Libertarian or Licentious?.....

[lizzie]

In theory, libertarian principles often sound great, especially when you're young. After all, it sounds pretty good to announce that the government should just stay out of everbody's business.

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. 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~

So are Libertarians ready to talk about the kind of virtues necessary to support the freedoms they espouse? Thoughts?

Well, this is a difficult issue, because our society seems to be getting more and more decadent and individuals seem to be getting more self-focused. One of the founders (I can't recall which one at the moment) made the statement that the republic as it was set up would only work for a moral and religious people. Unfortunately, I believe he was right. It requires a certain amount of moral behavior and thought, in order to maximize freedom. I generally see us heading in the opposite direction, where people are getting more offensive, more angry, and have a sense of entitlement. This doesn't bode well for liberty, and the government will (by necessity) have to become more and more controlling, because the masses won't control themselves.

 

[MMC]

Well, this is a difficult issue, because our society seems to be getting more and more decadent and individuals seem to be getting more self-focused. One of the founders (I can't recall which one at the moment) made the statement that the republic as it was set up would only work for a moral and religious people. Unfortunately, I believe he was right. It requires a certain amount of moral behavior and thought, in order to maximize freedom. I generally see us heading in the opposite direction, where people are getting more offensive, more angry, and have a sense of entitlement. This doesn't bode well for liberty, and the government will (by necessity) have to become more and more controlling, because the masses won't control themselves.

Heya Liz.....so how do you and those that are Libertarian that Lean to Right, differ with those Libertarians that lean to the Lean?

I see it the same way as you do. Which eventual leads into the Chaos theory and away from Lawful Order.

 

[lizzie]

Heya Liz.....so how do you and those that are Libertarian that Lean to Right, differ with those Libertarians that lean to the Lean?

I see it the same way as you do. Which eventual leads into the Chaos theory and away from Lawful Order.

Best I can tell, those who lean toward the left end of the spectrum seem to be a little more liberal with the tolerance for more government spending- or iow, support more social welfare programs. I am libertarian on social policy, but not social spending.

 

[Cephus]

Well, this is a difficult issue, because our society seems to be getting more and more decadent and individuals seem to be getting more self-focused. One of the founders (I can't recall which one at the moment) made the statement that the republic as it was set up would only work for a moral and religious people. Unfortunately, I believe he was right. It requires a certain amount of moral behavior and thought, in order to maximize freedom. I generally see us heading in the opposite direction, where people are getting more offensive, more angry, and have a sense of entitlement. This doesn't bode well for liberty, and the government will (by necessity) have to become more and more controlling, because the masses won't control themselves.

So in order to gain freedom, it is necessary to adopt a system (morality or religion) which inherently limits freedom?

 

[lizzie]

So in order to gain freedom, it is necessary to adopt a system (morality or religion) which inherently limits freedom?

Not exactly. It's necessary to adopt a system of personal civility, where citizens are willing to treat each other with respect, in spite of their differences. That generally tends to mean a personal self-consciousness of sorts, in which the individual is hesitant to be offensive, out of respect for the effect he/she has on others. Freedom isn't necessarily a license to be an asshole, unless you don't really care about the level of civility and mutual respect in a society.

 

[Jäger]

That's why not all of us believe in Rights, but rather in Privileges.

Who gives you privileges?

 

[Jäger]

Libertarianism is a sign of cowardice for people that don't want to admit they are conservative (in the US) and want to support anarchy without having responsibility for their decisions.

They should admit they are Conservatives, but they don't. They are all scum.

Who are we afraid of? Also, a ****load of us do not conform to platitudes of others.

 

[Cephus]

Not exactly. It's necessary to adopt a system of personal civility, where citizens are willing to treat each other with respect, in spite of their differences. That generally tends to mean a personal self-consciousness of sorts, in which the individual is hesitant to be offensive, out of respect for the effect he/she has on others. Freedom isn't necessarily a license to be an asshole, unless you don't really care about the level of civility and mutual respect in a society.

