- Joined
- Apr 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,993
- Reaction score
- 470
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
No. I have never heard any libertarian argue that the state should go out of its way to encourage this sort of behavior.
Who said anything about encouraging it? The classic libertarian way of thinking is that you are allowed to hire and fire anyone at will for whatever reason, allowed to deny service to customers for any reason, etc. The government does not have that privileged. This is why a lot of libertarians do not like parts of the Civil Rights Act.
Are you talking about the idea of requiring anonymity? Why isn't it plausible? Donations do not have to be made in cash or by handing someone a check. It may not have been that plausible 50 years, but when I donate to a cause I usually do it online. The only reason they know who I am is because the government makes them gather that information.
The reason requiring anonymity is not a plausible solution to the problem is because of the fact that there would be no way to prove that the law is being upheld. Becuase you donate on-line, if I really really wanted to, I could find out who you are donating too. The parties could just say "the candidate figured it out"
I find it odd that you believe that people can not think for themselves. It seems to be a common belief of those who generally are on the minority side of things. There must be someone pulling the strings to get people to think in a way you do not understand.
Yes, people try and influence people's belief but the majority are perfectly able to make up their own mind. They do not need some group to instruct them how to do this. I suppose if you feel the need of an outside organization to help you do this, well good for you for taking the steps necessary.
You don't know much about modern propaganda and influencing thinking on a wide scale do you? Or are you one of those people that believe most people actually think critically about issues?