Libertarians
November 10th, 2010 at 8:24 am by David Farrar
You can click on the image for a larger version. Quite clever, even if I don’t agree with it.
Hat Tip: Half Done
Tags: libertarianism113 Responses to “Libertarians”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 10th, 2010 at 8:32 am
Might wanna check the image link – not working that I can see.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 8:38 am
There’s a rebuttal that’s floating around the internet too.
Richard – just follow the web link for the bigger one.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 8:50 am
Hmm…rebuttal not the right word. It’s called ‘the 25 types of liberal’ or some such thing.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 8:51 am
What’s wrong with libertarianism.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Hey, there I am!
I’m here! I exist!
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Here’s the rebuttal
http://www.liberal-vision.org/2010/07/14/24-types-of-authoritarians/
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 9:16 am
can’t click on the image to make it larger.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Of course its difficult to be a true libertarian (no matter how self proclaimed) if, for example, you believe in no government intervention except to prevent abortion (and teach creationism in schools).
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 9:23 am
Of course its difficult to be a true libertarian (no matter how self proclaimed) if, for example, you believe in no government intervention except to prevent abortion (and teach creationism in schools).
As no Libertarian worthy of the name believes any such thing I call bullshit on that claim.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 9:32 am
Yea, if you can’t purchase a gun, you’re not a “person”. /sarc
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Original version (fullsize):
http://www.leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 9:40 am
“24 types of Libertarian”, aka the futility of political labeling.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 9:46 am
James – one of the guys in AOC campus claimes to be a libertarian but doesn’t support abortion… I mean WTF??!!
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 9:55 am
I am a libertarian who is not a fan of abortion Captain Neurotic, i just won’t get in anyones way if they choose to have one. In fact considering what an awful decision it is, i would not even offer an opinion unless specifically asked, and then choose my words extremely carefully.
personally i would rather it not be state funded, but there is a long list of things i wish that about.
now how quickly before a religious nutter derails this completely?
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:04 am
24 different types of libertarian – must be one type for each member of that party
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:10 am
What Grendel said. A Libertarian doesn’t have to like abortion at all…they just have to respect the right of another person to seek to have one done at their OWN expense.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:12 am
James – one of the guys in AOC campus claimes to be a libertarian but doesn’t support abortion… I mean WTF??!!
Andy Moore by any chance? No suprise if so…hes so far up Gods clacker…
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Yea, if you can’t purchase a gun, you’re not a “person”. /sarc ,/i>
If someone else acts with force to prevent you,a peaceful person seeking to own a gun for your own reasons then you are not a FREE person…
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Libertarianism is one philosophy I don’t really understand. Preserving personal liberty I can understand, arguably that is a ‘higher need’ (people with no liberty tend to fall into despair, and have shorter lifespans). But I can’t understand why only notions of personal property and the integrity of contract should be sacrosanct… it seems kind of arbitrary. And I have the sense that a justification of those principles would inevitably require pointing to desired social outcomes; in which case, one could ask why other social values can’t be included?
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:20 am
What Grendel said. A Libertarian doesn’t have to like abortion at all…they just have to respect the right of another person to seek to have one done at their OWN expense.
Yea, it’s not about protecting the innocent at all, that’s got nothing to do with it whatsoever. How does this grab you?
What Grendel said. A Libertarian doesn’t have to own slaves at all…they just have to respect the right of another person to purchase a slave at their OWN expense.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:25 am
If you justify liberty in terms of “desired social outcomes”, you’re immediately entering territory where liberty would be curtailed in the name of “desired social outcomes” if some other means was found more effective.
The principle of liberty is valuable in itself, and that principle extends beyond notions of personal property and integrity of contract. (In fact, socialist libertarians would suggest that many current notions of property are hindrances to liberty.)
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:33 am
@Ryan
How can anything be valuable in itself? Value is meaningless without a valuer.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Someone who fails to get it said…Yea, it’s not about protecting the innocent at all, that’s got nothing to do with it whatsoever. How does this grab you?
What Grendel said. A Libertarian doesn’t have to own slaves at all…they just have to respect the right of another person to purchase a slave at their OWN expense.
As slavery is the direct opposite of Libertarianism I conclude you are an ignoramous.
Libertarians uphold the individual rights of human beings…actually living breathing and THINKING ones…ones who can reason,conceptualise and take responsibility for ones actions…a fetus can do none of these things.A potential being does not have rights…only an actual one with the aforementioned abilities can.
The property right of the Woman to her own body overrides any supposed “right” of a collection of cells to be carried and born.Theres no right to life in the sense that one MUST be bought into existence…even so called God doesn’t believe that what with all the abortions he preforms…
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:42 am
I mean valuable to libertarians for its own sake, not as a means to some other end that they might value.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:50 am
At what age do you think all those abilities kick in?
Should twelve year olds have the right to prostitute themselves? (aka exercise their property rights over their own body by renting it out)
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Libertarianism is one philosophy I don’t really understand. Preserving personal liberty I can understand, arguably that is a ‘higher need’ (people with no liberty tend to fall into despair, and have shorter lifespans). But I can’t understand why only notions of personal property and the integrity of contract should be sacrosanct… it seems kind of arbitrary. And I have the sense that a justification of those principles would inevitably require pointing to desired social outcomes; in which case, one could ask why other social values can’t be included?
There is no conflict between individuals with their rights to life,liberty,property and pursuit of happiness protected and acted upon and whats “good”for society etc as society is just an abstract term for all of us individuals….not a seperate new being altogether.All human groupings from the family through to the species are abstractions…only the individual human being exists as an entity in itself….reality has made it thus..
There is nothing that is individually good that is not also good for the human group…after all the group is just a collection of individuals.Its when the group is treated as an entity in itself with its own wants and rights that problems arise because some then claim to know what this new “being” wants and then imposes itself to the exclusion of all other views.
Nature mandates that humans require liberty if they are to live and thrive….theres no getting away from that fact.We are rational beings who must think and create from that thinking if we are to survive and prosper…if we don’t we die….A=A.
Libertarianism is the simplist,the most moral (and therefore the most practical) political philosophy because its the natural,default one nature imbured humans with…do what you will and respect everyone elses exact same right to do likewise.Stick to that and things work great…mess with it and you get all the issues we have today and the horrors we have seen through history.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:02 am
What age does an “actual being” begin. A foetus breathes (makes breathing motions of the chest) and thinks.
Vote:Obviously a newborn child is not reasoning, conceptualising and taking responsibility, though. So does a libertarian believe that newborns can be done away with, in favour of the parent’s rights to carry on with their lives.
A foetus is absolutely dependent on mum for its life, but so is a newborn. And for months (years) to come.
Where’s the line? Where do these liberal human rights begin?
Either define the line and defend it with rigorous logic, or admit there are shades of grey and stop being so damn ideological.
November 10th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Where has it been proven to work in practice with a population of more than one?
I’m sure a few bible believers will question “the most moral”.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Here’s a more readable version (via TinEye)
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/24-types_of_libertarian.png
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:05 am
@Grendall – that is a fair enough response, I respect that.
@James – I think it is Andy but not sure as I’m not involved with them.
For what it is worth, without this spawning the religious tripe, I think abortion is a personal choice and being a ‘hypocrite’ I think it is something that the state should pay for… Purely because it is cheaper to allow those with little means nor desire to have the kid than paying for it the rest of it’s life e.g. DPB, schooling, welfare and possibly through poor raising prison expenditure and the dole, also cost associated with his healthcare at drug rehibilttion. Extreme I know but not far from the truth unfortunately.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Always interesting to have the basics of Libertarianism dragged into the Abortion debate.
Whilst not necessarily agreeing with abortion as a rule, I accept there are genuine reasons for it in some instances. Ultimately the call resides with the owner of the womb, and I wouldn’t necessarily want to be having to make that call.
