• 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!

Pre WW1 England Was Libertarian?

jonny5 said:
And people who value freedom over social security. Like the people who created this country.
Click to expand...

That's not a bad response coming from the ultra right, you have managed two sentences.

Unfortunately, neither are accurate.

The average citizen in a social democracy today is vastly freer than in what prevailed before the reforms I mentioned. Freedom to survive, to be healthy, to get a good education, to be gainfully employed, to receive a fair wage, to see his or her children grow and succeed. The freedoms you imagine come from cowboy movies and Hollywood images. In fact, life could be, and often was pretty brutal for the average American worker in the 19th century.

When America was created, there was no notion of social programs, as we know them today, because it was a different world. Society was farm based, and individuals were not always entirely dependent on money. The level of technology and productivity also would not have allowed for spending as we see it today. In fact, there was a concern for people's welfare, and public responsibility for it, but it was seen in a slightly different light, as it must have been, given vastly different parameters of society. Libertarians also do not know, although they would scream otherwise, what leaders of that time would think of social programming today, if they could be brought into the modern world. Maybe they would back Bernie Sanders.
 
PoS said:
Do you know what the words PRE-WW1 means?
Click to expand...

Ok, was this also pre 1890- prior to another series of reforms and when the House of Lords had even more power as a counter weight to the popular vote?
 
PeteEU said:
Come on.. you cant be that naive.. Yes you had kings and queens.. and nobility, who all lived by libertarian values. The rest of us were of course just less worth than dirt, but that does not mean that libertarianism is something new.... it has just become more "accessable" to more people. Ultimately it is about power and control.. and like in all political ideologies, libertarian values are no different. Freedom as long as libertarians agree on that freedom. Hypocrisy at its best.
Click to expand...

I think my brain just exploded reading this statement. Obviously someone has a lot of education to get to if anything monarchy related is described as libertarian.
 
Fishking said:
I think my brain just exploded reading this statement. Obviously someone has a lot of education to get to if anything monarchy related is described as libertarian.
Click to expand...

You mean believing that he or she could do what ever they wanted with no meddling of others? yep they were very much libertarians... for themselves that is.. screw the rest of the population.
 
PeteEU said:
You mean believing that he or she could do what ever they wanted with no meddling of others? yep they were very much libertarians... for themselves that is.. screw the rest of the population.
Click to expand...

Except for the whole non aggression principle you're leaving out and that the government/state (i.e. the monarchy) has ultimate power over everyone's lives. Libertarianism isn't you being able to do whatever you want to other people. Your freedom doesn't not get to violate the freedoms of others.
 
PoS said:
You clearly have no idea what liberterianism means. Kings and queens were not libertarian, they believed in ruling over their subjects.

Please educate yourself before spewing any more nonsense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Click to expand...

Are you saying a society can't be libertarian if it has an enslaved underclass with few rights?
 
PoS said:
This is the dumbest twisted logic I have read so far in these forums, and thats saying something.
Click to expand...

Clearly a Libertarian government would be imposing Libertarian ideologies upon the nation and it's population. Forcing your beliefs on the population is the very definition of ruling over them.

People who wanted state education would be denied that, yes?
 
Fishking said:
Except for the whole non aggression principle you're leaving out and that the government/state (i.e. the monarchy) has ultimate power over everyone's lives. Libertarianism isn't you being able to do whatever you want to other people. Your freedom doesn't not get to violate the freedoms of others.
Click to expand...

The bold part.. yes it is. It is a fundamental part of libertarianism, despite them denying it of course. But as soon as you debate them, then suddenly they are forcing people all over the place... funny how that goes eh?
 
jonny5 said:
And people who value freedom over social security. Like the people who created this country.
Click to expand...

The same people who crushed the Whiskey Rebellion. Your hypothesis is missing something.
 
Ganesh said:
That's not a bad response coming from the ultra right, you have managed two sentences.

Unfortunately, neither are accurate.

The average citizen in a social democracy today is vastly freer than in what prevailed before the reforms I mentioned. Freedom to survive, to be healthy, to get a good education, to be gainfully employed, to receive a fair wage, to see his or her children grow and succeed. The freedoms you imagine come from cowboy movies and Hollywood images. In fact, life could be, and often was pretty brutal for the average American worker in the 19th century.

When America was created, there was no notion of social programs, as we know them today, because it was a different world. Society was farm based, and individuals were not always entirely dependent on money. The level of technology and productivity also would not have allowed for spending as we see it today. In fact, there was a concern for people's welfare, and public responsibility for it, but it was seen in a slightly different light, as it must have been, given vastly different parameters of society. Libertarians also do not know, although they would scream otherwise, what leaders of that time would think of social programming today, if they could be brought into the modern world. Maybe they would back Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...

By definition, social democracy is only freer for the majority. And libertarian is not ultra-right.
 
Tigerace117 said:
The same people who crushed the Whiskey Rebellion. Your hypothesis is missing something.
Click to expand...

Not at all. The rebels were violent. Freedom from violence is a primary concern. LIFE, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
 
Aristaeus said:
Clearly a Libertarian government would be imposing Libertarian ideologies upon the nation and it's population. Forcing your beliefs on the population is the very definition of ruling over them.

People who wanted state education would be denied that, yes?
Click to expand...

People who wanted a state education would be forcing it on those who didnt. Meanwhile libertarians would not stop anyone in the state from forming a group and offering free education to anyone they wanted. See the difference?

What you want is FREE education, where you force someone else to pay for it. Libertarians arent opposed to free education so long as whoever is paying for it is doing so voluntarily. Think of it this way, if no one wants to be a teacher are they denying education to others? Should then people be forced to be teachers?
 
jonny5 said:
Not at all. The rebels were violent. Freedom from violence is a primary concern. LIFE, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...

So say a bunch of whackjobs decided to launch a war against the "ZOG" and "the Washington establishment". Y'all would okay with the federal government crushing them then, right?
 
Aristaeus said:
Clearly a Libertarian government would be imposing Libertarian ideologies upon the nation and it's population. Forcing your beliefs on the population is the very definition of ruling over them.

People who wanted state education would be denied that, yes?
Click to expand...

Wrong again. Its funny that libertarian critics in this forum dont even know what libertarianism means. There's even that guy from Denmark who thinks monarchy is somehow equated to libertarianism. Education in Europe must be terrible.
 
Tigerace117 said:
So say a bunch of whackjobs decided to launch a war against the "ZOG" and "the Washington establishment". Y'all would okay with the federal government crushing them then, right?
Click to expand...

I wouldnt use the term crushing, but of course, the govt should defend its citizens from violence.
 
Aristaeus said:
Clearly a Libertarian government would be imposing Libertarian ideologies upon the nation and it's population.
Click to expand...

Describe exactly what this would entail and how it would be done.
 
PeteEU said:
The bold part.. yes it is. It is a fundamental part of libertarianism, despite them denying it of course. But as soon as you debate them, then suddenly they are forcing people all over the place... funny how that goes eh?
Click to expand...

This is idiotic. Really, quite staggeringly daft.

Please give multiple examples of this "forcing." Details.
 
PeteEU said:
The bold part.. yes it is. It is a fundamental part of libertarianism, despite them denying it of course. But as soon as you debate them, then suddenly they are forcing people all over the place... funny how that goes eh?
Click to expand...

Yeah, really funny as I've never heard it before. It's like you have some kind of weird caricature concept of Libertarianism. I'm curious, though, can you give me an example of things they want to force on people?
 
jonny5 said:
By definition, social democracy is only freer for the majority. And libertarian is not ultra-right.
Click to expand...

There is no such definition in social democracy. Rights and freedoms apply to all in the modern western nations with this form of government, unless you want to look at an outlier or two, like being non-Jewish in Israel, or not paying off the right cop in El Salvador.

The Libertarian-Right philosophy is as far right as one can get. It disdains nearly all forms of public institutions, and encourages an every man for himself mentality. It is conservatism on steroids. It has the same crazed notions about perfectly functioning markets, invisible magic hands creeping about the streets, and the wise benevolence of the business community.

Unrestrained capitalist systems tend to gravitate to concentration of wealth and power. A true libertarian system would do the same, soon taking on the shape of a kind of corporate feudalism, with a few very powerful people, and a whole lot of hapless workers and peasants.
 
Ganesh said:
The average citizen in a social democracy today...

When America was created...
Click to expand...

What other things do you like to draw false comparisons between by using entirely different timer periods as if they are interchangeable?
 
Ganesh said:
The Libertarian-Right philosophy is as far right as one can get. It disdains nearly all forms of public institutions, and encourages an every man for himself mentality. It is conservatism on steroids. It has the same crazed notions about perfectly functioning markets, invisible magic hands creeping about the streets, and the wise benevolence of the business community.
Click to expand...

Wow, not only do you not get what libertarianism is, you don't even know what "right-wing" is.

Libertarianism is as anathema to the right-wing as it is to the left-wing, because both the right- and left-wings are statist.

Unrestrained capitalist systems tend to gravitate to concentration of wealth and power.
Click to expand...

I hear a lot about "unrestrained capitalist systems," but such a thing has never existed.
 
jonny5 said:
And people who value freedom over social security. Like the people who created this country.
Click to expand...

Fishking said:
What other things do you like to draw false comparisons between by using entirely different timer periods as if they are interchangeable?
Click to expand...

Not making any such comparisons, merely replying to your uber-right colleague on a two part question: the freedom/social security argument, and the intents of the revolutionary war leaders.

The extremist right is forever trotting out items from 1780 or so, and they are for the most part ridiculous, but that is a part of the sub-culture.
 
Harshaw said:
Wow, not only do you not get what libertarianism is, you don't even know what "right-wing" is.

Libertarianism is as anathema to the right-wing as it is to the left-wing, because both the right- and left-wings are statist.



I hear a lot about "unrestrained capitalist systems," but such a thing has never existed.
Click to expand...

Statist huh? Take Reagan's urge to drown government in a bathtub, carry it to an extreme, and there you will find the libertarian fruitloops. The conservative creed likes less government, and more reliance on business and individuals, take that to the fringe, and what have you got?

I know what you are getting at with the last line, again part of the wacky ultra right manifesto. It says just leave the market and individuals alone, and all will fall into place, like magic. Like a guiding hand that always knows the right direction (no pun intended), but you can't see it.

You can't see it for a good reason: it isn't there. The freedoms you see today are the result of long battles by individuals and organizations to get them, and they only exist because of laws and faith in public (read: government) institutions. That's what the lunatic fringe does not get.
 
Ganesh said:
Statist huh? Take Reagan's urge to drown government in a bathtub, carry it to an extreme, and there you will find the libertarian fruitloops. The conservative creed likes less government, and more reliance on business and individuals, take that to the fringe, and what have you got?
Click to expand...

Sure, if you play with the word "conservative," like so many do.

I, of course, didn't say "conservative," as that means whatever the person saying wants it to.

Instead, I said "right-wing."

The only difference between the left wing and the right wing is the part of your life they want to control, and the further left and right you go, the less difference there is.


It says just leave the market and individuals alone, and all will fall into place, like magic. Like a guiding hand that always knows the right direction (no pun intended), but you can't see it.
Click to expand...

The only people who say that are critics of libertarians who don't actually understand libertarian or free-market arguments.

You can't see it for a good reason: it isn't there. The freedoms you see today are the result of long battles by individuals and organizations to get them, and they only exist because of laws and faith in public (read: government) institutions. That's what the lunatic fringe does not get.
Click to expand...

No, freedom exists when you're born. You are physically free to do whatever you want, and that condition exists independent of anything external. The default state is complete freedom.

All government can do is limit freedom. It cannot grant what it does not have to give. And speaking of "magic," there is no magic "freedom well" from which government draws and hands out freedom.
 
PoS said:
Its funny that libertarian critics in this forum dont even know what libertarianism means.
Click to expand...

I know, man. It's sad, really. People can't wait to call libertarians kooks when they have no idea what libertarians even stand for.

It's "Force" to not provide YOU healthcare out of MY wallet? What sort of idiocy is this?

Libertarians are against force. I won't force you to do anything in life or ask my government to use force against you as long as it doesn't involve robbing me or using violence against me. Otherwise, you are free to do ANYTHING you want.

Socialized healthcare is force. You're using the guns of the government to force me into paying for your impotence in caring for yourself. You utilize the force of government to steal from me to hand over to you when you do not deserve any fruits of my labor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom