopia. Socialism is utopia for everyone.

Not for me. All socialism does is make everyone poor and make it (semi)-sustainable.

Uelvan wrote:

Frisivisia wrote:Only socialism is utopian where libertarianism is dystopian.

One man's utopia is another's dystopia. Rich people might see Socialism as a dystopia and Libertarianism as a utopia.

So 1984's Oceania was actually a utopia because the approximately 20 people in the Upper Party had a pretty swell life?