I agree that it's not, but religion and religious morality is simply an exercise in artificial limitation on personal freedom. It isn't a license to be an asshole, but since personal responsibility for one's actions is important to both libertarians and conservatives, assholes tend to get what's coming to them anyhow and only the "fittest" survive, as it were. That said, artificial systems of social control very often end in widespread limitation of personal freedom, even perfectly valid, non-destructive, non-offensive freedoms, something that I'd assume that libertarians in general would disagree with.

 

[Tigger]

Who gives you privileges?

Privileges are bestowed on those who are capable and willing to maintain their place a proper society, by that society, through the Government.

 

[Cyrylek]

So are Libertarians ready to talk about the kind of virtues necessary to support the freedoms they espouse? Thoughts?

You are asking after libertarians droning about those virtues since, like, the 18th century?

The respect for individual freedom of choice - the central libertarian tent - requires individual and collective restraint other political philosophies can only dream of.

 

[MMC]

You are asking after libertarians droning about those virtues since, like, the 18th century?

The respect for individual freedom of choice - the central libertarian tent - requires individual and collective restraint other political philosophies can only dream of.

Well actually when I posted the article I was thinking. That we see most of the time Conservatives and Progressives going at each other. Since the writer of the OP brought it out. I had thought well how does this work with Libertarian Right vs Libertarian Left. What are the differences when looking into both spectrums.

Seeing what the Libertarians really have to say about this or anything related to it.

But then again that Respect for freedom of Choice comes thru the Republican Concept. Which would come with the Equal availability of Opportunity for each and every individual. That whatever such may be.....that is their Choice.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Well, this is a difficult issue, because our society seems to be getting more and more decadent and individuals seem to be getting more self-focused. One of the founders (I can't recall which one at the moment) made the statement that the republic as it was set up would only work for a moral and religious people. Unfortunately, I believe he was right. It requires a certain amount of moral behavior and thought, in order to maximize freedom. I generally see us heading in the opposite direction, where people are getting more offensive, more angry, and have a sense of entitlement. This doesn't bode well for liberty, and the government will (by necessity) have to become more and more controlling, because the masses won't control themselves.

I couldn't agree more about moral behavior but the masses tend to follow the leaders. The bankers lead us into economic disaster because they couldn't control themselves. They made a mistake of greed and what did they get in return? Politicians accept money from people who often end up getting political favors. What messages do those send to the masses and what do you really expect from them with such fine examples being set?

 

[lizzie]

I agree that it's not, but religion and religious morality is simply an exercise in artificial limitation on personal freedom. It isn't a license to be an asshole, but since personal responsibility for one's actions is important to both libertarians and conservatives, assholes tend to get what's coming to them anyhow and only the "fittest" survive, as it were. That said, artificial systems of social control very often end in widespread limitation of personal freedom, even perfectly valid, non-destructive, non-offensive freedoms, something that I'd assume that libertarians in general would disagree with.

Although I agree with you on general principle, I don't believe that a high percentage of people can really abide by a code of ethics in relation to their fellow man, unless they fear a source of power above and beyond mankind. There are exceptions to that rule, of course, as you and I, and other individuals who can use reason, rather than emotion, to direct their lives and their actions in a non-destructive manner. The problem becomes that a good number of humans only respond to what they fear, and they have an underlying hatred which directs their behaviors and their decisions. They don't function in a civil manner without having an authority figure, whether it be God or a government official. In the absence of something or someone outside of mankind, as an authority figure, the default position of that type of person becomes to abuse freedom, at the expense of others, thus the human authority figures must respond with force.

 

[Guy Incognito]

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.

Yes, so please let's get our act together and follow through on our libertarian platform by demanding that the state cease extending marriage recognition to anybody. Libertarians are for marriage equality, insofar as NOBODY should have their marriage recognized by government or have government coerced third parties into granting recognition of marriage of any sort, gay or straight.

 

[Cephus]

Although I agree with you on general principle, I don't believe that a high percentage of people can really abide by a code of ethics in relation to their fellow man, unless they fear a source of power above and beyond mankind. There are exceptions to that rule, of course, as you and I, and other individuals who can use reason, rather than emotion, to direct their lives and their actions in a non-destructive manner. The problem becomes that a good number of humans only respond to what they fear, and they have an underlying hatred which directs their behaviors and their decisions. They don't function in a civil manner without having an authority figure, whether it be God or a government official. In the absence of something or someone outside of mankind, as an authority figure, the default position of that type of person becomes to abuse freedom, at the expense of others, thus the human authority figures must respond with force.

That's really the problem with religion and the religious. You're not really a moral person if you're only doing it because you have a gun to the back of your head. That's not morality, that's intimidation. There are a lot of religious people out there who will happily tell you that without God, they'd be out raping and pillaging. These people don't need God, they need a therapist. If they really believe that, they are borderline sociopaths. Religion teaches people they are not responsible for anything they do, or to anyone else, because God will provide. Well God does a piss-poor job of it, mostly because there's no reason to think God exists.

That said, I find that a lot of libertarians have this pie-in-the-sky view that humans are generally honest, hard-working, socially-conscious people who will automatically follow the rules without oversight, that's why they want to shrink the government as small as possible (and get rid of it entirely for some libertarians) because people don't need anyone to keep them in line.

That's an absurd idea.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

That's really the problem with religion and the religious. You're not really a moral person if you're only doing it because you have a gun to the back of your head. That's not morality, that's intimidation. There are a lot of religious people out there who will happily tell you that without God, they'd be out raping and pillaging. These people don't need God, they need a therapist. If they really believe that, they are borderline sociopaths. Religion teaches people they are not responsible for anything they do, or to anyone else, because God will provide. Well God does a piss-poor job of it, mostly because there's no reason to think God exists.

:yt

That said, I find that a lot of libertarians have this pie-in-the-sky view that humans are generally honest, hard-working, socially-conscious people who will automatically follow the rules without oversight, that's why they want to shrink the government as small as possible (and get rid of it entirely for some anarchists) because people don't need anyone to keep them in line.

Edited for accuracy.

 

[Cephus]

Edited for accuracy.

It's kind of convenient when you can just redefine anyone that you don't personally agree with right out of your party, isn't it?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

It's kind of convenient when you can just redefine anyone that you don't personally agree with right out of your party, isn't it?

No, by every definition of libertarianism, some government is required. Someone who supports virtually no, or entirely no government, is either a minarchist, or an anarchist, respectively. Libertarianism requires a strong judicial system in order to protect citizen's rights, or seek retribution for the violation of said rights. After that, the level of desired government involvement varies wildly, as it is a relatively broad term.

We've discussed this before. Morons running around here falsely wearing libertarian leans, screaming about zero government of any kind are not actually libertarians. Do you take personal responsibility for every conservative on this thread running around screaming about hanging gays for jesus? Let's not tumble down this rabbit-hole again.

 

[Cephus]

No, by every definition of libertarianism, some government is required. Someone who supports virtually no, or entirely no government, is either a minarchist, or an anarchist, respectively. Libertarianism requires a strong judicial system in order to protect citizen's rights, or seek retribution for the violation of said rights. After that, the level of desired government involvement varies wildly, as it is a relatively broad term.

Well, by every definition of libertarianism that you accept, some government is required. Apparently, some people have a definition of libertarianism that doesn't require that. That was my point. You simply don't accept that anyone who falls outside of your definition of libertarian is a libertarian, you re-label them as something else. I understand why you do it, I'm just pointing out that you do it.

 

[lizzie]

That said, I find that a lot of libertarians have this pie-in-the-sky view that humans are generally honest, hard-working, socially-conscious people who will automatically follow the rules without oversight, that's why they want to shrink the government as small as possible (and get rid of it entirely for some libertarians) because people don't need anyone to keep them in line.

That's an absurd idea.

I don't believe the bolded in the least, which is one of the reasons I have no objection to people having religious beliefs, regardless of the accuracy or reality of those beliefs. I'd prefer to see humans control their base impulses because they believe in a superior being, than to require being forced by their fellow man. It's why a strong legal and justice system is necessary in a democracy. If a democracy relies solely on the inherrent goodness of man to flourish, it will find itself degrading rapidly.

 

[Cephus]

I don't believe the bolded in the least, which is one of the reasons I have no objection to people having religious beliefs, regardless of the accuracy or reality of those beliefs. I'd prefer to see humans control their base impulses because they believe in a superior being, than to require being forced by their fellow man. It's why a strong legal and justice system is necessary in a democracy. If a democracy relies solely on the inherrent goodness of man to flourish, it will find itself degrading rapidly.

Whereas I'd rather people just learn to use their rational brain to control those impulses. It doesn't just matter that they do it, it matters how they do it as well. As far as a strong legal and justice system, isn't it a lot of libertarians who want to end most government regulations and let the free market run wild? Isn't it many libertarians who seem to think that companies, if given free reign, won't pollute the environment, won't form monopolies, won't sell dangerous products for short-term profits, etc? Of course they will, that's why we have regulatory agencies in the first place!

 

[lizzie]

Whereas I'd rather people just learn to use their rational brain to control those impulses. It doesn't just matter that they do it, it matters how they do it as well. As far as a strong legal and justice system, isn't it a lot of libertarians who want to end most government regulations and let the free market run wild? Isn't it many libertarians who seem to think that companies, if given free reign, won't pollute the environment, won't form monopolies, won't sell dangerous products for short-term profits, etc? Of course they will, that's why we have regulatory agencies in the first place!

You are going to have a loooooooong wait if you're expecting the mass of humans to control their base impulses based on rational thought. As for free markets, yes I support them. Government regulations have interferred to the point that little free market forces are even at play. There are some government regulations which contribute positively, and others which accomplish little more than raising prices and stomping out competition.

 

[Cephus]

You are going to have a loooooooong wait if you're expecting the mass of humans to control their base impulses based on rational thought. As for free markets, yes I support them. Government regulations have interferred to the point that little free market forces are even at play. There are some government regulations which contribute positively, and others which accomplish little more than raising prices and stomping out competition.

I don't think so, we just need to start consistently teaching kids from a very young age how to think critically and how to be logical. It'll have the side benefit of largely eliminating religion. I don't think it would take more than a generation or two if people were simply taught how to be better people. As for the free markets, it's just wishful thinking that a totally free market would be operable, we need to have regulations and expectations that keep the playing field level because the first thing companies will do is try to make it unlevel. That's why we have the anti-monopoly laws in place today, because companies naturally take advantage of any opportunity they can to get ahead. We need the FDA, we need OSHA, we need all kinds of regulatory agencies because otherwise, the whole process would fall apart, as it did before the regulations were put in place.

 

[lizzie]

I don't think so, we just need to start consistently teaching kids from a very young age how to think critically and how to be logical. It'll have the side benefit of largely eliminating religion. I don't think it would take more than a generation or two if people were simply taught how to be better people. .

That is not something that can be done, for several reasons. For one, that would take highly intelligent and rational parents, unless you are proposing that children be raised in isolation from their families. I am wholly opposed to that, as it is too controlling of the individuality and what I call "spirit" of an individual. There's also the issue that the range of human intelligence varies widely, as does the emotional expression, and to have a purely rational-thinking population would inhibit the artistic, as well as the emotion-driven negative side of human nature. I don't at all advocate for forcing people to only think rationally, nor act emotionally. I support liberty as long as one person's stupidity doesn't infringe on the rights of another. This is why a sane legal system, with consistent enforcement, is needed. The human species is a huge array of individual types, and to expect total rationality is not in the least realistic. Our emotional component is a part of what makes humanity beautiful.

 

[ARealConservative]

Yes, so please let's get our act together and follow through on our libertarian platform by demanding that the state cease extending marriage recognition to anybody. Libertarians are for marriage equality, insofar as NOBODY should have their marriage recognized by government or have government coerced third parties into granting recognition of marriage of any sort, gay or straight.

libertarians are in no position to demand anything.

We failed to stop giving college grants to A students. Does that mean we should now start demanding C students get aid, or do we continue arguing that all aid should be stopped?

I’ll stick with the latter.