Are Libertarians the only ones that are truly for smaller government?

I believe it's more accurate to say that they are driven by ethics.

 

For some reason you believe in your Utopia that people are ethical. They are not and they have proven it time after time which is why there are so many laws and regulations.

 

You want to be a Libertarian but you are smart enough to realize that much of their positions are illogical and would produce devastating results to the economy. Especially their economic beliefs.

 

Their positions require highly gradual devolution. I recognize such, and seek to remedy the lack of optimization by incorporating alternative ideologies into the directional path which will make libertarianism a reality.

 

If you can come up with solutions that make us more free, more productive, and safer at the same time... more power to you! But Ron Paul is an all or nothing Libertarian. Either you want complete freedom or you are not a Libertarian.

 

As usual, you contradict yourself. If they are driven by philosophy, why would they then want to do anything that is prohibited by that philosophy? In fact, most libertarians adhere to personal values and rules that are far stricter than that of many people. They do not believe that pronouncements of right and wrong are truth because they come from the lips of politicians, as you do, and therefore abide by their own internal rules and apply their political philosophy, libertarianism, to political action.

 

I believe you are misinformed, or perhaps you confuse advocating ethics with the mistaken notion that all people will act ethically at all times.

 

My desire to achieve anarchism should be enough to quiet naysayers of my commitment to complete freedom, just as Noam Chomsky's desire to establish anarcho-syndicalist libertarian socialism silences those who object to his support of public welfare.

 

Nothing you have ever argued suggests that you believe at all in what you just posted above.

Really! How awful! Why, that's like those misguided abolitionists who insisted that you could not be an abolitionist yourself if you did not want an end to all slavery.

And, Ron Paul is not an "all or nothing" libertarian. While he is a lifetime member of the Libertarian party, his views are not entirely in accordance with libertarianisn. If you understood libertarianism at all, which your posts in this thread indicate you know nothing about it, you would know this.

 

How is that a contradiction? You guys are driven by philosophy.

 

Which is why, of course, the people who win popularity contests are best suited to rule over us.

 

So if Libertarian's allow unethical behavior... how are they for "ethics"?

 

You mean normal people who have normal ideas? Yea, that's why it's a choice between them and you nut jobs are on the sidelines with your armadillo hats.

 

Libertarians recognize breaches of life, liberty, or property (including self-ownership) due to philosophical reasoning. If a behavior constitutes a conflict with life, liberty, or property, one will probably not consider such ethical.

 

Let's have a simple example. Libertarian's are staunchly against the EPA and Government. How would you guys prevent the deforestation of America from capitalists? If the Govt didn't preserve land and there were no limits to chopping down trees, what would prevent capitalists who are free to do it from destroying every tree in America?

 

You said that libertarians believe in a utopia where everyone will act ethically. This is not the case. Libertarians propose and adhere to a particular ethical framework, but they recognize that there are robbers, murderers, rapists, etc in the world, and that not everyone will share their particular ethical outlook or behavior.

 

Once again, you fail to get that libertarianism is a political philosophy. Does it need to be written in block letters with a crayon for you to understand that? There are political ethics, which all libertarians generally share in common, and personal ethics which are as varied as libertarians. Unlike the hive mind, state-worship that you consider to be the scope of "normality", most people do adhere to different values that are often not at all political.

 

So how do you prevent or enforce laws for unethical behavior with out Government?

 

Every person has the right to defend himself against aggression against his property (including his person), either personally or through an agent.

 

It's actually a very limited ethical framework as it only applies to the political action in relation to human interaction. I like to use the adultery analogy. Under the Libertarian philosophy, it would be wrong for the state to prohibit any form of adultery practiced between consenting adults as they have the right to freely associate even if it violates vows they may have made before a deity and/or a spouse. However, some people would find it ethically wrong to commit adultery, finding it violates their own personal values to give that sort of offense to their spouse and/or deity. Some libertarians, like any other human beings, enjoy polyamory; some find it reprephensible. Unlike the Akphidelt types who hold that the state should enforce their own personal morals, or get their personal morals from the words of politicians, no libertarian would seek to prohibit polyamory even if they prohibit it from their own lives.

Another example is lying. It is, for many, unethical to lie. Should lying be prohibited? Certainly fraud is a punishable offense, sometimes criminally and sometimes civilly, but not all lying constitutes fraud. In fact, most lying does not.

I'd note that those "normal" people with "normal ideas" who win popularity contests put very little ethical value on the truth, which is, apparently, something we should celebrate according to others in this thread.

 

Private courts, and private justice systems. Much as it was done done in the past, before government came along and began putting people in cages for millions of different reasons.

 

What about the environment or animals? Of course people should be able to defend their property. I don't know anyone who is against that. Why can't society have a say in what actions they deem right or wrong for THEIR society. Like people walking the streets naked. Why can't we as a society vote that we do not want naked people walking all over the place. Is that something Libertarian's are for or against? Because it doesn't violate anyone's space, other than their sight. These are all the little things that come up that the Government has to deal with.

I like Libertarian's. Most Libertarian's I know love the environment, love the country, are good honest American citizens. If everyone was like that I can see how it would work. But the majority of people are not like that. So how do we set up some kind of structure where we can stop actions that society does not want.

I had an argument with a Libertarian a while back that said if someone wants to cook meth in their backyard in plain site to everyone around that he should be able to. I don't want that, majority of society doesn't want that. Why can't we vote to prevent that from happening in our community?

 

Hahahaha, private courts and private justice systems??? Are you crazy?

 

Agreed. I apologize if I made it sound as if libertarian ethics extends beyond the non-aggression principle.

Correct, since "banning" such behavior would be initiating aggression.

 

The non-aggression principle and self-ownership applies in this case. A pluralistic framework is necessary. If land is stolen from an individual, this constitutes initiation of force, and a deprival of property. Consequently, if government is present, due process is in order, upon which courts should recognize the illegitimate coercion, and transfer the land back to the original owner. Without government, private litigation must occur. Arbitration, for example, between the aggressor and the victim, ethically ending with the transfer of land back to the original owner should ensue.

Lets say the above arguments are not adequate. An individual, or group of individuals, as per self-ownership, may bring litigation, arbitration, or an alternative form of negotiation upon the aggressor before they degrade the environment. Since chopping down trees exacerbates the greenhouse effect, thereby distorting the natural global temperature cycle, which threatens the long-run existence of human life, a sovereign can transfer such land back to the greater public, upon which they may collectively conserve such areas for the benefit of all.

These arguments may also be null and void due to the fact that acquisition of land almost always consists of the initiation of force. In other words, conservation of flora and fauna can occur simply because there is violent conflict among two or more individuals.