Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Taihei Tengoku]

he will be restrained by sub-gauleiters and the bylaws, which are still politically determined, and of course, the worker's council needs teeth....

[Annihitor the Incred]

you can replace the gauleiter if you don't like him but before he's replaced he's still the gauleiter and all power goes to him

and if the next one is a bad gauleiter...

If the next guy is bad too you get rid of him too.

And the manager isn't going to be an elected dictator,

that's literally a political process

K

See how debating is done, folks?

"K"

BTFO

[Annihitor the Incred]

Hello and welcome to the Libertarian Discussion Thread. I've commented on this thread's validity and I believed that we needed one in conjunction with the Right- and Left- wing discussion threads, which do not really address libertarian concerns and arguments, and are unsatisfactory for most people who want to explore libertarianism and libertarian thinking without having to trudge through the other threads, evidenced here.

Because “we” libertarians tend to see ourselves as distinct from the modern right and left, I’ve decided that it would be prudent for a specifically libertarian discussion thread. Topics for discussion may include, the US Libertarian Party, various libertarian parties - some more prominent or successful than others - across the globe, the libertarian ideology, conflicts between libertarians, conflicts between libertarians and other political ideologies, the practical application of libertarianism, Medieval Iceland and other supposedly libertarian societies, "thick" verse "thin" libertarianism, natural rights verse consequentialist arguments, and other various arguments. Note that this thread may also apply to adherents of classical and neo- liberalism, of which there is some overlap, with the main differences being values and philosophy instead of policy per se, and adherents of anarchist ideologies such as agorism, voluntaryism, and even mutualism whose origins also arose out of classical liberalism and like their ancestor still maintain a steadfast commitment to free markets and social liberties, despite some major differences in policy, voting and electoral change, as well as views on property and what constitutes as breach of aggression, and sometimes related but distinct ideologies such as Objectivism which had an influence on modern libertarianism.

Because this thread literally won't float without a topic of discussion, allow me to start with one: Who, out of the three most popular candidates running for the US Libertarian Party presidential spot, do you support? Their juicy details that would make some of the Reps and Dems blush below:


Libertarians have a questionable hold on reality.

Gary Johnson, who had been the 2012 Libertarian nominee for president, pulled an amazing one million votes last election (the size of a large city!), is fairly popular amongst Libertarians while at the same time managing to be swallowable for the public. Former two-term governor of New Mexico who holds a record for vetoed legislation. Pro-choice, and believes that Jewish bakers should be forced to bake Nazi cakes for Nazis. The most "liberal," out of the candidates, self described "bleeding heart libertarian," but that wasn't enough for him to say back in January that we should ban the burka, although he did quickly rescind it. Climbed Mount Everest because why not.

John McAfee, a cybersecurity expert, a billionaire and "lady's man" (rawr), and has significantly more name recognition than the other candidates, seems to have some sort of personal grudge against Gary Johnson. Was apparently wanted by the government of Belize under suspicionfor committing murder. Seems to take the "middle" position on everything, opining to know what the definition of a drug is before answering whether the drug war should end. If Gary Johnson is the drugged out hippie, this guy is the drug dealer, at least according to Petersen.

Austin Petersen, a thirty-five year old internet troll and the designer of what is probably the most click-baity site on the internet, has no political credentials whatsoever unlike Johnson or the wealth and connections of McAfee. Pro-life, arguably the most "conservative" (libertarian-conservative) of the three, has an interesting economic policy called the "penny plan" in which 1% of spending would be axed from all departments until the US debt is brought under line IIRC. Believes we should enact letters of marque against ISIS instead of boots on the ground in the Middle East, an idea popular amongst some libertarians and also pirates.

If you haven't already, I'd recommend watching the Stossel debates between these three candidates if you want a greater understanding of them, even if it can be cringe inducing at times.

To answer my question, I think Gary Johnson is the best suited for the presidency. First of all, the fact that the other candidates do not have any political credentials worries me greatly, as the presidency is not just any executive office but you are literally running for the helm of what is perhaps one of the strongest countries both militarily and economically in the world, I think that experience should almost be required for running. Finally, Johnson has scored over 11% in some university polls in which last year rarely came above 7%, which I think is a sign that in conjunction with the media time he's gotten over the last several years and the growing amount of people - like generally fiscally conservative establishment Republicans and leftists who dislike Hillary but wouldn't vote for Trump if it comes down between them, he could have the potential to do very well - if not win the presidency, then at least skyrocket the Libertarian Party and other third parties into media attention, bring to light much needed electoral reform and possibly gain the 5% necessary to secure next year's federal funding and ballot access which significantly would significantly free up resources for the Libertarian Party to work off of that.

