• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Libertarian or Licentious?.....

RGacky3 said:
Who said anything about a civic virtue. I fundementally believe that value comes from God (not faith or religion however).

But if you believe the state has a right to enforce private property, then there is no reason why it does not have a right to enforce social security.
Click to expand...

But it's necessary both because intellectual honesty requirks it and also because liberty without virtue quickly devolves into licentiousness -- and carries the risk of justifying creation of a bigger-than-ever-before government to pick up the pieces.....snip~

Well that was the premise of the OP.....myself I am not a Libertarian. Nor would I try to argue their viewpoint and their Ideology. As some Libertarians lean left.
 
MMC said:
But it's necessary both because intellectual honesty requirks it and also because liberty without virtue quickly devolves into licentiousness -- and carries the risk of justifying creation of a bigger-than-ever-before government to pick up the pieces.....snip~

Well that was the premise of the OP.....myself I am not a Libertarian. Nor would I try to argue their viewpoint and their Ideology. As some Libertarians lean left.
Click to expand...

well virtue would lead to creating cooperative organizations ...

I don't see what's your point here ... You're talking apples and oranges, virtue is an individual principle of ethics, libertarianism is an approach to government and property.
 
RGacky3 said:
well virtue would lead to creating cooperative organizations ...

I don't see what's your point here ... You're talking apples and oranges, virtue is an individual principle of ethics, libertarianism is an approach to government and property.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is what the writer is discussing using Rand Paul as her example.....which her words are directed at libertarians.



Here is Paul making his case to Libertarians and Republicans this past Sunday.
 
MMC said:
There's no such thing as civic virtue, unless you are a fundamentalist statist espousing a modified humanist philosophy; which unfortunately pretty much leaves out God. Our virtues historically cames from religion and faith.
Click to expand...

It's like someone wrote a Buckley For Kids children's book and you're posting excerpts from it.

(For the record, I'm atheistic as Hell and a libertarian. Most libertarians I know have a basic sort of contempt for Christianity.)
 
Einzige said:
It's like someone wrote a Buckley For Kids children's book and you're posting excerpts from it.

(For the record, I'm atheistic as Hell and a libertarian. Most libertarians I know have a basic sort of contempt for Christianity.)
Click to expand...


I am not all about that True Conservatism Or How Conservative can you be, neither. So ya can save the Buckley How to Book. Yet, how does that change the fact that historically our virtues came from religion and faith?

Also I did say there Libertarians that lean left.....which I am sure those from the Right, they are not in agreement with you over that contempt for Christianity. As why would they just focus upon one religion and not all of them?
 
MMC said:
Yet, how does that change the fact that historically our virtues came from religion and faith?
Click to expand...

Protip: they don't.

Also I did say there Libertarians that lean left.....which I am sure those from the Right, they are not in agreement with you over that contempt for Christianity. As why would they just focus upon one religion and not all of them?
Click to expand...

1. The libertarians I'm talking about aren't particularly "left-winged" by any means. They read H.L. Mencken, Ragnar Redbeard, and other proponents of Social Darwinism. And a great deal of their hostility to Christianity stems from the fact that it's a leveling religion - American "progressivism", such as it is, is rooted in the Social Gospel of the 19th century, Prohibitionism, the Bill Bryan campaign for President (and, later, against Darwinism, etc.).

Ayn Rand wasn't left-winged and she also hated Christianity - of course, I dislike her, too, for other reasons. Libertarian anti-theism isn't isolated to left-winged libertarians.

2. If they lived in a Muslim society, they'd probably hate Islam.
 
Einzige said:
Protip: they don't.
Click to expand...

pro tip - his inclusion of faith with religion makes him correct.

virtues come from a faith in ones own ability to recognize right and wrong - whether religion had a part in that faith or not is immaterial.
 
ARealConservative said:
pro tip - his inclusion of faith with religion makes him correct.

virtues come from a faith in ones own ability to recognize right and wrong - whether religion had a part in that faith or not is immaterial.
Click to expand...

"Right" and "wrong" come from the self. The individual, and the individual alone, has the capacity for determining good from evil, for good and evil are the products of the self. The individual who bows blindly at the altar of social convention is not behaving in a "good" way, any more than the person who rejects social mores and norms is evil.

All libertarianism is rooted in the individual. And anything that denies the primacy of the individual is anti-libertarian.
 
Einzige said:
"Right" and "wrong" come from the self. The individual, and the individual alone, has the capacity for determining good from evil, for good and evil are the products of the self.
Click to expand...

You just restated my position. It requires faith in self to argue that your determination of good from evil is correct.

So virtue comes from faith – whether your faith derives form religion or not, it is still faith based.
 
ARealConservative said:
You just restated my position. It requires faith in self to argue that your determination of good from evil is correct.

So virtue comes from faith – whether your faith derives form religion or not, it is still faith based.
Click to expand...

No, you missed my point. The self is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, regardless of whether or not one has deceived one's self into thinking they're "receiving" morality from a Higher Source. But such self-deception is inherently immoral, because it denies personal responsibility (consider how willing Abraham was to abandon his own personal morality and put Issac on the altar). Religious "morality" is a denial of the self.
 
Einzige said:
No, you missed my point. The self is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, regardless of whether or not one has deceived one's self into thinking they're "receiving" morality from a Higher Source. But such self-deception is inherently immoral, because it denies personal responsibility (consider how willing Abraham was to abandon his own personal morality and put Issac on the altar). Religious "morality" is a denial of the self.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your point. I find it circular and silly.

Every single person chooses for himself if he even agrees with the notion of a higher power.

Without familiarizing myself with your example of Abraham and Issac, I will simply point out he had free will, and has personal responsibility for the choices he makes.


Einzige said:
All libertarianism is rooted in the individual. And anything that denies the primacy of the individual is anti-libertarian.
Click to expand...

This is too simplistic of dogma to be of any use in the real world.

The only people that would never waiver from libertarianism would be considered insane in a civilized society.
 
ARealConservative said:
the state recognizing who you love is not a right either.

does the state prevent you from being with your gay lover? no.

does the state prevent you from smoking a plant? yes.
Click to expand...

I never said marriage was a right. But we live in a society that has come to expect people being treated equally and without discrimination. As long as the state has control of marriage, all citizens should be seen as equal in the eyes of the law. The days of "jesus created marriage so we're going to protect it" BS are numbered.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I never said marriage was a right. But we live in a society that has come to expect people being treated equally and without discrimination. As long as the state has control of marriage, all citizens should be seen as equal in the eyes of the law. The days of "jesus created marriage so we're going to protect it" BS are numbered.
Click to expand...

nonsense. discrimination is rampant.

Take college aid assistance. Government programs commonly discriminate based on wealth, race, grades, and on and on and on.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And they shouldn't. Your point?
Click to expand...

People disagree with you.

I’m not a big fan of social security, but explain to those that are how you can’t discriminate. If one person can collect benefits based on age, or disability, we all can.

Now do it for gun control. If a 27 year old can possess a weapon, a 27 month old damn sure can. Government can’t discriminate.


My point is your point is absurd in its simplicity
 
ARealConservative said:
People disagree with you.

I’m not a big fan of social security, but explain to those that are how you can’t discriminate. If one person can collect benefits based on age, or disability, we all can.

Now do it for gun control. If a 27 year old can possess a weapon, a 27 month old damn sure can. Government can’t discriminate.


My point is your point is absurd in its simplicity
Click to expand...

My point of "people should stop being aggressive assholes and just mind their own business" is absurd in its simplicity? Interesting. Care to elaborate?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
My point of "people should stop being aggressive assholes and just mind their own business" is absurd in its simplicity? Interesting. Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

I just did. To claim government can’t discriminate is ridiculous as I pointed out with age of consent laws and children running around with guns.

Here is an example of discrimination you will likely agree to:

Individuals that work for an employer can join together for the purpose of artificially raising the cost of labor

Individuals that employee people are not allowed to do the same thing to lower the cost of labor.
 
ARealConservative said:
I just did. To claim government can’t discriminate is ridiculous as I pointed out with age of consent laws and children running around with guns.

Here is an example of discrimination you will likely agree to:

Individuals that work for an employer can join together for the purpose of artificially raising the cost of labor

Individuals that employee people are not allowed to do the same thing to lower the cost of labor.
Click to expand...

So I'm confused, are you just trying to assume what I believe by throwing in random statements? I don't see any problem with either of the two scenarios. The government shouldn't be involved in either. Sorry homie, if you're itching to yell "gotcha" on somebody for having contradictory beliefs, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Government shouldn't be involved in things that don't directly violate someone's rights.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So I'm confused, are you just trying to assume what I believe by throwing in random statements? I don't see any problem with either of the two scenarios. The government shouldn't be involved in either. Sorry homie, if you're itching to yell "gotcha" on somebody for having contradictory beliefs, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Government shouldn't be involved in things that don't directly violate someone's rights.
Click to expand...

Really? Then you are the first left leaning libertarian I’ve encountered that would allow employers to join together to fix prices.

Still not sure where you stand on 27 month olds carrying guns around, but deciphering the double negatives is exhausting work and I’m worn out from it.
 
RGacky3 said:
And no one pays attention to those people, for good reason, since that philosophy requires someone that grants privileges, which is rediculous because who decides who does that?

Anyway, no one cares that you and a couple other sociopaths believe that.
Click to expand...

Society as a whole does that. They always have and always will.
 
ARealConservative said:
Really? Then you are the first left leaning libertarian I’ve encountered that would allow employers to join together to fix prices.

Still not sure where you stand on 27 month olds carrying guns around, but deciphering the double negatives is exhausting work and I’m worn out from it.
Click to expand...

Really? Because every libertarian I've ever met, by definition, has respected an individual's right to make contracts. An employer is a human being, and has the right to make a work contract with whomever he wants for whatever pay. That's a distinctly "right-wing" concept, if you want to be technical.

If you want to link babies carrying firearms with homosexuals marrying, I would like to see your argument for it.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Really? Because every libertarian I've ever met, by definition, has respected an individual's right to make contracts.
Click to expand...

left libertarians are generally so concerned with exploitation of the worker class that they don't care about individual rights in this case.


If you want to link babies carrying firearms with homosexuals marrying, I would like to see your argument for it.
Click to expand...

You never actually took a position on babies carrying firearms.

for it?
 
MMC said:
So are Libertarians ready to talk about the kind of virtues necessary to support the freedoms they espouse? Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's oft discussed in libertarian political philosophy.
 
MMC said:
No, talking about things like "civic virtue" isn't nearly as hip as signaling support for less stringent penalties for some kinds of drug use.
Click to expand...
There may be no difference, if one includes motivation and time span in any appraisal. Drug use and prohibition is one issue among many, and no less pressing a moral one.

But it's necessary both because intellectual honesty requirks it and also because liberty without virtue quickly devolves into licentiousness -- and carries the risk of justifying creation of a bigger-than-ever-before government to pick up the pieces.....snip~
Click to expand...
I'd submit that liberty is virtuous. Denial of such would be immoral. There is no liberty without virtue.

Government would only ever reflect and codify morality, with the effect that whatever 'pieces' there are to pick, would never picked up at all, government being their sponsor.
 
Ikari said:
Yes, and it's oft discussed in libertarian political philosophy.
Click to expand...

So, what is the differences with those that are libertarians and leaning to the Right as Opposed to your left leaning?

So far I have seen the Conservatives looking at the issue. But not so much from Libertarians from Both Sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom