Quote:

---

Hmm. I've stated my views on the matter already

---

Quote:

---

Tsking?

---

Quote:

---

the clicky sound ya make wit ur tongue when ur lookin down on sumbody

---

Quote:

---

tsk (a t-like sound made by suction rather than plosion; conventional spelling pronunciation, tsk) interj.Used to express disappointment or sympathy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Tsking?

---

Quote:

---

the clicky sound ya make wit ur tongue when ur lookin down on sumbody

---

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tsk

Quote:

---

tsk (a t-like sound made by suction rather than plosion; conventional spelling pronunciation, tsk) interj.Used to express disappointment or sympathy.

---

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tsk

Apparently, drunk typing not as bad as reading stupid! Tsk tsk! (google is your friend, except when it dumps all of your searches to the NSA)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Hmm. I've stated my views on the matter already

---

You have? Where?

I don't read every thread here, believe it or not, so it may have gotten past me. Can you either provide a link, or copy-and-paste, or just re-state your explanation of libertarianism?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Ive been tut-tutted at a few times about not knowing anything about libertarianism. Yet despite the fact that the topic has come up is several threads recently- the McDonald's war, where has libertarianism been tried in real life, are you a libertarian or wanna be, and the carbon dioxide thread... nobody has been able to provide a cogent explanation about libertarianism, and what it means TO THEM.

So, would someone... anyone, or preferably several someones... who claim to be libertarian please provide an explanation, and be prepared to answer specific direct questions about how it might work?

Until that explanation is provided, will you please refrain from tsking about a topic that you not yet explained?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, okay... one man's explanation. Thanks PN!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
The classic definition is something along the lines of allowing each individual maximum personal freedom to do whatever he wants, in his own way, with minimum interference from anybody else, especially government.

Most definitions include something about restricting that freedom at the point where it harms another.

Another common policy is private property and privacy rights-- the freedom to do whatever you want on your own property, in your own home, without restriction or regulation by the government.

A third common policy is lassaize faire (I don't think I spelled that right.) economics- the government has no right to interfere in any economic transaction or relationship I choose to make.

Another policy is that no person has any mandatory duty to any other, but may choose to undertake such duty on his own for any personal reason. An obvious implication of this one it that a person has no duty to help another who is in difficulty, and may choose not to.

Those are the most common major points. Individual libertarians would accept or reject them to greater or lesser degrees.

An obvious and common interpretation of those points:

Government has no right to say how I treat workers on my private property- It's mine, I can do what I want. Government has no right to interfere between me and and any employee I hire- we both freely entered into whatever wage or working condition agreement we have, and if the workers don't like it, they are free to leave and go work somewhere else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PIRATENEWS:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, okay... one man's explanation. Thanks PN!

---

Continued...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Well stated. These themes vary among self-styled libertarians. There are "anarcho-capitalists" (the Kochs and their puppets), "libertarian socialists" (Chomsky), and other subsets among anarchist and libertarian schools of thought.

Your last paragraph is what the "an-caps" argue for. The opposite is what Chomsky argues for; regular folks standing up to power and forcing change.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PIRATENEWS:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, okay... one man's explanation. Thanks PN!

---

Continued...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

I wasn't gonna post it, in case this had the potential for actual discussion, but since, well, anyways...
Ahem.



-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Hmm. I've stated my views on the matter already

---

You have? Where?

I don't read every thread here, believe it or not, so it may have gotten past me. Can you either provide a link, or copy-and-paste, or just re-state your explanation of libertarianism?

---

Summed up nicely here...

* Simply put, I believe in freedom. I believe the Constitution should be amended with a clause which states that neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a persons right to life, liberty or property, a crime.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


* Simply put, I believe in freedom. I believe the Constitution should be amended with a clause which states that neither the federal nor any state government shall make any activity that does not violate, through force or fraud, a persons right to life, liberty or property, a crime. I firmly believe that if liberty is to be preserved in America, it will be libertarian thought, if not the Libertarian Party, that saves it.[1]

* http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Neal_Boortz#cite_note-asg-1

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I like it, Frem. I think that's what's implied in my posts. That's certainly MY POV.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

And isn't folks organizing to "stand up to power and force change" the exact kind of outside interference libertarians would say is improper? Two examples: isn't it OK for Alex Rodriguez to stand up and demand a $125 Million contract from the Yankees for 10 years service, as an individual talent, but not for 500 workers to organize and strike of a 10 cent an hour raise for 3 years, and safer working conditions, as a group?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

You're aware, of course, that the 2nd didn't happen until the war was won...

Even then, not everyone could have a gun. Slaves, in particular.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Thanks NOBC. I have some questions but I need to save them for later.

Altho, I have to say I think that the libertarians on this board are a pretty pathetic lot if they won't even speak for themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So...



If I were a "libertarian", as some here claim to be...


Would I have a problem with Iraq or Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons program? And if so, why wouldn't I have the exact same problem with France, India, South Africa, Israel, Pakistan, the United States, England, or Russia having the exact same kinds of weapons programs?

Also,

Should I have a problem with people in other countries preaching hatred of America and the West, to the point where I would bomb them and invade and occupy their countries?

After all, if I *REALLY* believe in freedom for all to do whatever they like, so long as they aren't causing me direct harm, then what care I if Iran wants nukes or if someone in Dubai says "Death to America!"?

As so many want to point out, it's not the weapon or the words that are the danger, right? They're just the tools; the actions are where the problems lie. If Iran has a nuke and doesn't use it, what harm is done to me? If someone hates America, how am I endangered by that?

Libertarian thought should have prevented our involvement in every war we've been involved in for the last 60 years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
FREM- sometimes a baboon tribe needs to be purged of its alpha males and wanna-be's in order to find some kind of stability.

---

Quote:

---

This is the spiel, but what do you actually mean by it all? How does it really work? How, in a large and complex society, where your individual rights start to infringe on anothers individual rights, and how does this get defined and sorted?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:
This is the spiel, but what do you actually mean by it all? How does it really work? How, in a large and complex society, where your individual rights start to infringe on anothers individual rights, and how does this get defined and sorted?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:
This is the spiel, but what do you actually mean by it all? How does it really work? How, in a large and complex society, where your individual rights start to infringe on anothers individual rights, and how does this get defined and sorted?

---

Indeed, this is exactly the issue. I can't recall who I was talking to, but on some thread here it became clear to me that this lawless world libertarians dream of relies on human beings all suddenly and magically agreeing on what is right and wrong and abiding by those uniform ideals.

Libertarian: "If only everyone had the same morality and wanted the same way of life as me, then we wouldn't need a govt and everyone would be happy!"

There seems to be no realization that people are and always will be very different from each other. I've yet to see that satisfactorily addressed.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:




Apparently, in the libertarian utopia, everyone would be FORCED to behave exactly the same way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Apparently, in the libertarian utopia, everyone would be FORCED to behave exactly the same way. But that have freedom to do whatever they wanted, as long as it's what everybody else wants, too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:


It also assumes that the economy will always be healthy enough to be able to provide jobs to all of the population, so that if you are not working, you are choosing not to work. What happens in recessions and depressions when you get high unemployment, do you let people starve?

And if you rely only on charitable contribution, what happens to those people who don't attract charity capital because their cause isn't noble enough?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
'Anthony and Serg x, as well as Frem'

Those are names I've not heard for a long time ...

That sounds like it goes years back ... ??? If so, that would be some digging.

---

Quote:

---

.... But those would be counter to what Libertarians believe, about how Rights of one only extend so far as not to impede onto another's. That includes both rights of the individuals and of govts.

---

Quote:

---

Libertarians follow the Non-aggression Principle, generally, "It shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another.", or something similar. "Violence" is generally expanded to include physical, financial, or political coercion. Self-defense, BTW, is not considered aggression. This is probably one reason there are no Libertarian countries. The existing governments can use anything, up to and including physical violence, to make sure they stay in power. All Libertarians can do is try to persuade folks to change. ...
As noted above, most Libertarians follow the non-aggression principle, which is pretty much the antithesis of "might-makes-right". If I had to say, I'd describe Libertarianism as more of "Consensus makes right, as long as no consensus practices aggression on anyone."

---

Quote:

---

Ever read Murray Rothbard or Bill Bradford? Or you could read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" or L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, what is the purpose of libertarianism? Usually, political/ economic philosophies have some sort of stated goal: prosperity for all. Prosperity for some now, so that there will be more in the future. The genetic improvement of the human race in a dog-eat-dog system. Equity. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

I've heard no such overarching goal for libertarianism. Now usually if people won't tell me why they're doing something and why I should too (What's in it for me and mine?) I get the strange feeling that either they don't know, or they don't WANT to tell me because... well, I probably wouldn't agree with it.

So, for anyone who has an idea of what the end goal of libertarianism is, please feel free to speak up!

---

Quote:

---

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism. Libertarians advocate a society with minimized government or no government at all.

In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives. According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should have a role. Anarchist schools advocate complete elimination of the state, while Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some schools accept governmental assistance for the poor. Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources, while others reject such private ownership and support various forms of left-libertarianism.

---

Quote:

---

Propertarian libertarian philosophies define liberty as non-aggression (an arrangement in which no person or group "aggresses" against any other party), where aggression is defined as the violation of private property. This philosophy implicitly recognizes private property as the sole source of legitimate authority. Propertarian libertarians hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes. They generally support the free-market, and are not opposed to any concentration of power (e.g. monopolies), provided it is brought about through non-coercive means.

---

Quote:

---

The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force—is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are. Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.

---

Quote:

---

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a libertarian capitalist political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions. Such states are generally called night-watchman states.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Rules should apply or not apply to all or none, anything less reeks of a caste system and is by design, a tyranny - and make no mistake, a lot of so-called libertarians are really just a false front for the NeoFeudoFascists who want exactly that

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:


For example, the assumption that workers and employers have equal power.

---