From what I have seen and read, Libertarianism revolves around the right of the individual to undertake their lives with the least possible interference from Government (and others), with this right extending into the realm of property ownership, unless their actions impinge on the rights of another to undertake their lives, which is where Government has a legitimate role in protectiing the rights of those being impinged upon. Of course, this ideology also promotes the requirement to accept the responsibility for your actions – and this is where many on the left seem to have a problem – all rights and no responsibilities appears to be the catch cry of the Liberals/Progressives/Leftists.
As with any Ideology, there will always be different shades, depending on the individual, but that is the glory of accepting that everyone is different. The main aim should be to promote the basics of individual rights and property rights (which are really just an extension of individual rights), with the associated responsibilties attendent on accepting those rights.
I am sick and tired of being told that I need to respect the rights of others, while having Goverment trample all over mine.
B
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:09 am
Why do they value it, though? I mean, it’s circular to say that something has a value just because it is. Something has to give it a value.
In the case of Libertarians, I would guess that they value liberty for one or more of the following reasons:
* It ‘feels good’ to be free
* Having liberty is generally a necessary condition for an individual to acquire most things of value
* There are compelling social reasons for liberty to be widespread, which feed into personal interest.
At their core, these are instrumental reasons. None point to liberty being valuable except as a means to another end.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:09 am
A newborn is not absolutely dependent on mum for it’s life, just on someone who can feed and care for it. From about 24 weeks in utero it can potentially survive with someone other than the mother.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:10 am
At what age do you think all those abilities kick in?
Not as a collection of cells anyway.Libertarianism is not concerned with the rights and wrongs of abortion per se…its only legitimate interest in the issue is the political question of property rights…and its clear that the living thinking woman trumps the not yet living,thinking cells.A woman can have a cancer removed from her body…why not an unwanted prenancy? I’m no fan of the abortion act at all but I respect the rights of those who choose to have one….same with tattooing,piecing,sex changes etc.
Should twelve year olds have the right to prostitute themselves? (aka exercise their property rights over their own body by renting it out)
Nice try with the extreme example ploy. I would answer …is the 12 year old self supporting?Where are the parents?Are there any? For what reason does she feel she has to do so? Is the 12 year old able to reason and make an informed choice re the consequences? For much of human history 12 year olds were getting married and having sex as well as fighting in wars etc so it can be a complex issue.
If the 12 year old could prove to you she was quite happy to do so and was quite clear on the possible consequences then what would YOU say about it? What justification could you come up with to prevent her? I don’t think 12 year olds should be hooking but then thats me…
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:20 am
It’s not circular to say that something has value to someone just because it does, any more than it’s circular to say that a particular food tastes good to someone just because it does.
It’s actually more problematic to say, as you do, “Something has to give it value.” Because whatever that thing is, what gives that value?
Having liberty may be a condition for an individual to acquire most things of value, but I don’t think it’s a necessary condition. Regardless, there are libertarians who would pick freedom over acquisition, if that was the choice.
“Compelling social reasons” may be an argument for people who value liberty only as a means to other ends, but does not apply to people who value liberty for itself. What you’re doing is describing people who value liberty instrumentally, and then claiming it applies to everyone who values liberty.
And as for “it feels good” to be free, it’s almost tautological to say that someone values something just because it makes them feel good. Whatever a person values, those things make him feel good.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:21 am
I never understood the inclusion of gun nuts with Libertarians…. For me Libertarianism requires the state to have a monopoly on force, and to use that monopoly to safeguard the freedoms of the citizens of that state. Ergo, private citizens should not posess the means of force, firearms.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Where has it been proven to work in practice with a population of more than one?
Look about your daily life George…you know you’re soaking in it?
Most of us live the Libertarian lifestyle most of the time without even thinking about it.We interact with consenting others and respect their rights and usually get ours respected back….its basically already with us…we just need to remove the other shit which is coercive force,usually state inflicted.As I said Libertarianism is our default human state…its only when someone starts waving a club about that theres a problem….otherwise just let it work.
I’m sure a few bible believers will question “the most moral”.
The moral IS the practical….the objective reality we live in and that spawned us makes it so and doesn’t contradict itself.The moral is that which supports and enhances our lives as human beings…the immoral is that which works against us as humans.Human life is the standard which we should and must judge all things against.
Humans,like all living entities have set natures that we are not free to escape without consequence.Capitalism and Libertarianism work because they are just simply “right” for us.Socialism fails because its right for ants and termites …not us.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Ryan: ,i>Having liberty may be a condition for an individual to acquire most things of value, but I don’t think it’s a necessary condition. Regardless, there are libertarians who would pick freedom over acquisition, if that was the choice.
Without liberty as a human being whats really the point of your existence? If you can’t live as a human should…which is inseperable from having freedom to experience,grow and evole AS a human then why bother? Its akin to cutting off a fishes fins and sewing up its gills and then throwing it in the sea.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:28 am
You can easily make an argument that Libertarians can be against abortion but can you justify the reverse position?
The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors— psychology, sociology, women’s studies— to prove that nothing is anybody’s fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you’d have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view.
PJ O’Rourke
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:31 am
“What is the point of your existence?” and “How should a human live?”
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:33 am
James, you previously said:
I took from this that there is some kind of border running through the set of humans. On one side of the border are “[actual] living breathing and THINKING ones…ones who can reason,conceptualise and take responsibility for ones actions”. On the other side is everything else.
If you’re on the living, breathing, thinking side, then you have property rights over your own body; you can do what you like with or to yourself, and no one can prevent you (provided you’re not infringing on other people’s rights).
If you’re on the other side, then you do not have property rights over your own body, and you can (for instance) be killed if that will improve the life of one of the living, breathing thinkers.
So, set the border where you think it should be. Does a 12 year old have rights over their own body, or not? You may assume that the 12 year old’s family provides food, shelter, clothing, etc. and thus they have no need to work for money. You can also assume that they are as intelligent and self-aware as you were when you were 12.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:34 am
What about atheist libertarians (and a lot of them seem to be atheists)?
What do such posters think of this? A suggestion that belief in big government goes up as atheism rises.
Are libertarian atheists closet socialists even if they aren’t aware of this themselves?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100062966/when-people-stop-believing-in-god-they-start-believing-in-big-government-and-obamaism/
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Also: are libertarians (atheistic ones and the others if there are others) Utopians?
IMHO they dream of an impossible nirvana where everything is individual freedom and still works.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Also a suggestion that atheism rises as intelligence increases. Lots of correlation doesn’t necessarily mean lots of causation.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:41 am
I’m a utopian. Nothing wrong with that. The question is the impossibility, and what you mean by “everything works”.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Matt: I never understood the inclusion of gun nuts with Libertarians…. For me Libertarianism requires the state to have a monopoly on force, and to use that monopoly to safeguard the freedoms of the citizens of that state. Ergo, private citizens should not posess the means of force, firearms.
No…the States limited monopoly use of force is only defensive…its not to be an initiator of force.How can citizens have freedom if they are banned from owning firearms? Its the right of people to own firearms…or pretty much anything else that doesn’t violate the rights of others that gives the state its moral license for being….we don’t have rights because we have a state…we have a state to protect pre-existing rights.
The state is an afterthought to safeguard our natural rights from violation…and thats all it should do.If it involves itself in areas outside of that problems and trouble follows without fail. Its the possibility of the state itself becoming a threat to us that requires we posses and be able to bear arms against IT that is the reason for private gun ownership.History shows what happens to disarmed peoples when the state slips the leash…
In the Libertarian society the state exists only by OUR permission to carry out OUR bidding…which in its case is the objective protection of our individual rights…nothing else.The state is basically a nightwatchman appointed by us to provide a service..its not nor ever should be our master.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:44 am
An interesting example of framing…
The article you quote frames this as: “declining belief in god leads to belief in big government”.
The article it quotes, http://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/the-psychological-seesaw-of-god-and-country-24870/ , frames this as: “as people lose faith in their government, they turn to religion”. That is, people want to believe that it’ll all turn out for the best. If you don’t think your government is on track to achieve that, then you look for reassurance elsewhere
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:48 am
I often think that _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ is a good example of this. Everyone has guns, there’s effectively no police or government, and there’s hardly any women. You might bullies to use violence and fear to establish power bases, and women to become property. Instead, women are sacrosanct and everyone gets along. It works because Heinlein wrote it to work…
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Ryan: “What is the point of your existence?” and “How should a human live?”
As far as I can tell its to just be and experience the journey and what comes with it…if theres really something more Im open to finding out about it.
A human should live by rules of his set nature as a human…and what that entails.You are doing it now Ryan…why ask me?
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Jack, libertarianism does sound like an impossible nirvana to me.
The possible relationship between atheism and big government is interesting. My initial reaction was disagreement because I’m an atheist who prefers smaller government, but that doesn’t mean most atheists are the same.
Perhaps the total control over someone’s life is what needs to be considered eg:
Vote:Church + smaller government = larger government?
- for some people at least.
November 10th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Oh, I was just pointing out that your comments make assumptions about questions that are a lot bigger than the value of liberty, though perhaps some people might say you have to answer those big questions before being able to talk about the value of liberty.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:57 am
I don’t think liberty is a natural state. We don’t have any choice but to breath, to eat, to drink, and to sleep. Some of us have to raise offspring. We have to cope with other people, animals, insects etc, and also with natural events. Today I don’t have the liberty to walk outside and get wet as it’s not raining.
None of us are free. We are co-dependent and subject to many risks in our lives beyond our control.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Jack5: What about atheist libertarians (and a lot of them seem to be atheists)?
Many are although theres no reason a religious person can’t be…indeed I think if one is a Christian and really belives in the golden rule and “does unto others”consistently then how could they be anything but a Libertarian in their politics? But in fact many Christians are political socialists….and thats no real suprise as socialism is the political decendent of Christianity..it just promises heaven on Earth rather than later in the sky.The theme that unites them is altruism…the doctrine of self sacfifice to others.By complete contrast Capitalism,and its only non contradictory and inseperable political friend Libertarianism, are founded on individual self interest.
What do such posters think of this? A suggestion that belief in big government goes up as atheism rises.
Thats a long bow to draw…and I doubt its the case.Atheists are proven to me more intelligent than believers as a rule and so I would expect to see a far more “small government” outlook from them.
Are libertarian atheists closet socialists even if they aren’t aware of this themselves?
How so?
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Liberty doesn’t mean being free from the laws of nature and circumstance, Pete. It means being free from coercion from others.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
James at 10:39: “The property right of the Woman to her own body overrides any supposed “right” of a collection of cells”
And here we have the crux of the abortion issue. James, would you care to enlighten me as to when a “collection of cells” becomes a human being? Two months pregnant? 9 months? Or perhaps like Bill Hicks you believe someone is not a human being until they are in your phone book?
No, you are dead wrong. A person is a person at conception, and to take their life is nobodys right. No amount of moving the goalposts, intellectual backflips or ideological argument can avoid this, and whats more – you know it too.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
@Ryan Sproull
I think we’re talking at crossed purposes then, because to me, value and “tastes good” are not equivalent. Something can be of value BECAUSE it tastes good, but value always points to some psychological attraction/compulsion. It’s more akin to “the condition of being attracted to [something]“.
Sure, a Libertarian can say “I like liberty [however s/he defines or delimits it]” in the same way s/he can say “I like pie”. This would suggest an innate attraction, and I accept that people have these desires for reasons that (ironically) are not freely chosen (‘free will’ being a whole ‘nother hot potato, incidentally).
However, I am sceptical that Libertarians promote an abstract notion solely because it they are psychologically attracted to it (or maybe that’s the principle reason why we defend our personal philosophies?) – we’ve seen evidence in this thread already that some consider it a universal good. Surely you wouldn’t suggest that “everyone should have pie” naturally follows “I like pie”? In which case, there are other reasons why liberty is valued by Libertarians.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Says who?
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Pete: I don’t think liberty is a natural state. We don’t have any choice but to breath, to eat, to drink, and to sleep. Some of us have to raise offspring. We have to cope with other people, animals, insects etc, and also with natural events. Today I don’t have the liberty to walk outside and get wet as it’s not raining.
None of us are free. We are co-dependent and subject to many risks in our lives beyond our control.
Thats not the “freedom” Libertarians are wanting….its just silly to even think that.
Libs want and fight for POLITICAL freedom…that is to live without the threat or use of FORCE against us by our fellow man…be that man a mugger or a socialist politician.It is only political freedom that can be achieved…theres no “freedom” from the consequences of life…and the final one..death.
But while we are here then it is right and indeed nessesary that we remove initiated force from our lives if we are to live as humans can and should…in harmony with our fellows.Is anyone in favour of keeping the initiation of force as a means of human interaction…?
History shows that for many sadly the answer is yes.
( What Ryan said in far less words…;-0 )
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.
This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.
Libertarianism – Marxism Of The Right
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Time to lighten up libertarians, or should I say, would any libertarians care to consider lightening up in their own time – please? Have I a seconder?
Here’s a snippet I found on the net:
BUT …
Re Ryan at 11.41:
Well I guess where everything works better than currently. Otherwise why would you want your different philosophy to apply?
AND James at 12.03 asked me to clarify my question: Are libertarian atheists closet socialists even if they aren’t aware of this themselves?
I was referring to the Telegraph article which suggested atheists believe in big government (or come to believe in it).
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Liberalismisasin…..I am not interested in the nuts and bolts of when a being is a being and why aborting it may be right or wrong to you…just the fact that it does happen now because Women want it to happen and while they are the entity in the equation with the trumping right thats how it should stay.If abortion disappeared tomorrow because it was no longer required by Women then I’d be happy…but it ain’t gonna happen.
No, you are dead wrong. A person is a person at conception, and to take their life is nobodys right. No amount of moving the goalposts, intellectual backflips or ideological argument can avoid this, and whats more – you know it too.
Aside from your unsupported assertion of when life begins (what about individual sperm…? ) When God stops aborting countless billions in various ways for whatever reason then come back and talk to me then…If God isn’t fussed about ending potential lives before they even get started then why are we mere mortals being held to a higher standard?
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
“No…the States limited monopoly use of force is only defensive…its not to be an initiator of force.How can citizens have freedom if they are banned from owning firearms? Its the right of people to own firearms…or pretty much anything else that doesn’t violate the rights of others that gives the state its moral license for being….we don’t have rights because we have a state…we have a state to protect pre-existing rights.”
The whole purpose of guns is to ‘violate the rights of others’. The right to life is the most basic of all the rights.
“The state is an afterthought to safeguard our natural rights from violation…and thats all it should do.If it involves itself in areas outside of that problems and trouble follows without fail. Its the possibility of the state itself becoming a threat to us that requires we posses and be able to bear arms against IT that is the reason for private gun ownership.History shows what happens to disarmed peoples when the state slips the leash…”
Provide specific examples. Perhaps, as a modern example, explain how Americans are more free than Britons as a direct result of their more liberal access to guns. Have to say though, that tyrants who arm the people worry me far more than tyrants who disarm the people.
“In the Libertarian society the state exists only by OUR permission to carry out OUR bidding…which in its case is the objective protection of our individual rights…nothing else.The state is basically a nightwatchman appointed by us to provide a service..its not nor ever should be our master.”
Indeed. I never said that the state ought to be our master, simply that the ought to be the *only* ‘nightwatchman’. That is the reason of the state’s existance. And the reality is that *any* government can only govern with the agreement of the people (one could list many instances of popular revolution in history as examples of when this agreement was withdrawn)- the only difference with democracy is that that agreement is explicit.
Finally, before the mob stormed the Bastille they first stormed Les Invalides
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
LOL – very good.
We certainly get our fair share of “Islands” and “Apostles” on these threads.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
James, in your view does the woman’s trumping right go all the way until birth? Can it even go after birth for newborns, so that they can be neglected if it is inconvenient to care for them?
“Libertarians uphold the individual rights of human beings…actually living breathing and THINKING ones…ones who can reason,conceptualise and take responsibility for ones actions…a fetus can do none of these things.A potential being does not have rights…only an actual one with the aforementioned abilities can.”
The ability to reason, conceptualise and take responsibility is pretty low for infants as well, despite what many doting parents may think, yet the demands they represent are onerous and we see the results in our abuse stats. Cultures without access to abortion would expose infants, perhaps that is culturally acceptable; and if for them why not for us?
If the rights of the individual are so important it seems a bit of a cop out to say you are not interested in when a being is a being.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Libertarianism is an ideology for the smug, wealthy and privileged. It is an “I’m at the top of the tree, quick, pull the ladder up” way of thinking.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Maggie, and yours is a “I’m at the top of the tree, quick, cut it down ” way of thinking.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
They might be largely unrelated coinciding trends.
Atheism rises as knowledge and education increases and the need for beliefs diminishes (and makes less sense).
Governments keep increasing in size because those in power try to do more and more and are averse to diminishing their roles.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
The whole purpose of guns is to ‘violate the rights of others’. The right to life is the most basic of all the rights.
Don’t be silly…guns don’t violate rights…people do.And guns have protected many,many peoples rights from violators….when you outlaw guns only outlaws (political as well as criminal ) have guns…and fear and tryanny reign.The right to life contains within it the corollary of having the right to defend that life…and that implies that one has the right to accquire the means to do so….being a gun or similar.
Provide specific examples. Perhaps, as a modern example, explain how Americans are more free than Britons as a direct result of their more liberal access to guns. Have to say though, that tyrants who arm the people worry me far more than tyrants who disarm the people.
Read history.The first thing tryannts do is remove private firearms…Hitler did it for one.American Indians had a saying “He who takes my bow is my enemy”…they knew…and discovered the hard way that when people are disarmed they are also dispossesed of property and liberty.Modern Americans ARE freer than their British counterparts thanks to being able to defend themselves and their homes from criminals with guns.Britian has a higher violent crime problem than the US for that very reason.Home invasion crimes are more prevelent in Britian becuase the risk of being confronted with an armed occupant deters criminals…thats not is dispute.Switizerland hasn’t been invaded in centuries because they are armed to the teeth and everyone else knows it.Thats why they remained free from the Nazis who calculated that the causallties they would suffer in an attack on the Swiss would be enormous.The British had very few guns availible at the start of the war and had to import old ones from Canada…they were caught with their pants down because Hitler DID arm a lot of people when he expanded his army and without guns Britain was a sitting duck.
Read “More Guns,Less Crime” by Professor John Lott or “The Seven Myths of Gun Control” by Richard Poe….overwhelming evidence that guns in private hands save lives and keep people free from tryannical governemnt.
But the crux is…I,nor anyone else,including you, needs anyone elses permission to seek out and purchase a gun….its my basic moral human right to do so.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Bka….Living woman has rights…potential being not yet.End of discussion.
Moron…er Maggie:Libertarianism is an ideology for the smug, wealthy and privileged. It is an “I’m at the top of the tree, quick, pull the ladder up” way of thinking.
When you actually know what you are talking about please share …until then don’t embarass yourself.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
More drivel…Angus:Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.
Someone else I see who fails to consider the equality of rights and the law of cause and effect…
This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.
You confuse altruism with benevolance and collectivism with collective action,fail…try again.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Jack5,
I don’t think there’s enough consensus on what “everything working” means to use the phrase without qualification. What I mean is, under a capitalist libertarian minarchy (not my view), it could well be that there are more homeless, fewer people have access to healthcare, etc. But that might be preferable to a libertarian because they would consider the relationships between people (mainly contracts) to be eminently good and just, even while social democrats would consider the distribution of wealth evil and unjust.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
“No, you are dead wrong. A person is a person at conception.”
An invisible smear of cells clearly is not a person.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
When you’ve lost the intellectual argument and public support, just go for the insults.
Statist socialism has failed.
Deal with it.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
James @10:39
Libertarians uphold the individual rights of human beings…actually living breathing and THINKING ones…ones who can reason,conceptualise and take responsibility for ones actions…a fetus can do none of these things.
And I suspect you have great difficulty with several of those when you are asleep too.
Wat dabney @ 6:44pm
Vote:Wait you used a funny word then, “cell.” You clearly can’t see cells. The problem with the argument seems to be one from ignorance rather than ontology/being of the cells. Ignorance related to the size or clarity of an individual should heighten concern to make a correct identification not lessen it. Like a “hunter” that decides to shoot at something shining in the bushes.
November 10th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Thing that strikes me about all 24 of these cliches ( possible exception of the “missionary” ) is that they all would leave me the hell alone. The 24 types of authoritarians in the rebuttal are pretty much working as hard as they can to fuck up other people’s lives.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Someone who writes: ”You confuse altruism with benevolance (sic) and collectivism with collective action” then accuses another of not knowing what he is talking about.
Please………
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Put it away: agree. They may be annoying, idealistic, misguided. And they may preach and try to convince you of their rightness. But…….someone like Maggie would be putting her hand in your pocket for your money, and trying to pass laws that force you to live in line with her belief about what is right.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
No Paul, I don’t put anything in your pocket, never know what I might find. Another ”tax is theft” acolyte, I assume. Laws are passed requiring you to live in line with society’s beliefs, but I guess you wouldn’t like that,either.
Libertarianism is the height of selfishness.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Best forum ever. So many questions, so many possibilities, thanks.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Maggie – you are very interested in taking my money to spend it on things I’d rather you didn’t, and you’re very interested in dictating on what I should or shouldn’t do. I’m not a tax is theft acolyte, but I do reserve the right to argue that a bit less tax would be appropriate in NZ. So far as I can tell, you think we should have more tax, and I think you’d be wrong in that. Disagreeing doesn’t make me a libertarian, I’m not advocating no tax at all.
Vote:November 10th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
PaulL, you have to understand the psyche of people like maggie.
You live in THEIR society. THEY have been making rules for decades and it is THEIR rules that run everything. YOU are the beneficiary of THEIR rules. So just suck it up and accept that it is THEIR right to take your money to pay for it.
THEY are the rule makers, because THEY know what the rules should be. THEY know that YOUR ideas wont work which is why you are only allowed to be a rule follower. So if THEY make a rule that you must pay more in tax for one of THEIR ideas, it is only to you to follow it.
The only people allowed to play the rule making game are people who make rules. If you dont make any rules, then you have automatically lost, and you then arent allowed to have an opinion on the rules that are made.
Libertarians are BAD, because they are against the rules the rule makers make. We know they are only against some rules, not all, but the rule makers dont understand that. To THEM, you arent a serious thinker unless you are thinking of new rules.
THEY only see things in a binary sense, THEY dont understand nuance, wont give anyone credit for having a nuanced opinion, and of course THEY are always right. If you are against THEIR rules, you are against rules. If you are against THEIR new tax, you are against tax.
You can see that sort of thing in many other opinions held by THEM. If you are against terrorism, you hate all muslims. If you disagree with a treaty grievance, you are racist. If you are unconvinced by hysterical claims regarding climate change, you are in the back pocket of Big Oil.
THEY are great big children that are simplfying the world down to a less scary level. They see things as black and white, and are content with the most obvious solution to any problem.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 1:40 am
“Don’t be silly…guns don’t violate rights…people do.And guns have protected many,many peoples rights from violators….when you outlaw guns only outlaws (political as well as criminal ) have guns…and fear and tryanny reign.The right to life contains within it the corollary of having the right to defend that life…and that implies that one has the right to accquire the means to do so….being a gun or similar.”