Edit: Yes I am aware that 6marion9 made another thread, but I found it was rather inadequate to start a discussion and I am amazed that the mods haven’t locked it, furthermore it doesn’t really convey what needed to be said.

Poll Results
Poll 1: Who would you support for the Libertarian Party candidacy? (The Liberated Territories) - 63% Voted Gary Johnson

Poll 2: What type of libertarian are you?

Constitutionalist - 20%
Minarchist - 21%
Anarcho-Capitalist - 8%
Voluntaryist/Agorist - 2%
Egoist/Individualist - 6%
Mutualist - 4%
Georgist - 3%
None of the Above/Not libertarian - 36%

Poll 3: Best Libertarian Ideologue

Murray Rothbard - 4%
Robert Nozick - 22%
Ron Paul - 18%
David D. Friedman - 1%
Hans-Hermann Hoppe - 12%
Milton Friedman - 32%
Roderick T. Long - 1%
Samuel Edward Konkin III - 1%
Walter Block - 1%
Other - 8%

Poll 4: Where do you live?

United States - 56%
Canada - 2%
United Kingdom - 8%
Australia - 8%
France - No votes
Germany - 2%
Spain - No votes
Czech Republic - 2%
Brazil - 2%
some other weird ass place - 19%

Poll 5: What religion do you belong to?

I have tt say that Libertarians have a questionable hold on reality.

Thanks bro. It was needed.

[Orostan]

he will be restrained by sub-gauleiters and the bylaws, which are still politically determined, and of course, the worker's council needs teeth....

And?

If the next guy is bad too you get rid of him too.

And the manager isn't going to be an elected dictator,


K

See how debating is done, folks?

"K"

BTFO

Getting the elected being political doesn't change anything or refute anything.

Are you going to respond to my fallacy post or not?

[Taihei Tengoku]

It makes me think someone's written a book about this before

[VoVoDoCo]

That is the Oxford dictionary's definition of Socialism. Not the (complete) Marxist one. It gets part of the Marxist definition, but not the most important parts.

The definition of socialism is worker control of the means of production and production for use. That's the two most basic things. Scandinavia has neither, so it's not socialist. It doesn't matter if a country has high taxes, low taxes, lots of public services, no public services, or anything else. If it has a privately owned means of production and a market, it's capitalist. If it has a planned economy and workplace democracy, it's socialist.

^My definition trumps yours because me says so

Definitions change. Our ideology used to be called Liberal. Now it's' Libertarian. We adjust. You should too.

I never said anything about taxes or public services.

Also most dictionaries say Socialism is simply collectivized means of production, not necessarily government run. Why just go with yours?

[Taihei Tengoku]

libertarian is about three syllables too long

now that the word "liberal" is a slur it may be time to reclaim the only word for the only idea-logy

[The Liberated Territories]

I must ask then, are the people who have the "questionable hold on reality" the ones thinking that through a wave of its magic wand, the government can solve everything, and the fact that things keep breaking down must mean government isn't doing enough?

Because its not libertarians. The education system isn't flawed because it's not receiving enough money (quite the contrary), it is flawed because, like Hayek pointed out many years ago, any sort of government planning over markets results in inefficiencies.

[Orostan]

I have tt say that Libertarians have a questionable hold on reality.

Thanks bro. It was needed.

I agree.

That is the Oxford dictionary's definition of Socialism. Not the (complete) Marxist one. It gets part of the Marxist definition, but not the most important parts.

The definition of socialism is worker control of the means of production and production for use. That's the two most basic things. Scandinavia has neither, so it's not socialist. It doesn't matter if a country has high taxes, low taxes, lots of public services, no public services, or anything else. If it has a privately owned means of production and a market, it's capitalist. If it has a planned economy and workplace democracy, it's socialist.

^My definition trumps yours because me says so

Definitions change. Our ideology used to be called Liberal. Now it's' Libertarian. We adjust. You should too.

I never said anything about taxes or public services.

Also most dictionaries say Socialism is simply collectivized means of production, not necessarily government run. Why just go with yours?

Because most dictionaries are not Marxists, and don't have the full definition of socialism. Most dictionaries saying A is B doesn't mean that A is actually B.

Your ideology may have changed names, but you are trying to change the definition of socialism. I'm trying to tell how how I think things should be run, and you say "but the dictionary says that you think this."

It makes me think someone's written a book about this before

Yes, someone has. It's called Das Kapital and I highly reccomend you read all three volumes of it.

[VoVoDoCo]

Also, didn't we agree to layoff on economics? Let's talk about anything else.

Please.

The NAP. Or abortion.

Anything else.

"Libertarian" is an economic stance primarily. That means that a Libertarian discussion thread is an economic discussion thread too.

What are you talking about? Libertarian is an POLITICAL stance primarily, covering things economical to civil. Secondarily it's a stance that believes in free will.

Do you think the Libertarian party has no stance on gay marriage? Or immigration? Or the military? You think it's primarily just economical?

[Annihitor the Incred]

I must ask then, are the people who have the "questionable hold on reality" the ones thinking that through a wave of its magic wand, the government can solve everything, and the fact that things keep breaking down must mean government isn't doing enough?

Because its not libertarians. The education system isn't flawed because it's not receiving enough money (quite the contrary), it is flawed because, like Hayek pointed out many years ago, any sort of government planning over markets results in inefficiencies.

It simply is. Whenever you go too far to the Right or the Left, the whole theory is not built on realism. therefore, because it is not built on realism, it inherently has some built in deficits .

Exclactlu. The center is the objective position, all else is subjective deviations.

[VoVoDoCo]

Because most dictionaries are not Marxists, and don't have the full definition of socialism. Most dictionaries saying A is B doesn't mean that A is actually B.

Your ideology may have changed names, but you are trying to change the definition of socialism. I'm trying to tell how how I think things should be run, and you say "but the dictionary says that you think this."

But today, that's literally not what the word means. Who cares if a source adheres to your ideology or not? There job is to give words meaning. That is NOT the job of Socialist institutions. Why should your definition (made by people who research a lot of topics but NOT word choice) take precedence over institutions that ONLY define words?

[The Liberated Territories]

I must ask then, are the people who have the "questionable hold on reality" the ones thinking that through a wave of its magic wand, the government can solve everything, and the fact that things keep breaking down must mean government isn't doing enough?

Because its not libertarians. The education system isn't flawed because it's not receiving enough money (quite the contrary), it is flawed because, like Hayek pointed out many years ago, any sort of government planning over markets results in inefficiencies.

It simply is. Whenever you go too far to the Right or the Left, the whole theory is not built on realism. therefore, because it is not built on realism, it inherently has some built in deficits .

Appeal to moderation is fun

[VoVoDoCo]

I must ask then, are the people who have the "questionable hold on reality" the ones thinking that through a wave of its magic wand, the government can solve everything, and the fact that things keep breaking down must mean government isn't doing enough?

Because its not libertarians. The education system isn't flawed because it's not receiving enough money (quite the contrary), it is flawed because, like Hayek pointed out many years ago, any sort of government planning over markets results in inefficiencies.

It simply is. Whenever you go too far to the Right or the Left, the whole theory is not built on realism. therefore, because it is not built on realism, it inherently has some built in deficits .

I think you mistyped.
^Going too far left or right isn't based on realism
^Libertarians swing too right (or left?)
^Therefore Libertarians aren't based in realism.

Libertarianism is radical in a lot of ways, but hardly in its hard right/left tilt. Also the "too left" or "too right" sounds awfully close to the Gray fallacy.
Not quite, but close.

[Annihitor the Incred]

It simply is. Whenever you go too far to the Right or the Left, the whole theory is not built on realism. therefore, because it is not built on realism, it inherently has some built in deficits .

Appeal to moderation is fun

Until you get banned for reporting your own shitpost.

[VoVoDoCo]

Appeal to moderation is fun

^In other words this^

[Orostan]

I must ask then, are the people who have the "questionable hold on reality" the ones thinking that through a wave of its magic wand, the government can solve everything, and the fact that things keep breaking down must mean government isn't doing enough?

Because its not libertarians. The education system isn't flawed because it's not receiving enough money (quite the contrary), it is flawed because, like Hayek pointed out many years ago, any sort of government planning over markets results in inefficiencies.

That article cites the Cato institute. The graphs the Cato institute gives don't account for a rising population or rising student counts, and don't say that they're adjusted for inflation.

