Do Libertarians Stand By Their Convictions?

Your questions have been answered, multiple times. You simply refuse to accept them, or you lack understanding and, instead of asking for clarity, you choose to insult and patronize. The only reason any of us put up with your trolling in this thread is that there is some service in the discussion of libertarianism. Since I find your post to be either attacks, fallacy, or simply steeped in ignorance, they really aren't worth giving any creedence. Others, however, have some good arguments worth exploring.

Also, you complain that your thread may be hijacked, yet you show no such respect or restraint for the threads of others.

 

No, my questions haven't been answered Ken, but you keep trying to say they have. If you aren't going to deal in specifics then just go away and ignore your problem of falling short to addressing the challenge.

Or for you specifially, let's deal with you stop sing problem you confessed to in that you don't agree with the enforcement of stop sign laws. We don't have to get anymore complicated than that in your simpleminded case. Or just ignore the question again and listen to those who can deliver the goods. (none obviously so far)

 

I don't know how libertarian this is, but I want the income tax gone. It's unjust. It's theft.

If the libertarians will work for that, I'll vote for them.

I'm probably not libertarian in my views on firearms, as I tend to hate them and want them controlled so that they're not floating around society, loaded and ready to be used irresponsibly.

As for freedoms you say aren't being taken away, I will simply cite the USA PATRIOT Act and its kin. The government is ever encroaching on civil liberties in the name of security.

I also oppose the central bank and fiat currency, and I most definitely oppose interest in general being charged by banks and other lenders. Is that libertarian? I don't know, but if they will work to fight those things... Well, you know.

I'll let the other libertarians speak up about what they want. I can't hope to speak for them any more than I could hope to speak for my fellow atheists about what they believe. Perhaps this is why libertarianism confuses people - it's like the atheism of politics.

 

I don't have any problem with you calling the elimination of income taxes as libertarian. You may want to get another libertarian or two to agree with you though to prove it has some substance as a libertarian grievance.

And so let's deal with it. They can eliminate the income tax and replace it with other methods of taxation. There's no conspiracy theory to prevent it but there is a sincere effort being made to apply taxation in a method that taxes the user as opposed to others. And so in other words, suggest some other form of taxation to replace it that would be more used specific.

What I will not do is entertain ideas of eliminataing taxation completely. That's hairbrain, pie in the sky nonsense! And that doesn't mean that some taxation couldn't be eliiminated because the money is used in unfustified abusive and wasteful ways. That's something you could address if you are sincere about exploring the whole question. I would just ask that you try to make it specific to the libertarian agenda as that is the topic of this thread.

 

It has been answered multiple times. What wasn't clear to you? Go back, reference the posts in which I answered your questions, and explain to me, using quotes, what wasn't clear. Only then will I consider your charge that your questions have not been answered.

If you need help, here are at least three posts in which I comment on your question about stop signs and make my views very clear.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...tand-their-convictions-25.html#post1062494746

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...t-control-outlaw-unions-5.html#post1062489789

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...tand-their-convictions-28.html#post1062508227

If you accuse me again, anywhere, any time, I will simply post these three links again. It is important to me now that others see just how trollish your behavior is.

 

... I explicitly did not call it libertarian. Read again.

Or we can eliminate it and not replace it.

Harebrained, you mean, and of course I disagree.

I don't know of any agenda apart from shrinking government, especially at the federal level. I think entitlement spending would get the axe, at least for the most part, as would a lot of military spending.

 

That's hilarious coming from you. Name a libertarian issue or belief you've brought up. You've just used this thread to talk about libertarians. Hardly something to be proud of.

I've brought up the NAP, you don't wish to discuss it what else is there to talk about then?

 

HR. 347. Do you wish to start with that? Let's take one specific freedom we used to possess that has been criminalized and you can argue for the progressives, how's that?

Here is the ACLU's take on it: http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/hr-347

Why do you feel that this had to be criminalized? Take a position.

 

Too bad.

How do you feel about the change in our policy about protests and free speech? Shouldn't you have to know you're in the zone to be considered a felon? We used to care about intent.

 

Okay forget that one, how about the FISA-FAA? I'm against it.

Prior to Congress giving us the FAA, our previous Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act prevented our government from conducting any electronic surveillance without an individualized order, thus (somewhat) protecting our Constitutionally-protected right to due process. Now, the courts are essentially removed from the equation with little to no oversight.

What do you think about that? Do you feel that these agencies should be allowed to bypass the courts and spy on individuals? Is that a violation of individual freedom? Libertarians would say that violates our individual rights and freedoms, and those Constitutional Libertarians would say it is a violation of the Constitution.

 

If "libertarians" don't have or need "leaders", then why do those nonexistent leaders need to be "consistent"? Mind explaining your "logic" there?

 

Ethereal please!