Personally, I never noticed that ‘fear and tryanny[sic] reign’ in NZ. However, I did notice innocent school teachers being accidentally shot by idiots with guns.
“Read history.The first thing tryannts do is remove private firearms…”
I’ve often read this from gun nuts, but never seen any actual evidence. Got any?
“American Indians had a saying “He who takes my bow is my enemy”…they knew…and discovered the hard way that when people are disarmed they are also dispossesed of property and liberty.”
American Indians were subjugated by a foreign invader. Not an applicable example.
“Modern Americans ARE freer than their British counterparts thanks to being able to defend themselves and their homes from criminals with guns.Britian has a higher violent crime problem than the US for that very reason.Home invasion crimes are more prevelent in Britian becuase the risk of being confronted with an armed occupant deters criminals…thats not is dispute.”
It’s also not in dispute that Singaporians are freer than the rest of the world from having gum on their streets. Does this mean they have more freedom than me?
“Switizerland hasn’t been invaded in centuries because they are armed to the teeth and everyone else knows it.Thats why they remained free from the Nazis who calculated that the causallties they would suffer in an attack on the Swiss would be enormous.The British had very few guns availible at the start of the war and had to import old ones from Canada…they were caught with their pants down because Hitler DID arm a lot of people when he expanded his army and without guns Britain was a sitting duck.”
Maybe you should be the one reading history. The Swiss weren’t invaded because that’s where the Nazis were keeping their loot. They were also providing the Nazis with munitions, whilst remaining free from air raids. There was no reason to invade. The problem for the British was that the BEF left most of their guns in France, and this has nothing to do with whether or not the population can own guns – do you honestly think a few hand guns would have detered Hitler?
“Read “More Guns,Less Crime” by Professor John Lott or “The Seven Myths of Gun Control” by Richard Poe….overwhelming evidence that guns in private hands save lives and keep people free from tryannical governemnt.”
I’d rather read Marx.
“But the crux is…I,nor anyone else,including you, needs anyone elses permission to seek out and purchase a gun….its my basic moral human right to do so.”
Would you also say that it’s my ‘moral human right’ to buy a nuclear missile? If not, why not?
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 2:25 am
“Personally, I never noticed that ‘fear and tryanny[sic] reign’ in NZ.”
Do we ban guns? Mmm. Correlation maybe?
“I’ve often read this from gun nuts, but never seen any actual evidence. Got any?”
Did you read history? All of it? No? Then you know what to do. And go.
“Would you also say that it’s my ‘moral human right’ to buy a nuclear missile?”
Like I said above, zero appreciation for nuance. An argument against the banning of firearms becomes an argument for the possession of nuclear weapons. Sigh.
If the other guy has a gun, you would be safer with one too. You cant get rid of guns completely (if you try, people will just make them at home, or pipe bombs) so the other guy could always have a gun.
The only time the ban-gun nuts will miss guns is when they need them. Of course, we dont know when we, as a nation, will need them. Gun ownership is an kind of insurance policy; you keep paying and paying and paying a small amount, and you may never claim on it, but when you have to … .
The argument, “humph! I dont see anyone trying to invade us tomorrow” or “harrumph! I doubt we in the civilised world have to worry about tyrants” doesnt really win the debate, because it is that unknown danger you are arguing doesnt exist, and you cant prove a negative.
Limited gun ownership is fine. Sure some people die accidently and some others on purpose. But people die every day. As DPF is fond of saying, road deaths could be reduced to zero simply by reducing the speed limit to 1kph. If guns were banned completely (meaning only those with the power of the state behind them, you know, the potential tyrants, and those with illegal intent, you know, criminals, would have them) how many people’s lives would be saved? Nobody has really had a genuine go at estimating that figure. You going to try?
Then weigh those “savings” (ignoring the people who would have been murdered with knives etc) against the potential costs of the policy. Of course, for every example you bring up as a life “saved” by a gun ban, we might be able to bring up a life saved by a gun.
Chris Rock had it right I think. Dont ban guns, just make bullets cost $5,000 each.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 4:34 am
“Do we ban guns? Mmm. Correlation maybe?”
We don’t. However we do restrict gun ownership and supply. Also, and importantly, hand gun ownership is very restricted. With good reason.
“Did you read history? All of it? No? Then you know what to do. And go.”
So shall I take that as a ‘no’?
“Like I said above, zero appreciation for nuance. An argument against the banning of firearms becomes an argument for the possession of nuclear weapons. Sigh.
If the other guy has a gun, you would be safer with one too. You cant get rid of guns completely (if you try, people will just make them at home, or pipe bombs) so the other guy could always have a gun.”
If you don’t like the nuclear missile example, then how about pipe bombs. What is your argument that I shouldn’t be allowed to keep a stack of pipe bombs in the boot of my car, just in case I meet a criminal with a pipe bomb? C’mon, this is hyperbole. But it is quite effective I think in pointing out the fallacy of your logic.
“The only time the ban-gun nuts will miss guns is when they need them. Of course, we dont know when we, as a nation, will need them. Gun ownership is an kind of insurance policy; you keep paying and paying and paying a small amount, and you may never claim on it, but when you have to … .”
So we must sacrifice innocent lives on the alter of futility? An armed citizenry is no alternative to a well trained and equipped military force.
“The argument, “humph! I dont see anyone trying to invade us tomorrow” or “harrumph! I doubt we in the civilised world have to worry about tyrants” doesnt really win the debate, because it is that unknown danger you are arguing doesnt exist, and you cant prove a negative.”
Where did I make this argument?
“Limited gun ownership is fine. Sure some people die accidently and some others on purpose. But people die every day. As DPF is fond of saying, road deaths could be reduced to zero simply by reducing the speed limit to 1kph. If guns were banned completely (meaning only those with the power of the state behind them, you know, the potential tyrants, and those with illegal intent, you know, criminals, would have them) how many people’s lives would be saved? Nobody has really had a genuine go at estimating that figure. You going to try?”
The difference between cars and guns is that cars are designed to transport people. When they kill something, they are working incorrectly. Guns are made to kill. When they kill someone, they are working exactly as designed.
“Then weigh those “savings” (ignoring the people who would have been murdered with knives etc) against the potential costs of the policy. Of course, for every example you bring up as a life “saved” by a gun ban, we might be able to bring up a life saved by a gun.”
Can’t say I remember reading about the last time that happened, do you? I do however, remember reading many times about guns being used in murders, or being involved in fatal accidents.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 6:13 am
“If you don’t like the nuclear missile example, then how about pipe bombs. What is your argument that I shouldn’t be allowed to keep a stack of pipe bombs in the boot of my car, just in case I meet a criminal with a pipe bomb? C’mon, this is hyperbole. But it is quite effective I think in pointing out the fallacy of your logic.”
This is the dumbest thing I’ve read for quite some time. A pipe bomb is a ridiculously impractical weapon for the task of taking out one particular person in a realtime situation. In the ( highly unlikely ) event you’re ever confonted by a criminal with a pipebomb, you’d be much better off taking him out with a handgun. You’ve just made an argument for carrying a handgun. Congratulations!
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Kimble, your rambling assessment of me is, of course, utter nonsense, so off the beam that it is not worth rebuttal point by point.
So I will restrict myself to two observations:
Libertarianism is bad because it panders to selfishness. Most people recognise that, which is why the Lib movement remains on the lunatic fringe and has never taken hold anywhere in the world. It is an ideology for the rich and comfortable, aimed at ensuring even more wealth and comfort.
Far from seeing the world in black and white I recognise it as a myriad of different shades of grey. Conservatives are frequently black and white thinkers (unions are bad, the unemployed are bludgers) and seem to believe they have a monopoly over wisdom.
But thanks for the effort, gave myself and my wife a good laugh.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Maggie: Isn’t it interesting how politics makes us feel clever and self-righteous, and think of our opponents as stupid and self-serving? Personally I feel both sides hold genuine views, which are often not self-serving at all.
Put it away: Don’t get my point at all, do you?
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Maggie the socialist parasite says…No Paul, I don’t put anything in your pocket, never know what I might find. Another ”tax is theft” acolyte, I assume. Laws are passed requiring you to live in line with society’s beliefs, but I guess you wouldn’t like that,either.
You are clueless aren’t you Maggie?Many laws are just plain wrong and we are morally required by our nature to resists them and remove them.Anti semitism was the law in Hitlers Germany …I assume you would have followed that “law” with slavish devotion huh? How about banning blacks from your store in Apartheid South Africa or the Jim Crow South…? That was the law…no doubt you would have been in rapture obeying it…
Libertarians are quite correct when they say “Tax is theft” ..it obviously is…how is it not?Its subtracted under the threat of violence against you by agents of the state..thats not in question.But funding the legitimate function of the state,protecting our individual rights,is another thing entirely and of course you should contribute towards that service…just as you should for any service you choose to use.Coercive taxation has no place in a supposed “civil society”…it is the direct negation of civility and individual rights.It only exists because people, given the choice,would not willing contribute to most of the crazy and wasteful spending politicians think they should so thats why the force is needed…to bleed the people aginst their will.
Libertarianism is the height of selfishness.
So what?…thats a good thing.Self interest is mans birthright and what propels us upward and onward.It is the driving force behind everthing we do as human beings.Every action we take in life is to gain a new value of some kind…be it helping others, to getting personally wealthy to even commiting sucide….all actions that gain a new value (as the person concerned see’s it) that they didn’t previously have.Selfishness,as discribed,is a virtue.Even Maggie acts in her self-interest by doing and saying what she does as she expects to gain (for her ) new values.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 10:44 am
“If you don’t like the nuclear missile example, then how about pipe bombs. What is your argument that I shouldn’t be allowed to keep a stack of pipe bombs in the boot of my car, just in case I meet a criminal with a pipe bomb? C’mon, this is hyperbole. But it is quite effective I think in pointing out the fallacy of your logic.”
Matt…your earlier reply to my history lesson shows you aren’t too clued up.The Nazis most certainly did have a plan to invade Switizerland….do some reading.It was the British public who were disarmed and who were in no state to resist an armed invader….contrast thet to the US where even if an invader managed to get past Americas military they would have to take on a well armed civilian populace akin to the Swiss…..you think that doesn’t have a deterent effect on foreigners?
Your nuclear bomb extreme example is an old tired ploy that shows the desperation of the person using it.If one could even get such a thing home the real issue is one of objective threat.Do others have a reasonable and objective foundation for believing you are a serious risk of initiating force against them? I assume you have a knife or two about your house…does that fulfill the criteria of making you a reasonable stabbing threat risk to your neighbours?If you were to start waving them around in your backyard and making loud threats etc then everything changes…you are now clearly a risk to your fellows and they have the right to seek to defend themselves against potential attack from you…either by informing the law or arming themselves.It is the objective and reasonable potential threat you pose to others that sets the limit on your rights to do what you want….your right to swing you fist ends where the next persons nose begins.
Just having a gun,knife,baseball bat etc in your home does not satisfy the objective threat test….you must give reasonable cause that you are a real threat to the safety of others before your rights can rightly be imposed upon….and then only to protect the same rights of others from you.After all there is no such right as a right to violate the rights of peaceful others with initiated force…objective reality doesn’t do contradictions.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Traditionally, the one making the claim is the one who has to provide the evidence.
So what’s the cutoff? Are shotguns OK? Sniper rifles? Assault rifles?
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Some reading for Matt:
The high cost of gun control: What happened when guns were outlawed in the UK. Gun crime escalated.
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/high-cost-of-gun-control.html
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/total-control-of-guns-is-total-control.html
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/failure-of-state-and-national-tragedies.html
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/gun-free-zones-and-mass-shootings.html
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 10:52 am
“Every great advance in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority.”
Thomas H Huxley
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 10:55 am
“Traditionally, the one making the claim is the one who has to provide the evidence.”
And where has tradition gotten us? Have you SEEN the stats on inequality? Look at our drinking problem, tradition happened at the same time as that grew. Our children are increasingly illiterate and innumerate, is that another of your benefits of so called “tradition”? Think about it.
“So what’s the cutoff? Are shotguns OK? Sniper rifles? Assault rifles?”
It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that the cutoff is hand grenades. Simple really. More than hand grenades is too much. Less than hand grenades is too little. Think about it.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Oh Matt….Regarding the Nazis and the Swiss….
From the promo of the book “Target Switzerland” by Stephen Halbrook..
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/target.html
….In 1943, Adolf Hitler proclaimed that “all the rubbish of small nations existing in Europe must be liquidated,” even if it meant he would later “be attacked as ‘the butcher of the Swiss.’” In his diaries Josef Goebbels described Switzerland as “this stinking little state.” The Gestapo prepared lists of Swiss to be executed once the Nazis overran the country. Yet, as the Nazi tide spread across Europe from the Pyrenees to the Volga, one nation stood free, albeit armed to the teeth-its flag unbowed in a sea of twisted crosses.
This book examines German plans for the conquest of Switzerland, as well as Swiss preparations to resist the assault. After the fall of France the German Army was at the height of its power-but would “blitzkrieg” have worked in the Alps? On the other side stood General Guisan, with the best armed and trained citizens army in the world. Guisan planned to concede the lowlands and take his forces to the mountains-an “Alpine Redoubt” the Germans would later consider as unassailable.
Stephen P. Halbrook provides a brief military history of Switzerland, from the days when its pikemen ruled supreme on medieval battlefields, through the American Constitutional debates during which Swiss militia example was considered by the United States, to the 20th century, when Switzerland fielded Europe’s highest per capita of trained riflemen. European neutrality has never been a “gift” but a status, earned through armed deterrence. The little-known magnitude of Alpine fortifications is examined, as well as Swiss military doctrine, including its concept of instant mobilization, and the record of its air force in border skirmishes with the Luftwaffe. The Swiss have remained armed and free, ready to combat any aggressor, since 1291. When the ultimate cataclysm came to Europe in the 1940s, even the Nazis were deterred by the Swiss.
Beneath their benign “Heidi” image the Swiss have never trumpeted the fact of their military preparedness. The book will be an eye-opener to many Americans, who never imagined that the nation that retained its straight cross, not a twisted one, was a nation of shooters, fully prepared to turn the Alps into a deathtrap for the panzers, if the Germans had dared to attempt a conquest.
And this….
…However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the
Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against “Communists,” i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.
There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home.
For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify.
European countries occupied by the Nazis had strict gun controls before the war, and the registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and the execution of their owners.
By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace, Switzerland demonstrates that civilian firearm possession may prevent large numbers of deaths and even genocide. The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed just like their fellow citizens. In the rest of Europe, what if there had been not just one, but two, three, or many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?
http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 11:16 am
And three observations right back at you maggie.
“Libertarianism is bad because it panders to selfishness.”
So Libertarianism is bad because libertarians dont want rules to restrict people’s liberty. While your guys want rules to restrict peoples liberty in very specific ways that you think are right. Interesting. The idea of leaving people alone is selfish, but telling them what to do isnt. I notice you dont back up your assertion with any logic or substance. This leaves peoples with the only option to infer that your way isnt selfish because you know better.
The reason libertarianism cant take hold anywhere is, like I said, only the rule makers get to make rules. For libertarianism to take hold, someone has to become a rule maker to stop all the other rules being made, and make rules removing the previous rules. Kind of hard for someone that, philosophically, isnt a rule maker.
“Far from seeing the world in black and white I recognise it as a myriad of different shades of grey.”
You still dont get it. We see the world in full technicolor.
In rebutting my statement (that you see the world in black and white) you actually confirm that you see the world in black and white. When we say, the Unions are going too far, you hear us saying all Unions are bad. When we say the there are some people who bludge off the dole, you see that as us saying that all beneficiaries are dole bludgers.
The examples I used above were of someone like you seeing our arguments in a purely black and white way. And your response is to say that you think our arguments are purely black and white?
You arent very smart.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Oh and Matt….?
Sigmund Freud himself said “Fear of weapons is a sign of emotional and sexual immaturity.”
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 11:43 am
… and a hatred of your mothers penis.
Freud had issues.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
James: Well, no doubt when he was master of the rest of the world Hitler would have turned on the Swiss. But until then they had their uses, and as you say their military was (and is) very organised.
This has no bearing on the issue of firearms in private ownership.
I can make several points about guns in Switzerland, for your convenience:
* Yes, many households in Switzerland have a gun, issued by the army.
* 300 people per year (according to wikipedia) die because of them.
* There are around 30 murders or attempted murders per year where guns are involved.
That’s 10 people who die, for every murder even *attempted* with a gun. Is it really worth it?
So, let’s recap the discussion:
* Given historical evidence, a disarmed populace in no way protects those in power from the displeasure of the people. So the protecting our freedoms from the government is out.
* In Switzerland guns kill far more people in a non-criminal context (accidents, suicude etc) than there are even attempted murders with guns. Protecting ourselves from criminals is out.
* We’re left with the (rather weak) argument that private ownership of guns deters foreign invaders.
Perhaps to deal with this, we can go back to the Native Americans. Now, as you equated bows with guns in a previous post, perhaps we can consider how they (a society where most men owned a bow) resisted the foreign invader. Here’s a convenient link to get the discussion started, although I think we all know the ending…
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Oh and James……? Freud thinks you are sexually attracted to your mother.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Kimble. your response is pathetic. If it were a racehorse, it would have to be shot. ”Smart” in your parlance means “agrees with me”.
Libertarianism panders to selfishness because it makes a god of the individual, rather than seeking a more balanced approach. Under libertarianism people are encouraged to think only of themselves.
Libertarianism makes no headway in the world because people see through it. And, finally, we humans are social animals, who care about oneanother.
Kimble the word ‘dole’ seldom appears in Kiwiblog without the attached ‘bludger’. And the hatred of unions is endemic.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Matt: James: Well, no doubt when he was master of the rest of the world Hitler would have turned on the Swiss. But until then they had their uses, and as you say their military was (and is) very organised.
This has no bearing on the issue of firearms in private ownership.
Aside from the Nazis planned assult against the Swiss being planned from the outset the crux of the whole matter is that the state is our servant…not our master.The state has no rights that we ourselves as individuals do not have.The state is a creation of all of us to administer law and order in the protection of the individual rights of us all in an objective manner.Its not our leader,parent or friend…its our servant.
The only reason and right the state has to bear arms in our defence is that we already had that prior right as individuals…thats what a right is…a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context.We all entrust the state to administer that right OBJECTIVELY so that we don’t have tit fot tat shootouts and chaos.The referee in a rugby match exists for the same purpose…to enforce the rules BUT NOT to play in the game himself.
If I,you or anyone else whos a non objective threat to peaceful people choose to own a firearm then tough cheese….no one else has the right to stop us doing so.
I can make several points about guns in Switzerland, for your convenience:
* Yes, many households in Switzerland have a gun, issued by the army.
* 300 people per year (according to wikipedia) die because of them.
* There are around 30 murders or attempted murders per year where guns are involved.
That’s 10 people who die, for every murder even *attempted* with a gun. Is it really worth it?
Irrelavent…..same argument applies to cars,planes,plastic buckets etc etc…theres always a cost,the law of cause and effect…but would we ban planes,cars and plastic buckets to prevent the odd death? In the US far more children are injured or killed by mishaps with plastic buckets than guns….if its a cost/benefit question then goodbye buckets before we even look at guns.
So, let’s recap the discussion:
* Given historical evidence, a disarmed populace in no way protects those in power from the displeasure of the people. So the protecting our freedoms from the government is out.
Matt…the pieces I posted above disprove that straight away.If private guns aren’t an issue for tyrants then why the confiscations under penalty of death? The Warsaw Getto uprising shows exactly why private guns are a good thing in the face of tryannical state power…it was the only time the Jews were able to strike back and resist the Nazis….if they had all been as well armed do you think the Holocaust would have hummed along as nicely as it did? Thats why Hitler had them disarmed quick smart…he was brighter than you it seems.
In Switzerland guns kill far more people in a non-criminal context (accidents, suicude etc) than there are even attempted murders with guns. Protecting ourselves from criminals is out.
No…that some people die is as discribed is a shame..but that changes nothing re individual rights and self defence.Many Swiss will die in car crashs too….do we ban cars for Swiss people?
We’re left with the (rather weak) argument that private ownership of guns deters foreign invaders.
Case already proved …see above.
Perhaps to deal with this, we can go back to the Native Americans. Now, as you equated bows with guns in a previous post, perhaps we can consider how they (a society where most men owned a bow) resisted the foreign invader. Here’s a convenient link to get the discussion started, although I think we all know the ending…
The quote about bows was in regard to Indian wisdom accquired from their long history of fighting other tribes.They knew full well that disarmed is one step from dead.To lose to another tribe bought slavery and the oblitaration of their people and culture.Had the Indians possesed better weapons to battle the whites with the story of the US may have been very different.It was the private weapons of the colonialists that defeated the tyrant King George and his stronger British army during the revolution….and from that fact the constitutionally protected right to bear arms is embraced by every real American….and freedom lovers everywhere else.
If you don’t want a gun Matt then don’t have one…thats your right.But Stay out of my,and everyones elses choice to own one if we so want…thats our right.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Mad maggie: Kimble. your response is pathetic. If it were a racehorse, it would have to be shot. ”Smart” in your parlance means “agrees with me”.
Libertarianism panders to selfishness because it makes a god of the individual, rather than seeking a more balanced approach. Under libertarianism people are encouraged to think only of themselves.
And why not? Thats our survival mechanism and indeed our nature.But you confuse self interest with “selfishness’.
Libertarianism makes no headway in the world because people see through it. And, finally, we humans are social animals, who care about oneanother.
Theres no conflict between self interest and caring for others Maggie…in fact its ONLY from ones self interest that one can really care for others. Every act of kindness or charity ever preformed was done in the pursuit of self interested values….from Mother Teresa to giving Xmas presents to people…its all done for the reward of a value to ones self…and theres nothing wrong with that…in fact its unavoidable.
Libertarianism actually already exists and is working all about us…we are soaking in it…for about 90% of our lives…the other 10% is the attack on us from the state and others who want to force us to their way of thinking or living…people like you Maggie.Remove the 10% and we have arrived at the Libertarian utopia….a society of consent…not initiated violence.
Kimble the word ‘dole’ seldom appears in Kiwiblog without the attached ‘bludger’. And the hatred of unions is endemic.
The hatred of forcemongers and parasites is endemic…and so it should be…if you are to have a moral and civily society.Unions have a right to exist…they are after all just people engaged in collective action which is in accord with Capitalism and Libertarianism.Whats wrong is the use of “fpr hire”state force to threaten and bully others into giving into your demands.
Remove the hairy arm of the state from all trading interactions and people would sort issues so out far quicker and with less agro than we currently see.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
“Aside from the Nazis planned assult against the Swiss being planned from the outset the crux of the whole matter is that the state is our servant…not our master.The state has no rights that we ourselves as individuals do not have.The state is a creation of all of us to administer law and order in the protection of the individual rights of us all in an objective manner.Its not our leader,parent or friend…its our servant.”
Indeed, and some responsibilities, such as security, we delegate to the state.
“The only reason and right the state has to bear arms in our defence is that we already had that prior right as individuals…thats what a right is…a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context.We all entrust the state to administer that right OBJECTIVELY so that we don’t have tit fot tat shootouts and chaos.The referee in a rugby match exists for the same purpose…to enforce the rules BUT NOT to play in the game himself.”
