• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which is *closer* to the true Libertarian mindset/philosophy?

Of the two, which is *closer* to the true Libertarian mindset/philosophy?

  • Get what you, while you can, because you can

    Votes: 12 60.0%

  • Do unto others as you have them do unto you

    Votes: 8 40.0%
  • Total voters
    20
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Which is *closer* to the true Libertarian mindset/philosophy?

Of the two.

1) Get what you can, while you can, because you can

2) Do unto others as you have them do unto you
 
radcen said:
Which is *closer* to the true Libertarian mindset/philosophy?

Of the two.

1) Get what you can, while you can, because you can

2) Do unto others as you have them do unto you
Click to expand...

I would say that both are fully compatible with libertarian philosophy, if the surrounding society is poorly structured and organized.
 
Not sure what you are getting at, and I don't really understand the question or the choices.
My answer, absent of "other", is that it depends on the individual person.
 
radcen said:
Which is *closer* to the true Libertarian mindset/philosophy?

Of the two.

1) Get what you can, while you can, because you can

2) Do unto others as you have them do unto you
Click to expand...

I didn't vote. While I'm sure the latter is more of their intention, the former is what it often winds up sounding like.

For example, a lot of them want to get rid of the EPA. One of two reasons: either they think it's government tyranny, or they think it's ineffective.

So let's look at them both.

It's supposedly government tyranny for there to be a standard of environmental health, and for companies to meet it.

Given that before the EPA we had rivers that were so polluted they would literally catch fire, and so many places that were polluted enough to kill the people living on them that we're STILL trying to fix them all, what they're basically saying is that corporations have a right to kill people for profit, and their right to do that comes before those people's right to live.

Sounds an awful lot like "get what you can, while you can, because you can," to me. It also sounds a lot like serfdom on steroids. They rail on about the Constitution, but I thought the Constitution gave us a right to life. Apparently it only gives that right to corporations?

So, the EPA is ineffective.

Well, firstly, evidently it's doing something. We no longer have rivers that light on fire. We are working through toxic land sites, slowly but surely.

But I could agree it's not as effective as it should be. We could have fixed all those sites by now if we really wanted to, and done a lot more than we have.

So, ok, the EPA isn't as effective as it should be. And the solution is to just... get rid of it? How the **** does that make sense?

Are they expecting that entities just... won't pollute until rivers light on fire this time? Like there was absolutely no reason it was created in the first place? Like somehow human nature has just changed in the last 75 years? That's rather utopian. And kind of insane to be betting people's lives on.

I guess they're hoping for "do unto others," but they're thinking of it in the way a toddler does.

And the vast majority libertarian arguments break down pretty much the same way. To me, it sounds the most like some combination of "Get off my lawn!" and some kind of golden age fallacy, and they just haven't really considered the consequences, either generally or to their own lives.
 
Last edited:
I'd say there is no 'true' libertarian mindset anymore than a 'true' any other political/economic philosophy.

I don't think Libertarians require Christianity or the Golden Rule to be 'true' to the concept. But if I can distill it down from all the variations it would be a line from the old Bogart movie- "Every man is responsible for his own goods"

ummm until his house is on fire, a tornado hits, gang bangers move in next door... ;)
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I didn't vote. While I'm sure the latter is more of their intention, the former is what it often winds up sounding like.

For example, a lot of them want to get rid of the EPA. One of two reasons: either they think it's government tyranny, or they think it's ineffective.

So let's look at them both.

It's supposedly government tyranny for there to be a standard of environmental health, and for companies to meet it.

Given that before the EPA we had rivers that were so polluted they would literally catch fire, and so many places that were polluted enough to kill the people living on them that we're STILL trying to fix them all, what they're basically saying is that corporations have a right to kill people for profit, and their right to do that comes before those people's right to live.

Sounds an awful lot like "get what you can, while you can, because you can," to me. It also sounds a lot like serfdom on steroids. They rail on about the Constitution, but I thought the Constitution gave us a right to life. Apparently it only gives that right to corporations?

So, the EPA is ineffective.

Well, firstly, evidently it's doing something. We no longer have rivers that light on fire. We are working through toxic land sites, slowly but surely.

But I could agree it's not as effective as it should be. We could have fixed all those sites by now if we really wanted to, and done a lot more than we have.

So, ok, the EPA isn't as effective as it should be. And the solution is to just... get rid of it? How the **** does that make sense?

Are they expecting that entities just... won't pollute until rivers light on fire this time? Like there was absolutely no reason it was created in the first place? Like somehow human nature has just changed in the last 75 years? That's rather utopian. And kind of insane to be betting people's lives on.

I guess they're hoping for "do unto others," but they're thinking of it in the way a toddler does.

And the vast majority libertarian arguments break down pretty much the same way. To me, it sounds the most like some combination of "Get off my lawn!" and some kind of golden age fallacy, and they just haven't really considered the consequences, either generally or to their own lives.
Click to expand...

Thats a strawman argument, you might as well just say that they want dirty air and dirty water, oh wait Obama already did that. Very few libertarians are against clean air and water regulations. They are against the EPA for all the silly regulations and want to close down the agency because of the vast unchecked power they have to make new regulations
 
Crovax said:
Thats a strawman argument, you might as well just say that they want dirty air and dirty water, oh wait Obama already did that. Very few libertarians are against clean air and water regulations. They are against the EPA for all the silly regulations and want to close down the agency because of the vast unchecked power they have to make new regulations
Click to expand...

How is it a strawman to point out flaws in their actual stances?

Vast unchecked power? The EPA has a tiny budget that's been cut nearly in half in the last few years, and is one of the most restricted of any government agency. That's why it's not as effective as it could be. Have you actually looked it up or are you just regurgitating what some talking head told you?

This is exactly what I mean. I never said libertarians were "against clean air and water." And I don't believe they are either. What I said is that their proposed solution is some combination of corporatist and ignorantly utopian. Or, in this case, just plain ignorant.

Yes, all those "silly regulations" that restored the water you drink to being safe enough not to kill you -- which it still is, including post-Obama (do you people literally believe he's the anti-Christ or something?). How tyrannical. :roll:

If you're just going to make up a bunch of nonsense I never said to make it easier for you to shoot it down, I'm simply not terribly interested.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
How is it a strawman to point out flaws in their actual stances?

Vast unchecked power? The EPA has a tiny budget that's been cut nearly in half in the last few years, and is one of the most restricted of any government agency. That's why it's not as effective as it could be. Have you actually looked it up or are you just regurgitating what some talking head told you?

This is exactly what I mean. I never said libertarians were "against clean air and water." And I don't believe they are either. What I said is that their proposed solution is some combination of corporatist and ignorantly utopian. Or, in this case, just plain ignorant.

Yes, all those "silly regulations" that restored the water you drink to being safe enough not to kill you -- which it still is, including post-Obama (do you people literally believe he's the anti-Christ or something?). How tyrannical. :roll:

If you're just going to make up a bunch of nonsense I never said to make it easier for you to shoot it down, I'm simply not terribly interested.
Click to expand...

Once again a strawman no one is against basic water and air regulations, until you accept that fact there is no point to go any farther.
 
radcen said:
Which is *closer* to the true Libertarian mindset/philosophy?

Of the two.

1) Get what you can, while you can, because you can

2) Do unto others as you have them do unto you
Click to expand...


Obviously the first one since one very large disproportional part of libertarianism is personal selfishness and screw the rest of society.
 
Crovax said:
Once again a strawman no one is against basic water and air regulations, until you accept that fact there is no point to go any farther.
Click to expand...

Aaand no response to any of my points, yet again. Just screaming at the sky about something that never happened.

Feels like most of my debates with libertarians, really.
 
radcen said:
Which is *closer* to the true Libertarian mindset/philosophy?

Of the two.

1) Get what you can, while you can, because you can

2) Do unto others as you have them do unto you
Click to expand...

Not sure why you offer only those two choices since neither defines libertarianism. At its core, libertarianism is a philosophy built around the concept of individual liberty: YOU own your mind and body, YOU own the product of your mind and your body, YOU are free to act according to your own rational self interest, YOU may act in any fashion that doesn't violate the equal rights and liberties of those around you. So sure, get what you can while you can since you only have one life AND treat others as you would like to be treated
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Aaand no response to any of my points, yet again. Just screaming at the sky about something that never happened.

Feels like most of my debates with libertarians, really.
Click to expand...

You claimed that libertarians would get rid of regulations that stop rivers from being so toxic that they are flammable and they support the right of corporations to kill people.

That simply is not true. You have yet to make a point. You just keep arguing against things that no one actually belives.
 
haymarket said:
Obviously the first one since one very large disproportional part of libertarianism is personal selfishness and screw the rest of society.
Click to expand...

You never miss the opportunity to spread lies about libertarians any chance you get. It is obvious that you either don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about (which makes you ignorant and thus, irrelevant) or are so totalitarian in your world view that you lie about those who oppose you (which makes you too dishonest to be relevant). Which of those two applies in this case doesn't really matter much at this point, however.
 
Crovax said:
Thats a strawman argument, you might as well just say that they want dirty air and dirty water, oh wait Obama already did that. Very few libertarians are against clean air and water regulations. They are against the EPA for all the silly regulations and want to close down the agency because of the vast unchecked power they have to make new regulations
Click to expand...
THAT is the strawman argument. I accept that no Libertarians are against clean air and/or water, but far too many act as if it's not their problem or concern if they see no direct harm to themselves. Problem is, it doesn't have to be direct harm to still be a harm to one self.
 
Fletch said:
Not sure why you offer only those two choices since neither defines libertarianism. At its core, libertarianism is a philosophy built around the concept of individual liberty: YOU own your mind and body, YOU own the product of your mind and your body, YOU are free to act according to your own rational self interest, YOU may act in any fashion that doesn't violate the equal rights and liberties of those around you. So sure, get what you can while you can since you only have one life AND treat others as you would like to be treated
Click to expand...
Your post exemplifies exactly why I limited the choices to only two. You start out well by proclaiming the paper theory, which I buy into, whether you choose to believe that or not. Then, you go on to the standard talking points of "...rational self interest..." (underlined emphasis mine) and "...doesn't violate the equal rights and liberties of those around you", and that's where it falls apart.

YOU do not live in a bubble, and as such, YOU simply cannot do everything you want to do to your presumed full desire if you ALSO honestly and truly respect other's rights and liberties.

At times, it has to be one or the other. Competing interests simply do not allow for both. In my observations, over the years, Libertarianism has either devolved to the selfish side, or it's been corrupted by too many selfish people as a cover to rationalize their own selfishness while the 'live-and-let-live' libertarians are drowned out.
 
Crovax said:
You claimed that libertarians would get rid of regulations that stop rivers from being so toxic that they are flammable and they support the right of corporations to kill people.

That simply is not true. You have yet to make a point. You just keep arguing against things that no one actually belives.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what happens if you get rid of the body that enforces said regulations. That is why we have a body that does that. The EPA didn't invent environmental regulations.

Again, this utopian silliness that people will just not be people if you wish on a star enough times, or just not even considering the consequences in the first place.
 
radcen said:
Your post exemplifies exactly why I limited the choices to only two. You start out well by proclaiming the paper theory, which I buy into, whether you choose to believe that or not. Then, you go on to the standard talking points of "...rational self interest..." (underlined emphasis mine) and "...doesn't violate the equal rights and liberties of those around you", and that's where it falls apart.

YOU do not live in a bubble, and as such, YOU simply cannot do everything you want to do to your presumed full desire if you ALSO honestly and truly respect other's rights and liberties.

At times, it has to be one or the other. Competing interests simply do not allow for both. In my observations, over the years, Libertarianism has either devolved to the selfish side, or it's been corrupted by too many selfish people as a cover to rationalize their own selfishness while the 'live-and-let-live' libertarians are drowned out.
Click to expand...

Most libertarians, in my experience, fizzle out and join official parties, for 1 because they never get past the "college kid" entry level of the ideology and 2 they can never fully reconcile the belief, with reality.
Things I've realized since changing my beliefs is that I can lean libertarian, but have any belief I want.

Very comfortable.
It's also fun to watch people try to pigeon hole me as some kind of cartoony stereotype.
 
radcen said:
Your post exemplifies exactly why I limited the choices to only two. You start out well by proclaiming the paper theory, which I buy into, whether you choose to believe that or not. Then, you go on to the standard talking points of "...rational self interest..." (underlined emphasis mine) and "...doesn't violate the equal rights and liberties of those around you", and that's where it falls apart.

YOU do not live in a bubble, and as such, YOU simply cannot do everything you want to do to your presumed full desire if you ALSO honestly and truly respect other's rights and liberties.

At times, it has to be one or the other. Competing interests simply do not allow for both. In my observations, over the years, Libertarianism has either devolved to the selfish side, or it's been corrupted by too many selfish people as a cover to rationalize their own selfishness while the 'live-and-let-live' libertarians are drowned out.
Click to expand...

This. Quite frankly, this aspect of it is simply anti-human nature.

Humans are inherently communal by a fact of nature. Half the reason our brains are so big is specifically to help us interact with each other.

The only way libertarianism can be non-abusive is if we simply stop living in any kind of community or society and spread out alone into the woods. Even in a personal relationship, you have to compromise and work together.

Libertarians don't seem to understand that they benefit from society as much as everyone else. All they see is, "But I don't waaaanna pay for schools! I don't have kids!" while failing to realize that people who don't drive pay for the roads they use every day for their job so they can eat.
 
radcen said:
THAT is the strawman argument. I accept that no Libertarians are against clean air and/or water, but far too many act as if it's not their problem or concern if they see no direct harm to themselves. Problem is, it doesn't have to be direct harm to still be a harm to one self.
Click to expand...

Wrong

Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife.
Click to expand...

https://www.lp.org/platform

There are plenty of areas where libertarians apathy causes potential harm but the environment isn't one of them.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
This. Quite frankly, this aspect of it is simply anti-human nature.

Humans are inherently communal by a fact of nature. Half the reason our brains are so big is specifically to help us interact with each other.

The only way libertarianism can be non-abusive is if we simply stop living in any kind of community or society and spread out alone into the woods. Even in a personal relationship, you have to compromise and work together.

Libertarians don't seem to understand that they benefit from society as much as everyone else. All they see is, "But I don't waaaanna pay for schools! I don't have kids!" while failing to realize that people who don't drive pay for the roads they use every day for their job so they can eat.
Click to expand...

That's largely bull****.
Even the cartoony libertarians understand this, it's just that there threshold for compromise and structure for government is different.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
This. Quite frankly, this aspect of it is simply anti-human nature.

Humans are inherently communal by a fact of nature. Half the reason our brains are so big is specifically to help us interact with each other.

The only way libertarianism can be non-abusive is if we simply stop living in any kind of community or society and spread out alone into the woods. Even in a personal relationship, you have to compromise and work together.

Libertarians don't seem to understand that they benefit from society as much as everyone else. All they see is, "But I don't waaaanna pay for schools! I don't have kids!" while failing to realize that people who don't drive pay for the roads they use every day for their job so they can eat.
Click to expand...
I have long thought that the fatal flaw in Libertarianism is the utter inability to understand and accept human nature.

It's wonderful paper theory, but the practical reality side... not so much.



Crovax said:
Wrong



https://www.lp.org/platform

There are plenty of areas where libertarians apathy causes potential harm but the environment isn't one of them.
Click to expand...
Your post made me chuckle for a couple reasons...

1) Responses that start off with "Wrong" almost never live up to their intended rebuttal. Your's did not disappoint, because...

2) You didn't refute a single word I said. All you did was just reiterate the standard failed paper theory, only this time with an official link.
 
radcen said:
Your post exemplifies exactly why I limited the choices to only two. You start out well by proclaiming the paper theory, which I buy into, whether you choose to believe that or not. Then, you go on to the standard talking points of "...rational self interest..." (underlined emphasis mine) and "...doesn't violate the equal rights and liberties of those around you", and that's where it falls apart.

YOU do not live in a bubble, and as such, YOU simply cannot do everything you want to do to your presumed full desire if you ALSO honestly and truly respect other's rights and liberties.

At times, it has to be one or the other. Competing interests simply do not allow for both. In my observations, over the years, Libertarianism has either devolved to the selfish side, or it's been corrupted by too many selfish people as a cover to rationalize their own selfishness while the 'live-and-let-live' libertarians are drowned out.
Click to expand...
That's false. That you don't understand what rational aspect of self interest does not mean it doesn't exist or that it is somehow self defeating. It is VERY possible for me to act within the confines of my rational self interest and not violate the equal rights of others. In fact, I do it every day.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Libertarians don't seem to understand that they benefit from society as much as everyone else. All they see is, "But I don't waaaanna pay for schools! I don't have kids!" while failing to realize that people who don't drive pay for the roads they use every day for their job so they can eat.
Click to expand...

You just keep tossing out strawmen, Its like you cant help yourself. Libertarians want to privatize roads so only those who use them would pay.
 
Fletch said:
That's false. That you don't understand what rational aspect of self interest does not mean it doesn't exist or that it is somehow self defeating. It is VERY possible for me to act within the confines of my rational self interest and not violate the equal rights of others. In fact, I do it every day.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you do do it everyday. I said "At times...". Do you do it 100% of the time? No exceptions? Ever?

If you say yes, I will say right now that you're either delusional or a liar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom