Why are many libertarians so brainwashed?

Lol, what do you mean "real history"?

And I assume you are talking about public education K-12. Academics in college study and examine "real history" more than any other people out there. It's why we understand history because of all their research.

 

Why do you view "liberty" as the ultimate good is a better question. Purestly liberty would be anarchy

Why do you view 'initiating force' as the ultimate bad - some people unfortunately need force initiated against them, murderers, rapist, child pornographers, etc. Kind of like with a spoiled child, some children do just need a good spanking - if a person applied this literal pacifistic ideology to parenting, then they'd wind up with a spoiled, rotten kid who just does what ever they want and will probably still be living with parents till age 30.

If you want an example that's close to what purest liberty (aka anarchy) looks like, spend about 30 minutes on 4chan - if you'd like to live in a nationwide society like that just because in your mind 'no force' is better than an actually functioning society, then bully for you - but most people would disagree.

No one really cares that much what you do or is out to stop you - you have unwarranted sense of self-importance.

[hr][/hr]

Trying to take a personal ethic and turn it into a literalistic form of govt seems like a bad idea to me.

 

Most don't got to college to learn history.

The dirty stuff.

 

Many people go to college to learn history. Most historians are college graduates who spend their lifetimes studying history.

 

I will cite my above post - again, you aren't more "educated" about anything related to maintaining a stable society or sound governance.

As a chemist, I know more about chemistry than the greatest minds of the subject 100 years ago - simply b/c of scientific advances, the filling in of the periodic table, etc...

But the average citizen 100 years ago dedicated much more of their education time to the study of history and governmental systems than 99.9% of Amerikans today.

The Soviet Union had some great scientists - the Nazi's had some great scientists... does that mean they were more "educated" or enlightened about governmental systems than previous generations?? Of course not...

And so it is with Amerikans circa 2013 - they may know more about biology, geology, dentistry, etc; but they're completely ignorant about history and freedom.

 

Why do you persist with strawman arguments??

If you had read any of the posts of libertarians in this thread you might have learned something - instead, you seem determined to ignore our logical explanations, and push ahead with the ignorant nonsense you started with.

Seriously, do you fancy yourself an informed citizen?? Because I can assure you, you're way behind most libertarians in understanding proper governance.

Libertarians aren't anarchists, and trying to conflate the two is dishonest, and doesn't serve any purpose - unless of course you're not interested in discourse, understanding, and learning; but rather have an agenda - facts be damned.

As libertarians are not anarchists, but almost universally believe in republican rule of law - enforcing legitimate law is not "initiating force", it is enforcing properly enacted law.

The murderer committed a crime - he broke the law; he is arrested, afforded his rights guarenteed him under the Constitution; afforded due process; and tried before a jury of his peers. The result of which may, or may not, result in a "good spanking".

"Initiating force" isn't a definable term. That said, the discussion should revolve around what is "legitimate government force". You seem not to understand that the government, in a republic, is itself governed by the rule of law.

If a government is not empowered by the constitution which governs it (be it our Federal Constitution, or a state Constitution) to perform a certain function, or use force in a given situation, or use force at all, then it simply does not possess that power; and any attempt on the part of the government to engage in the use of such force, or any attempt to carry out an action that it is not specifically granted by the constituion - is illegimate and illegal.

The Patriot Act and NDAA are patently unConstitutional - the fact that we have a rogue President, a rogue Congress, and a rogue judiciary should be obvouis; but the misbehavior of those institutions is only possible b/c of an ignorant population.

Of course The Patriot Act and NDAA are only the tip of an iceberg that has been steadily growing for decades. Most of what the FedGov does is unConstitutional, i.e. it is illegal - it is these illegal assumptions of power that we libertarians object to.

 

Well most US libertarians, especially in the republican party, are not true libertarians. They are states' rights activists. They hate the federal government and want it severely limited, and in the extreme, completely abolished, but do not say anything when states do the same things that they bash the federal government on. For example, Ron Paul bashes the federal government on the war on drugs, but still thinks it's fine for states to interfere in the private lives of consenting adults, and outlaw the use of drugs.

 

Actually you're confusing a social liberal with a libertarian.

 

You had me up until this point. If the Constitution provided for a totalitarian government with the right to demand you fill out forms every time you used the urinal, that wouldn't make everything peachy.

 

The reason we like the US Constitution so much is because it is written in a very libertarian way. If it wasn't, we'd be fighting to change it rather than constantly yelling at people to follow it more often.

 

All right; OK. But then, why invoke the Constitution, anyway? Isn't it the principles it was founded on that are what really matter?

 

Yes. We invoke it because it is a legal document, and a very symbolic one at that, that can be used to back up our vision for the government. I thought that having the US Constitution, so revered by so many, written by such mythical folks of early America, would be a powerful persuasion tool.

People do not revere the principle of America's founders as much as they say they do, however.

 

I do not revere America's founders. Certain historical figures I respect a great deal, though. (Washington may have been the world's first honest politician. And the last.)

 

I wasn't talking about you specifically.

 

I chose to answer specifically.

 

I don't know what point you're trying to make?

That said, I regard the Dept of Education, Dept. of Energy, and EPA to all be unConstitutional. Certainly what The Patriot Act and NDAA call for are unConstitutional - and I don't even think anyone making that statement has to defend it, it's obvious on its face.

Certainly the President unilaterally committing troops to battle is not Constitutional - the exigencies of "crisis" don't justify it; nor does the Commerce Clause permit Congress to abdicate its authority and transfer it to unelected agencies. That is to say, the EPA cannot simply make law on its own - yet it does. On and on...

These are the issues that citizens concerned about their freedom being stolen from them need to be fighting and educating on. We need to put the genie back in the bottle - the FedGov is out of control, and if the people themselves don't rein it in - there's no way in God's green earth that our elected representatives will - we need to boot just about all of them out, and replace them with Constitutionally minded representatives.

Of course that will never happen, b/c the vast majority of Amerikans have been made ignorant.

 

Dude, the average person on this planet is a blithering idiot. Fanatic cultist shock troops exist, in ridiculously massive quantities, for all ideologies.

Also Rand Paul will definitely run in 2016 and actually stands a semi-decent chance of winning.

 

Coercion in order to force your morals onto others is the ancient ideology, and you embrace it fully. Worship of the state religion, and deeming those who question the legitimacy of your object of worship to be blasphemers is the ancient ideology, and you embrace it fully. The principles of liberty were born out of the enlightenment. Your principles were born out of a cave.

 

Rubbish! Another strawman...

You're doing the same thing SpaceCricket79 did, except by another tack - you're claiming that libertarians are essentially anarchists, and if we aren't anarchists, we're not libertarians - false association, and rubbish!

We're not "true libertarians" if we accept federalism?? Federalism doesn't do anything other than allow for the functions of government to be debated and accepted or rejected on the state and local level - where these debates should properly be taking place; where "we the people" have more control, and more say over the laws that effect our lives.

As it says in the 10th amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

How does that violate libertarian principles - how??

That is entirely proper, and in no way violates libertarian principles. It simply gives the people themselves more control over which laws are, in fact, adopted.

As for your Ron Paul canard - he thinks no such thing, he simply thinks drugs are a bad thing, and doesn't recommend people do them - but would argue it is your right to do them if you wish. It's called freedom. It is also proper that if a state votes to restrict drugs, that is the states right - but Ron Paul, and I, and most libertarians would make argument against those laws on the state level too.

I, and most libertarians would argue that making drugs illegal is not a valid function of government, but that doesn't mean that the debate shouldn't take place - that people who believe prohibition is a valid option shouldn't be given a voice. I would argue they are wrong, and hopefully the libertarian argument would carry the day.

We might lose that debate, and a state may implement laws we don't agree with - but that's what comes with living in a society where everyone is allowed to express their opinion. If the laws of that state become more than someone wants to tolerate - they are free to move to a state more to their liking.

Were our Federal Republic still in tact - California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Mass, Oregon, etc, would all still be basket cases... and those socialist loons would eventually pay a steep price for their leftist beliefs; but beautifully, there would be plenty of states that were very libertarian, b/c we'd move to states that were more accomodating to our views.

But, since our Federal Republic is all but dead - and we live under an increasingly centralized, top-down control system that seeks to eliminate our freedom and choices, we have no where to run to. There are no libertarian states b/c the FedGov dictates socialist policies from on high.

 

Hear hear

 

No, I am saying that most of the people who call themselves libertarians have no right to the word, because they do not want to limit government, they only want the federal government limited while letting states do whatever they want.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian.

 

Letting it go to the states is the way we appease the left. A world without government dependency scares them, we have to tell the they can have their California, we will take Florida.

States have to keep budgets in line anyway, they can't print currency.

 

Daggdag, with respect to Ron Paul - b/c he and we find something to be a violoation of princple, or a groteque overreach of government doesn't mean that it is off the table. These things need to be discussed - the lunacy of the left is just as timeless as the principles of freedom. Shut that debate down, and what are we but mirror images of the crazies from the left whose ideas should rightly be exposed, debated, and rejected based on their lack of merit and the lessons mankind has learned from history.

Again, recognizing federalism as a legitimate and wise circuit breaker system to protect the citizenry from the predictable abuses of power that arise thru centralization - which is what we are experiencing now - does not violate libertarian principles in the least.

And, as stated - it would be improper to stifle debate. Ron Paul would make the same argument I've been making. It is, in fact, the libertarian argument.

That said, the population has been deliberately dumbed down for this very reason. Pumped full of narcissisitic self esteem, and denied the critical thinking skills that could enable them to find their way out of the maze - the vast majority of Amerikans, especially anyone under 45 years of age, are unreachable and unteachable.

Unfortunately, we are so far removed from our republican, federalist, libertarian roots, and the population as a whole is so completely ignorant of terms, history, and what proper governance looks like - that rational debate about any subject is all but impossible.

 

I am going to have to disagree with you, the libertarians in this country are usually younger. Younger voters are more likely to want privatized social security, vouchers for education, greater civil rights, less domestic espionage, legalization etc... more likely to agree with libertarians on nearly all issues. Ron Paul would have gotten more of the youth vote then Obama.

 

True, but they are 1) usually very limited in their understanding, and 2) equal to one grain of salt in a lake the size the Lake Superior.

The lack of understanding could be ascribed to youth and inexperience - they'll learn, and probably grow into well informed adults. They are on the path to understanding - most of them anyway.

Unfortunately, too many of the young who call themselves "libertarian" are single issue people - usually marijuana; on many other things they're fine with accepting positive government and centralization. Hopefully their understanding will grow as they mature.

If Daggdag wants to point out libertarians, who not libertarians, it would be those young people who accept a lot of socialist nonsense in the name of "fairness" and "social justice", but say they're libertarians b/c they want to smoke pot without sanction or experiencing the bigotry of the "just say no" crowd.

Of course I would agree with them that smoking pot should be legal, but that's a far cry from being a libertarian.