So if Johnny shoots Tommy with a sawn off shotgun rather than a pistol, does that mean Tommy gets to kick a penalty for 3 points?
“Irrelavent…..same argument applies to cars,planes,plastic buckets etc etc…theres always a cost,the law of cause and effect…but would we ban planes,cars and plastic buckets to prevent the odd death? In the US far more children are injured or killed by mishaps with plastic buckets than guns….if its a cost/benefit question then goodbye buckets before we even look at guns.”
As I said before, it’s not a valid comparison. Cars, planes and plastic buckets all have primary purposes other than for killing people.
“Matt…the pieces I posted above disprove that straight away.If private guns aren’t an issue for tyrants then why the confiscations under penalty of death? The Warsaw Getto uprising shows exactly why private guns are a good thing in the face of tryannical state power…it was the only time the Jews were able to strike back and resist the Nazis….if they had all been as well armed do you think the Holocaust would have hummed along as nicely as it did? Thats why Hitler had them disarmed quick smart…he was brighter than you it seems.”
Tyrants disarm the population (still want to see evidence for this) because they are insecure. We can see from history (French Revolution, Russian Revolution amongst others) that an unarmed mob is perfectly capable of topling a government.
“No…that some people die is as discribed is a shame..but that changes nothing re individual rights and self defence.Many Swiss will die in car crashs too….do we ban cars for Swiss people?”
Already answered this, above.
“The quote about bows was in regard to Indian wisdom accquired from their long history of fighting other tribes.They knew full well that disarmed is one step from dead.To lose to another tribe bought slavery and the oblitaration of their people and culture.”
“Had the Indians possesed better weapons to battle the whites with the story of the US may have been very different.It was the private weapons of the colonialists that defeated the tyrant King George and his stronger British army during the revolution….and from that fact the constitutionally protected right to bear arms is embraced by every real American….and freedom lovers everywhere else.”
The Indian’s bows compared to guns are analogous to weapons most commonly owned by private citizens compared to modern military weapons. They are inferior. As for the American Revolution…American Militias were armed with the same guns as King George’s troops, having used them in the wars with the French. The French, incidentally, who intervened in the war and forced the King to give up fighting the colonists.
“If you don’t want a gun Matt then don’t have one…thats your right.But Stay out of my,and everyones elses choice to own one if we so want…thats our right.”
I also have the right not to be shot while I’m brushing my teeth. Personally, I think this right trumps your right to ride around on a pick-up shooting stuff with your guns.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Maggie thinks that people are simultaneously too smart for libertarianism and too dumb to make some other of the most basic choices in their life (like whether to join a student union).
And notice how he didnt address the fact that he proved my case with his rebuttal? Anyone on the fence on this issue should look at his stupidity and realise which side is likely to be right.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
You DO realise that that is exactly what you did, right? You can at least see it now that it has been pointed out to you, right?
No? Thats because you arent very smart.
There are lots of intelligent people who disagree with me for intelligent reasons. Maggie, you are not one of those people.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Let me spell it out for you. I cant literally draw you a picture but lets see if you can follow this.
Me: people like maggie only see their opponents position as black or white
Maggie: No I dont! its your arguments that are black and white
Me: Maggie, you are an idiot
Maggie: that’s selfish!
Maggie is retarded. QED.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Matt: Indeed, and some responsibilities, such as security, we delegate to the state.
Haven’t I been yelling that from the rooftops? But that doesn’t mean we SURRENDER our right to self defence to the state…what we are doing is “leasing it”….but we still retain full ownership.The state is like a sub contractor we hire to work on our behalf…but we don’t make them the boss of us or the delegator of our rights….get it now?
Skipping your silly nonsense that I,ve already dealt with….we get to this..
I also have the right not to be shot while I’m brushing my teeth. Personally, I think this right trumps your right to ride around on a pick-up shooting stuff with your guns.
Theres no rights conflict there.My riding about violates your right to brush in peace not a jot. If Im out on land with the owners consent shooting away with my gun just how is that an issue for you? If I was to start shooting at you house you would have a case…until then you don’t.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Kimble. calling someone retarded reflects far more on you than it does on me. Have you always been a rude, offensive name-caller when roused or does your medication need increasing?
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Maggie, I think that your opponents on this thread are correct and you’re wrong (in terms of reasoning & philosophies). Going thru your posts here, it is obvious that you’re arguing from a position of ignorant. I’ll give you an example:
Maggie said…
Libertarianism panders to selfishness because it makes a god of the individual, rather than seeking a more balanced approach. Under libertarianism people are encouraged to think only of themselves.
What is wrong with selfishness? What is wrong with individualism? Can you put forward your argument based on solid philosophical grounds? Because if it is not, then you have no foundations to stand on. Your reasoning is susceptible to being attack from wherever the wind is blowing from. James has given you lots of hints and short answers and you still don’t get it. Go on, give some examples (in real life) of why selfishness and being individualism are bad?
You should get this straight, because you seem not to get it. When individuals think for themselves, then there will be emergence properties being observed in societies (as a result) that are not deductible from selfishness of the individuals. Sum of the whole is larger than sum of the parts. Your argument is typical leftist nonsense.
May I recommend you go to Not PC blog and read some of his various summaries on libertarianisms? Here it is:
Cue Card Libertarianism
I can guarantee you that once you read those, you will come back here very well informed (and more smarter), because Mr Peter Creswell will dice you upside down, inside out with philosophies, epistemologies (knowledge/logic/reason), ethics, politics, economics, etc,… (all related to libertarianism). As I said, you will come out better after reading that link above.
Please do some readings on the topic, because I can understand the frustrations of your opponents on this thread. Your reasoning doesn’t stand on any philosophical grounds.
Vote:November 11th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
@Matt, the right to own weapons, and in particular guns, is important for two reasons:
1). Self defence of you and your property
2). As a method of last resort for the people to overthrow an unjust, immoral totalitarian government
The term should also be changed from Libertarian to Small Government Liberal…
Vote:November 12th, 2010 at 1:06 am
Why Jeremy? What is so offensive about liberty? People have sacrificed their lives for it throughout history. Some have murdered and oppressed to take it from others.
Maggie, you still havent admitted that you fucked up badly and proved my point. CAN YOU SEE IT NOW? Huh?
Fisi, anti-libertarians would gain nothing from reading PC’s stuff, because they will never be able to read it with an open mind.
It takes an open mind to find libertarianism, especially in New Zealand.
You are surrounded by lefty thinking your entire life, it naturally becomes the way you see the world. Making it even harder, the lefty way of thinking is naturally immature. Young people think like leftists because they dont know any better; they havent had enough life experience. They can think only at a basic level. See a problem, fix a problem. They can instantly think of A solution, and then feel smart for figuring it out. They fail to question that easy answer, it rarely occurs to them to even try. They think the answer is so obvious, everyone else must be stupid for not seeing it. Or they must be evil and hate poor people etc.
It takes an open mind to break from that way of thinking. It really takes an open mind to realise that the simple answer is not always right, and that it is not always better to “do something” rather than nothing.
The lefties closed mind means they cant accept new ideas. One of the best explanations of the truth of open mindedness can be found here:
Vote:
November 14th, 2010 at 1:47 am
Here is another video from the same creator as the first which explains to some extent why maggie views our arguments as black and white.
It comes down to a fear of ambiguity and an incapability to deal with complexity. He sees these arguments as black and white to simply feel comfortable, or rather, the avoid the discomfort of not understanding us. He cant handle our real argument, so he constructs one he can deal with. This is why it always seems as if we are talking at cross purposes with him and people like him. We aren’t arguing the same thing. While we deal with his points, he deals with the points he has invented and ascribed to us.
We simply aren’t dealing with an adult who is capable of critical thinking.
Vote:December 23rd, 2010 at 2:27 pm
…for information on Libertarians at work worldwide, please see: http://www.Libertarian-International.org
Vote: