starsevol
Cohabbing is cruelty...
Michael, you are not a Libertarian, but you do hold one Libertarian view.
One I wholeheartedly agree with.
-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
A Conversation about Libertarianism
- Thread starter Nova_C
- Start date
Michael, you are not a Libertarian, but you do hold one Libertarian view.
One I wholeheartedly agree with.
Michael823
New member
Your logic is illogical...
If jalapeno peppers are hot, than apples should be hot too.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
IMHO - marijuana doesn't hurt anyone else (unless the user is driving under the influence, which should continue to be illegal), but animal fighting is animal cruelty and not the same thing at all. Killing an animal humanely is not the same thing as animal cruelty, although I suppose a FEW people might argue the point.
Abortion is one of those things that depend on one's definition of life. If you believe it begins at conception, then abortion is murder and should be illegal. If you believe life begins when the fetus is able to sustain life on its own, then it would only be murder to kill the fetus if it can live on its own. Because we will never all agree on when life truly begins, we will probably never agree about abortion.
That is why I see a vast difference between those various activities that are being compared to each other.
Abortion is one of those things that depend on one's definition of life. If you believe it begins at conception, then abortion is murder and should be illegal. If you believe life begins when the fetus is able to sustain life on its own, then it would only be murder to kill the fetus if it can live on its own. Because we will never all agree on when life truly begins, we will probably never agree about abortion.
That is why I see a vast difference between those various activities that are being compared to each other.
Michael823
New member
^ Thank you Kathy. Honestly, I didn't have the patience to explain the difference. But you're exactly right.
To add... abortion is sensitive. It's SO personal. And I don't really consider it an issue that should face the same scrutiny as other pro and con debates. It can be a life-saving/altering situation for a woman/couple, and I shouldn't be allowed to say that I can better make that decision for them. So I hold out on my opinion on abortions, to allow life to be lived by people, who are trying to salvage a life that I have no idea about. So it's not that I'm pro-abortion. I'm just pro-choice (pro-compassion), because it's never going to have to be my decision to make. And it shouldn't be mine to vote on.
I will say, though, that I think life extends far beyond conception. And there are plenty of fully functioning babies and children that still have a life to save. When we finish with them, we may be at more of a position to tackle fetuses and embryos.
To add... abortion is sensitive. It's SO personal. And I don't really consider it an issue that should face the same scrutiny as other pro and con debates. It can be a life-saving/altering situation for a woman/couple, and I shouldn't be allowed to say that I can better make that decision for them. So I hold out on my opinion on abortions, to allow life to be lived by people, who are trying to salvage a life that I have no idea about. So it's not that I'm pro-abortion. I'm just pro-choice (pro-compassion), because it's never going to have to be my decision to make. And it shouldn't be mine to vote on.
I will say, though, that I think life extends far beyond conception. And there are plenty of fully functioning babies and children that still have a life to save. When we finish with them, we may be at more of a position to tackle fetuses and embryos.
Nova_C
New member
Lets try to drag this back on topic.
I was thinking about a lot of the recent posts last night and it's interesting: A lot of what you guys are proposing as libertarian are also part of the socially liberal belief set. Decriminalization or drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc, are all advanced by much of the left side of political spectrum.
These similarities aren't what I was hoping to discuss, although I guess they are certainly relevant since the body autonomy and freedom of choice are certainly also libertarian concepts, I was looking more for the differences.
Kathy, I very much appreciate your posts so far. You've been the only one to really discuss specific consequences of a libertarian ideal.
tsst, what is one libertarian concept that runs counter to a socially liberal ideology that you support? Why do you think it would be better?
I was thinking about a lot of the recent posts last night and it's interesting: A lot of what you guys are proposing as libertarian are also part of the socially liberal belief set. Decriminalization or drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc, are all advanced by much of the left side of political spectrum.
These similarities aren't what I was hoping to discuss, although I guess they are certainly relevant since the body autonomy and freedom of choice are certainly also libertarian concepts, I was looking more for the differences.
Kathy, I very much appreciate your posts so far. You've been the only one to really discuss specific consequences of a libertarian ideal.
tsst, what is one libertarian concept that runs counter to a socially liberal ideology that you support? Why do you think it would be better?
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
The reason that most posts are socially liberal is because libertarian ideas are mostly socially liberal (left side ideas) and fiscally conservative / small government (right side ideas, or so they claim).
So libertarians are pulled to the left when discussing social problems and to the right when discussing money and taxes.
No one party is going to have ALL of the right answers (not even the Libertarians). I just see a higher percentage of logical answers there than with either side of the Republicrats.