Anyway, I'd say a country where schools need to ask students to give them supplies and teachers have to spend their own money to buy supplies as well has a pretty underfunded school system.

Hayek's statements relies on a few assumptions, primarily that the government is inherently inefficient. If you define efficiency by profit, you'd be right. If you define efficiency by how many people benefit that wouldn't be able to afford public services if they were privatized, you'd find that public services are extremely efficient.

The market in the first place isn't very efficient at all either.

[VoVoDoCo]

Because most dictionaries are not Marxists, and don't have the full definition of socialism. Most dictionaries saying A is B doesn't mean that A is actually B.

Your ideology may have changed names, but you are trying to change the definition of socialism. I'm trying to tell how how I think things should be run, and you say "but the dictionary says that you think this."

But today, that's literally not what the word means. Who cares if a source adheres to your ideology or not? There job is to give words meaning. That is NOT the job of Socialist institutions. Why should your definition (made by people who research a lot of topics but NOT word choice) take precedence over institutions that ONLY define words?

We went from liberal to classical liberal.

Perhaps you try going from socialist to classical socialist.

Easier to understand what the fuck people are talking about anyway lol

[Hammer Britannia]

Nonono


Now it is Correct

This isn't an argument.

Doesn't make it wrong.

[Northern Davincia]

1. Tell me, does allowing someone to die a natural death violate the NAP? Or, to be more precise, why does intentionally inflicting death violate the NAP?

2. In many law systems, the gruesomeness of the act carries a lot of weight, but it doesn't really matter when it comes to the overall point.

1. Intentionally inflicting death involves two parties:
The killer (trespasser)
The slain (trespassed)

The reason killing violates the NAP isn't because of the act of killing (otherwise goodbye euthanasia and self defense!) but through the intrusion. Mothers owns their bodies, and whenever someone tells them what can and can't be in it, the mother's are not only being trespassed by the fetus (who likely is destined for a life of crime), they're being trespassed by all those who would rather control the healthcare of mothers and send them down a life of poverty rather than down a life free of policemen checking her womb.

2. Define gruesome. Fetuses don't feel pain.

Also, can we all agree this is a nice break from economics? Let's do THIS more often for the love of god.

If a child wandered onto your front yard without permission, do you have the right to kill it? Moreover, do we have the right to kill welfare recipients for their intrusion?

[Orostan]

"Libertarian" is an economic stance primarily. That means that a Libertarian discussion thread is an economic discussion thread too.

What are you talking about? Libertarian is an POLITICAL stance primarily, covering things economical to civil. Secondarily it's a stance that believes in free will.

Do you think the Libertarian party has no stance on gay marriage? Or immigration? Or the military? You think it's primarily just economical?

You cite a bunch of dictionaries again. Libertarianism is primarily economic, primarily. That's all I said.

Also:

>Capitalism
>free will
pick one

This isn't an argument.

Doesn't make it wrong.

Yes it does. By not offering an argument he provides no factual base. That means the statement has no backing.

It simply is. Whenever you go too far to the Right or the Left, the whole theory is not built on realism. therefore, because it is not built on realism, it inherently has some built in deficits .

Exclactlu. The center is the objective position, all else is subjective deviations.

>what the fuck is the overton window

Because most dictionaries are not Marxists, and don't have the full definition of socialism. Most dictionaries saying A is B doesn't mean that A is actually B.

Your ideology may have changed names, but you are trying to change the definition of socialism. I'm trying to tell how how I think things should be run, and you say "but the dictionary says that you think this."

But today, that's literally not what the word means. Who cares if a source adheres to your ideology or not? There job is to give words meaning. That is NOT the job of Socialist institutions. Why should your definition (made by people who research a lot of topics but NOT word choice) take precedence over institutions that ONLY define words?

Yes it is. I just explained how Marxists define Socialism. If I'm a Marxist Socialist, then that's the definition I'm using.

The dictionaries job is to define something without writing a paragraph on it, and they try to do that. They haven't written down the entire definition in this case. The reason why "my definition" takes precedence over theirs is because it's coming from Karl Marx, the guy who invented Marxism if you couldn't guess.

But today, that's literally not what the word means. Who cares if a source adheres to your ideology or not? There job is to give words meaning. That is NOT the job of Socialist institutions. Why should your definition (made by people who research a lot of topics but NOT word choice) take precedence over institutions that ONLY define words?

We went from liberal to classical liberal.

Perhaps you try going from socialist to classical socialist.

Easier to understand what the fuck people are talking about anyway lol

Governments helping out their people is social democracy. Not socialism. The only thing you can call me that isn't just "Socialist" is "Marxist Socialist".

[Annihitor the Incred]

What are you talking about? Libertarian is an POLITICAL stance primarily, covering things economical to civil. Secondarily it's a stance that believes in free will.

Do you think the Libertarian party has no stance on gay marriage? Or immigration? Or the military? You think it's primarily just economical?

You cite a bunch of dictionaries again. Libertarianism is primarily economic, primarily. That's all I said.

Also:

>Capitalism
>free will
pick one

Doesn't make it wrong.

Yes it does. By not offering an argument he provides no factual base. That means the statement has no backing.

Exclactlu. The center is the objective position, all else is subjective deviations.

>what the fuck is the overton window

But today, that's literally not what the word means. Who cares if a source adheres to your ideology or not? There job is to give words meaning. That is NOT the job of Socialist institutions. Why should your definition (made by people who research a lot of topics but NOT word choice) take precedence over institutions that ONLY define words?

Yes it is. I just explained how Marxists define Socialism. If I'm a Marxist Socialist, then that's the definition I'm using.

The dictionaries job is to define something without writing a paragraph on it, and they try to do that. They haven't written down the entire definition in this case. The reason why "my definition" takes precedence over theirs is because it's coming from Karl Marx, the guy who invented Marxism if you couldn't guess.

We went from liberal to classical liberal.

Perhaps you try going from socialist to classical socialist.

Easier to understand what the fuck people are talking about anyway lol

Governments helping out their people is social democracy. Not socialism. The only thing you can call me that isn't just "Socialist" is "Marxist Socialist".

So, are you a socialist or a communist?

[VoVoDoCo]

What are you talking about? Libertarian is an POLITICAL stance primarily, covering things economical to civil. Secondarily it's a stance that believes in free will.

Do you think the Libertarian party has no stance on gay marriage? Or immigration? Or the military? You think it's primarily just economical?

You cite a bunch of dictionaries again. Libertarianism is primarily economic, primarily. That's all I said.

Also:

>Capitalism
>free will
pick one

^How dare you cite dictionaries when discussing defintions

Also, I don't have to pick one. Those are both valid definitions of Libertariansim. I'm not so hell bent on defending my political ideology I disregard definitions cited by dictionaries.

[Orostan]

You cite a bunch of dictionaries again. Libertarianism is primarily economic, primarily. That's all I said.

Also:

>Capitalism
>free will
pick one


Yes it does. By not offering an argument he provides no factual base. That means the statement has no backing.


>what the fuck is the overton window


Yes it is. I just explained how Marxists define Socialism. If I'm a Marxist Socialist, then that's the definition I'm using.

The dictionaries job is to define something without writing a paragraph on it, and they try to do that. They haven't written down the entire definition in this case. The reason why "my definition" takes precedence over theirs is because it's coming from Karl Marx, the guy who invented Marxism if you couldn't guess.



Governments helping out their people is social democracy. Not socialism. The only thing you can call me that isn't just "Socialist" is "Marxist Socialist".

So, are you a socialist or a communist?

All Communists are socialists, but not all socialists are Communists.

You could call me a Communist and it would be accurate, I just don't go around calling myself that. Ever.

You cite a bunch of dictionaries again. Libertarianism is primarily economic, primarily. That's all I said.

Also:

>Capitalism
>free will
pick one

^How dare you cite dictionaries when discussing defintions

Also, I don't have to pick one. Those are both valid definitions of Libertariansim. I'm not so hell bent on defending my political ideology I disregard definitions cited by dictionaries.

Ok, so you as a Libertarian say "this is what i think, and this is what it's called". Why can't I say that without getting into a semantic argument?

[Annihitor the Incred]

So, are you a socialist or a communist?

All Communists are socialists, but not all socialists are Communists.

You could call me a Communist and it would be accurate, I just don't go around calling myself that. Ever.

^How dare you cite dictionaries when discussing defintions

Also, I don't have to pick one. Those are both valid definitions of Libertariansim. I'm not so hell bent on defending my political ideology I disregard definitions cited by dictionaries.

Ok, so you as a Libertarian say "this is what i think, and this is what it's called". Why can't I say that without getting into a semantic argument?

Because common semantics is necessary for debate. Without, you are talking past each other.