 

People who self-identify as "small l libertarians" do so in order to make a distinction between them and "Libertarians" who are members of the Libertarian Party. A small l libertarian is just someone who assumes a label for convenience's sake when conversing with people who are brainwashed into collectivist modes of thinking. It's not like I go around in my personal life introducing myself as a libertarian. It is just a label and it does not define who I am.

Please, what? You made a post and I responded with a relevant line of inquiry. Are you incapable of engaging in basic debate? Seems that way.

 

Here's a very good list of the different types of libertarianism. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have about it.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/uscivillibertie1/p/libertarians.htm

 

If you're going to insist this is not a flamebait thread and not trolling, then why do you refuse to discuss actual issues in this thread?

 

You asked this question in your OP: "Maybe some of our prominent libertarians could defend their position? "

Are you now repudiating your own thread?

 

Not sure why he's pleading with me. Seems a bit overly dramatic response to a forum post.

 

Holy Kühe.. "Restricted buildings"?? I like that our government is increasingly shielding itself from the people it rules under an iron fist. At least their dictatorial ways are more out in the open that way.

 

"Oh, those things? We'll never really enforce that, it's just because of the war on terror, or something. You know, we just .....look, over there, a football game!"

 

That's like saying that anything he's ever commented on hasn't been as such. I've discussed a few things, in this very thread, with him. Some he agreed with, as soon as he disagreed with one, insert I'm bat s--- crazy. Now, apparently, I'm moving away from the libertarian agenda, as if there ever was one.

For me, I think threads like this become a two way street. One, it provides a potentially valid platform to discuss libertarianism. I, for one, would love to honestly & openly discuss my positions. I completely understand we're not all going to agree with each other, and that's fine with me. I accept that reality and I don't reject others positions because of it. What I get tired of is the generalization that is occurring, on forums like this, and folks in the lame stream media. Libertarianism isn't one thing and all must follow along with the herd. As BHK pointed out, through his link, there are a magnitude of varying views. Each person has their own unique stance and that's why I love the thought of being a libertarian and believing in libertarianism. I truly can't find a better political stance when it comes to respecting everyone. I want nothing but to better everyone, especially those that are poor. In yet, I'm the crazy one with crazy positions, I just don't get it.

In the end, this comment wasn't directed at you, Zosias. It was more or less more fodder to the discussion. I grew wary of this thread because it was simply insulting & belittling me. If folks don't agree with my stance, that have every right to do so. I don't believe I should be insulted or belittled to make that point. I believe in the NAP (Non-aggression principle), so I never reported anyone on this thread. I moved onto other threads and continued my discussions with folks who honestly & openly wish to discuss things. I don't expect to change the world, all I hope is that folks just give me the respect that I give them, a simple request.

As BHK stated and I wish to follow up on his statement, as well, I'm very willing to discuss any position within libertarianism (Also directed towards Durandal, as well). I hold firm onto my stance & positions and if I can show folks a different side to libertarianism, then it's a win-win scenario in my book.

 

Going by that, I can declare at least preliminary support for/agreement with:

Civil Libertarianism
Classical Liberalism
Fiscal Libertarianism
Geolibertarianism

I'm not sure about the interventionist military stances or having government maintain a professional military. I think I'd favor something more divided and localised even in the military, though of course with framework agreements to work together for the national interest as far as national defense, disaster relief and so forth are concerned. I don't want to be fully isolationist, as I feel we can and at times should intervene elsewhere if people are being persecuted by some power. Best to deal with genocide and such rather than let it continue. Going after oppressive governments like that in North Korea... Maybe with popular and international support.

 

Can we talk about libertarianism now?

I do think that we do give off the wrong impression because as some pointed out, there are "Libertarians" and libertarians. As voluntaryists are also libertarians...it can get confusing.

 

Stick around. The trolling is a pain, but we are also having some good discussions here. Don't let the trolls win!

If I held to my convictions, I never would have become a libertarian.

 

I envision a country that is run by and for the people, just as the founders wrote. This would mean people taking a break from Dancing with the Stars and football to take an interest in local and national affairs, to inform themselves and contribute. That's what our system should encourage and depend on.

As it is now, though, many of us just cast votes every couple of years for someone who sounds at least mildly agreeable (too often out of just two available options) and then sit back and let "them" run things, all the while constantly taking more money and liberties from us while we talk but do nothing effective.

How about a libertarian march on the white house I bet that would get this country's numerous secretive intelligence agencies involved. Would an effort to topple Washington end up like the revolution in Romania in '89? Would the government have loyal agents shooting at the revolutionaries?

 

Your use of the word "we" is imposing a moral obligation on others. It may be a laudable moral value, or it may not. It may be well intended, or it may not. However, what right do you have to impose that moral obligation on to others?

Take the "we" out of your sentence, and replace it with "I". Does it still make sense to you? Are you going to go do it?

I'm all for private individuals going after governments like North Korea. Demanding that others pay for it and do it on your behalf is against any principle of liberty that I know of. What, objectively, makes North Korea a less moral place if people here are forced to fight in foreign countries and/or pay for that war?