So libertarians are pulled to the left when discussing social problems and to the right when discussing money and taxes.
No one party is going to have ALL of the right answers (not even the Libertarians). I just see a higher percentage of logical answers there than with either side of the Republicrats.
tsst
Deuce is watching!
Nova_C
New member
I'm not trying to say that anyone is claiming to have all of the answers.
Basically, I don't understand libertarians. Like I said, I used to ascribe to the ideals of minimal government, but the more I thought about the conclusions, the more doubt I had. When it comes to certain services, like some of the ones we've discusses, I literally do not see how a completely privatized solution could work. At all. That's what I'm looking for, is to see what it is that you guys see that I don't. I voice my opinion not as an attempt to sway you to my way of thinking, but to explain why I'm asking these questions.
If this thread has run its course, that's cool. If people still want to discuss the particulars of libertarian ideology, I'm still listening.
Basically, I don't understand libertarians. Like I said, I used to ascribe to the ideals of minimal government, but the more I thought about the conclusions, the more doubt I had. When it comes to certain services, like some of the ones we've discusses, I literally do not see how a completely privatized solution could work. At all. That's what I'm looking for, is to see what it is that you guys see that I don't. I voice my opinion not as an attempt to sway you to my way of thinking, but to explain why I'm asking these questions.
If this thread has run its course, that's cool. If people still want to discuss the particulars of libertarian ideology, I'm still listening.
Nova_C
New member
But that doesn't run counter to a liberal ideology. Much of liberalism is very much in support of liberty.
tsst
Deuce is watching!
I wouldn't call forcing the people to buy a service liberty. I wouldn't call the constant attempts of infringement on the 2nd amendment liberty. I wouldn't consider the abuse of the commerce clause and ignorance of the 10th amendment liberty (to be fair this one is for all in DC)
To make your statement correct it should read 'much of liberalism is very much in support of liberty, as long as you prescribe to left ideology'.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
How about schools?
I think that the education system for K - 12 in this country is really messed up, and is generally run by the government (although there are lots of private schools, too). The government seems to spend way too much money at the top end on administrative costs and government education agencies, and too little on the teacher in the classroom.
I would START by government vouchers to make schools more accountable to parents. Charter schools are also a step in the right direction.
But in the end, is school something that the government should provide, or should parents band together and hire teachers or private schools for the kids? When I see what a mess it is right now, couldn't parents do better? If they weren't paying taxes for school, that would free up their money to perhaps do something more effective AND cheaper? Also, with less taxes often comes more charity from churches and other organizations that tend to get more donations when citizens are paying less taxes.
Another consideration is technology. What I have seen lately in interactive educational programs - and even games - could revolutionize one on one educational opportunities. New ideas such as Khan Academy, (http://www.khanacademy.org/) used in conjunction with lots of fun, online and offline technology could enable parents to much more effectively do home schooling. One parent or teacher can mentor several students who are studying alone or in small groups using something such as Khan Academy or other aids. They can then learn at their own, individual pace instead of all together in large class sizes as they often do in public school currently. Perhaps several parents in a neighborhood would group together to home school, taking turns concentrating on their subjects of expertise. With the help of technology, they could do it better than a few decades ago. Perhaps the group might even hire a teacher full or part time to help. I would also envision private schools filling the gap to help home schoolers or community school groups with whatever is needed, at a much reduced rate compared to sending their child full time to the private school.
Paying less tax might enable more parents to work less hours to participate more in their own child's education. I think part of the problem of public school is the lack of parental participation. Many seem to send off their kids as though it is just a babysitting service - and sadly, sometimes it isn't much more than that. I feel that a big part of the problem is that many parents don't feel INVESTED enough in the system - it is just a place to send their kids while parents work. If parents were involved on a day to day basis, I feel the "product" (an educated young adult) would be much better, and at a cheaper price than we pay now.
I looked up the Libertarian solution that says much of what I just did, but in greater detail:
http://www.libertariansolution.com/liberty-library/012/the-need-to-abolish-public-education
I think that the education system for K - 12 in this country is really messed up, and is generally run by the government (although there are lots of private schools, too). The government seems to spend way too much money at the top end on administrative costs and government education agencies, and too little on the teacher in the classroom.
I would START by government vouchers to make schools more accountable to parents. Charter schools are also a step in the right direction.
But in the end, is school something that the government should provide, or should parents band together and hire teachers or private schools for the kids? When I see what a mess it is right now, couldn't parents do better? If they weren't paying taxes for school, that would free up their money to perhaps do something more effective AND cheaper? Also, with less taxes often comes more charity from churches and other organizations that tend to get more donations when citizens are paying less taxes.
Another consideration is technology. What I have seen lately in interactive educational programs - and even games - could revolutionize one on one educational opportunities. New ideas such as Khan Academy, (http://www.khanacademy.org/) used in conjunction with lots of fun, online and offline technology could enable parents to much more effectively do home schooling. One parent or teacher can mentor several students who are studying alone or in small groups using something such as Khan Academy or other aids. They can then learn at their own, individual pace instead of all together in large class sizes as they often do in public school currently. Perhaps several parents in a neighborhood would group together to home school, taking turns concentrating on their subjects of expertise. With the help of technology, they could do it better than a few decades ago. Perhaps the group might even hire a teacher full or part time to help. I would also envision private schools filling the gap to help home schoolers or community school groups with whatever is needed, at a much reduced rate compared to sending their child full time to the private school.
Paying less tax might enable more parents to work less hours to participate more in their own child's education. I think part of the problem of public school is the lack of parental participation. Many seem to send off their kids as though it is just a babysitting service - and sadly, sometimes it isn't much more than that. I feel that a big part of the problem is that many parents don't feel INVESTED enough in the system - it is just a place to send their kids while parents work. If parents were involved on a day to day basis, I feel the "product" (an educated young adult) would be much better, and at a cheaper price than we pay now.
I looked up the Libertarian solution that says much of what I just did, but in greater detail:
http://www.libertariansolution.com/liberty-library/012/the-need-to-abolish-public-education
Nova_C
New member
If you would like to contend that gay marriage, legal abortion, decriminalization of drugs, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not considered part of 'liberty', or that liberals only support those liberties for other liberals please start a new thread to discuss that.
Kathy, education definitely isn't working as is. That article, though, contains the following:
I've been looking for actual support for that, that people that are taxes less give more to charity. I've spent the last 30 minutes reading articles about that and it seems that tax rates can have some effect on charitable giving, but it's not really consistent either way, nor is it much pronounced. In fact, there is evidence that lower tax rates reduce giving, though it was inconsistent. I'd say it's a wash and that there wouldn't be any more charitable giving if taxes were lowered than there is now.
Anyway, relying on charity to 'fill in the gaps' strikes me as reckless for a national policy on education. Private education also has the problem of a lack of standards. Post-secondary is essentially privately run education and there are a lot of schools out there that are not accredited and which no other school and many businesses do not accept as valid, but are willing to take your money anyway. If all schools were like that? There's no telling what education someone has had.
Maybe this isn't a bad thing, but I dunno.
starsevol
Cohabbing is cruelty...
I really can't speak for tsst, but I believe he means that liberals support only those liberties that is part of the left wing ideology while libertarians support ALL liberties and freedom. People deciding whether or not to buy health insurance and second amendment rights are liberties that tend to be supported by the right and not the left.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
Home schooling already has a long tradition in this country. It has become a lot more widespread in recent years. Back when we had Glades Herp in the '90s, we had some home school groups come through for tours, so got to talk to some of the parents. They were so much more involved with their kids and in education. It was so refreshing to talk to them compared to many parents of public school kids.
Charity is great! But it wouldn't really take much, if any, charity for a parent to home school their child. It takes time and effort. If they are really poor, the public libraries have computers available for them. (maybe public libraries will remain public, or maybe they will be replaced by community funded libraries in much the same way that HOAs fund community playgrounds. With more and more books and resources available digitally, a small, community library may not cost nearly as much as traditional libraries do).
Many states already have online, free, public school classes available. Maybe at the beginning, these could remain publicly funded, and eventually figure a way for the private sector to take them over. Same with the libraries. I sure don't advocate just dumping every government service all at once. First, get rid of the services that are the least needed and waste the most money. Once we figure out the most efficient way to privately deliver those services, we can tackle other issues. Some of those may need to remain in the public sector if it turns out that is the most efficient way to accomplish those goals, but most could go private eventually.
BTW, home school parents told me that their kids do have to accomplish certain goals each year, and are tested to be sure they are on target.
Home schooling and private schools are not novel ideas, and their students often excel in college compared to public school grads. Only the scope of replacing ALL public schools with them would be novel, and would have to be worked towards one step at a time.
Charity is great! But it wouldn't really take much, if any, charity for a parent to home school their child. It takes time and effort. If they are really poor, the public libraries have computers available for them. (maybe public libraries will remain public, or maybe they will be replaced by community funded libraries in much the same way that HOAs fund community playgrounds. With more and more books and resources available digitally, a small, community library may not cost nearly as much as traditional libraries do).
Many states already have online, free, public school classes available. Maybe at the beginning, these could remain publicly funded, and eventually figure a way for the private sector to take them over. Same with the libraries. I sure don't advocate just dumping every government service all at once. First, get rid of the services that are the least needed and waste the most money. Once we figure out the most efficient way to privately deliver those services, we can tackle other issues. Some of those may need to remain in the public sector if it turns out that is the most efficient way to accomplish those goals, but most could go private eventually.
BTW, home school parents told me that their kids do have to accomplish certain goals each year, and are tested to be sure they are on target.
Home schooling and private schools are not novel ideas, and their students often excel in college compared to public school grads. Only the scope of replacing ALL public schools with them would be novel, and would have to be worked towards one step at a time.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
"...I really can't speak for tsst, but I believe he means that liberals support only those liberties that is part of the left wing ideology while libertarians support ALL liberties and freedom..."
YES! The left may be all for letting you decide what to do in the privacy of your bedroom - wonderful! But they want to over regulate guns and environmental issues. Most of the animal rights people vote Democrat because the left is usually more amenable to regulating or banning animal / environment issues. That isn't to say there is no crossover - some Republicans also voted for exotic animal bans, too. Each side of the Republicrat coin wants to support liberty and choice for ONLY the issues they deem appropriate. Otherwise, their wise leaders will decide for us peons.
I am NOT an anarchist! Some regulation is necessary. Just not nearly to the extent that we have seen in recent years, which only seems to increase each year.
YES! The left may be all for letting you decide what to do in the privacy of your bedroom - wonderful! But they want to over regulate guns and environmental issues. Most of the animal rights people vote Democrat because the left is usually more amenable to regulating or banning animal / environment issues. That isn't to say there is no crossover - some Republicans also voted for exotic animal bans, too. Each side of the Republicrat coin wants to support liberty and choice for ONLY the issues they deem appropriate. Otherwise, their wise leaders will decide for us peons.
I am NOT an anarchist! Some regulation is necessary. Just not nearly to the extent that we have seen in recent years, which only seems to increase each year.
From reading all this about libertarianism it seems that it is pretty much self worship. That's it won't work. Most people worship themselves but in different ways. So many ways that it couldn't be practiced as gov't. That's why gov't with a standard, is better and it is less confusing.
Nova_C
New member
Yes, some regulation is necessary.
Imagine a completely unregulated pet market. Puppy mills are successful despite laws being against them because of how hard they are to enforce, and people are buying from puppy mills despite the rates of infection and the general poor health of the animals.
Now remove any and all regulations regarding the sale and trade of pets? I think its fair to say that things wouldn't get better.
kathylove
Pragmatic & Logical
Depending on your definition of puppy mills (according to some animal rights people, ALL puppies in shops come from puppy mills), they are probably regulated pretty well lately. To me, a "puppy mill" would be a place that produces a large number of dogs and doesn't properly take care of them or socialize the pups. Those larger producers are easier to regulate than the back yard breeder who only produces a couple of litters per year. Backyard breeders can be great - or horrible. I guess I was a "backyard breeder" of Persian cats for several years - although mine always lived in the house and had the best of everything I could give them. Maybe I would have been called a puppy (or cat) mill, too - by some activists.
Shops are a lot more careful where their puppies come from these days. That may be more because of the bad publicity and marketing / customer relations than from regulations - I don't know. I have read that some have been so bullied by activists that they just stopped carrying pups completely, no matter how stellar the producer might be.
But yes, of course some regulation is needed, especially when it involves hurting other people and animals. But even with something that sounds as terrible as puppy mills, there are so many shades of definitions and grades of regulation that it still is not a black and white decision of exactly what those regulations should be, and who exactly should be regulated. Maybe we only need to enforce existing animal cruelty laws rather than write whole new batches of laws?
Shops are a lot more careful where their puppies come from these days. That may be more because of the bad publicity and marketing / customer relations than from regulations - I don't know. I have read that some have been so bullied by activists that they just stopped carrying pups completely, no matter how stellar the producer might be.
But yes, of course some regulation is needed, especially when it involves hurting other people and animals. But even with something that sounds as terrible as puppy mills, there are so many shades of definitions and grades of regulation that it still is not a black and white decision of exactly what those regulations should be, and who exactly should be regulated. Maybe we only need to enforce existing animal cruelty laws rather than write whole new batches of laws?
Chip
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&
These are all libertarian ideals. And I'd be remiss not to point out that the left is FAR worse than the right on freedom of speech currently. 20 years ago, you could clump that part in, not any more.