Thread: A primer on liberty

Originally Posted by megaprogman

Maybe its just me. I have had so many libertarians try and explain their philosophy to me so many times. I get it.

I just don't agree with their moral reasoning.

Based on the principle of self-ownership, libertarians posit two fundamental laws of behavior: 1) don't initiate, or accept, force; 2) keep your word. Based on your statement that you don't agree with libertarians, with which of these principles do you disagree? Are you for the initiation of force, or are you in favor of not keeping your word?

All we have from the left so far are little jabs, and nothing addressing the content of the video.

Originally Posted by pbrauer

Our government is under control by corporations, which Benito Mussolini coined Fascism. The Koch brothers are two of the enemy.

And it is ALEC - the American Legislative Exchange Council - which has adopted the Italian model that Mussolini used in his fascist parliament. The Koch Brothers are a major part of ALEC.

http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

Originally Posted by Neomalthusian

All we have from the left so far are little jabs, and nothing addressing the content of the video.

It's probably difficult for them to admit out loud that they really think they own you. It doesn't really sound all that nice actually being said out loud. Remember, they think they're the good guys, so being slavers leads to cognitive dissonance.

Originally Posted by megaprogman

Maybe its just me. I have had so many libertarians try and explain their philosophy to me so many times. I get it.

I just don't agree with their moral reasoning.

What "moral reasoning"? The entire point is that morality is up to the individual, not the state. It's entirely morals-neutral.

Originally Posted by Centinel

It's probably difficult for them to admit out loud that they really think they own you. It doesn't really sound all that nice actually being said out loud. Remember, they think they're the good guys, so being slavers leads to cognitive dissonance.

My what a pretty ivory tower you are sitting upon.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

What "moral reasoning"? The entire point is that morality is up to the individual, not the state. It's entirely morals-neutral.

I have to disagree. Libertarians begin with a few fundamental moral premises, upon which they build a political philosophy. One fundamental premise is self-ownership. One either believes that each person owns themselves or they don't. Those who believe this are libertarians, those who don't aren't. Another fundamental premise is the non-aggression principle, the idea that it is morally wrong to initiate force against another, or that one must keep one's word to another. Libertarians agree with this moral principle, non-libertarians don't. Libertarianism is fundamentally a moral stance.

Originally Posted by Centinel

I have to disagree. Libertarians begin with a few fundamental moral premises, upon which they build a political philosophy. One fundamental premise is self-ownership. One either believes that each person owns themselves or they don't. Those who believe this are libertarians, those who don't aren't. Another fundamental premise is the non-aggression principle, the idea that it is morally wrong to initiate force against another, or that one must keep one's word to another. Libertarians agree with this moral principle, non-libertarians don't. Libertarianism is fundamentally a moral stance.

Morality is about how you choose to conduct yourself. Believing that you're self-owning is a belief of fact, which is morals-neutral. You can choose to behave morally, immorally, or amorally, and still be self-owned. And what constitutes those things is up to you.

Protecting self-ownership (as libertarians wish to do) is about protecting that choice.

Originally Posted by Centinel

Based on the principle of self-ownership, libertarians posit two fundamental laws of behavior: 1) don't initiate, or accept, force; 2) keep your word. Based on your statement that you don't agree with libertarians, with which of these principles do you disagree? Are you for the initiation of force, or are you in favor of not keeping your word?

My view is that the world is far more complex than what those two principals can maintain. Yes, we have to initiate force (as libertarians view that term), for example, as a requirement of modern society due to the need for infrastructure, national initiatives, etc (taxation), minimal moral obligations to form a community (enforced morality), and fiscals needs.

People keeping their word should always happen.

Originally Posted by megaprogman

Why is it that when people disagree with libertarians, libertarians often assume that its an issue of understanding?

Sometimes it is. Other times it's just them being assholes.

I myself have found myself much more sympathetic to certain libertarian viewpoints since joining their site. Other positions however I remain adamantly opposed to - depends on the issue.