Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General libertarians = right wing anarchists

There is nothing in libertarian thinking that absolves a parent from the obligation of caring for his child, and there is nothing in libertarian thinking that elevates a child to the full "standing" of an adult. Thus, it is not expected that she provide for herself.
Yours,
Issodhos

The mere fact that Ireland has not yet gotten it right is immaterial, Schlack. The people of Ireland could just as easily agree that they should have the right to one free Guiness per pub visit and put it down in writing in a Constitution. It remains a privilege granted by themselves to themselves through the misuse of government -- not a right.

If you do not think that there are natural rights that adhere to man by dint of being human, then you have no foundation for claiming that the rights of others in other societies (or cultures within your own Irish society) are being violated. After all, each society is simply engaging in temporary agreement as to how the state and how the mob is willing to treat individuals who may be out of (goose)step with the normative mass.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

???

riiiiiight

the foundation of irish rights are those agreed by the Irish people, in its constitution that both people and government are bound.

that is the foundation. a far deeper and stronger foundation that mere theorising.

am i reading you right when you say that i have no foundation. that the foundation i think i have in the agreed contract of my state is meaningless and impotent?

its not perfect Iss, like all Human political creations, messy i believe was the word you used to describe free markets. so to here. i wonder why messiness is ok here and not for economics. i wonder why people coming together freely and agreeing common rules for living their lives - and the rights on which those rules are based on is apparently "goose-stepping" while incoroporating a corporation doing the exact same thing (albeit in a more limited fashion) is ok?

please make your choice between the two.

either your for people coming together freely and making descions or you think its fascism.

Sorry, Rick, but that statement doesn't make sense to me -

First, consumers are generally not the ones to decide a new storage format (except by market forces); Secondly, in this case there was much action on the part of consumers - both in terms of advocacy on both sides (PC consumers have generally favored Blu-ray for superior data storage, movie publishers favored HD-DVD for its lower initial cost of production), and even market forces, on both sides. In the end, it's difficult to make a definitive statement how much of which was a deciding factor. Thirdly, one group of corporations, led by Sony, 'won'; another group, led by Toshiba, 'lost' - pretty much even result there.

The market I think pretty much took care of itself.

However, the topic you broached (of blu-ray vs. HD-DVD) does bring up an important issue, that of DRM (Digital Rights Management - Blu-ray has much stronger DRM than HD-DVD), which might be very interesting to libertarians.

I suspect that some libertarians might say that this is good for intellectual property rights of corporations; others might argue that this bad for an individual's rights to use and enjoy their personal property; and others might say that corporations should not even exist, at least not in their present form, and certainly should not have rights as 'persons'.

I'm curious to hear what our resident informed libertarian opinionists have to say about that. (like Schlack, I think I need to become better informed before I can have a strong opinion either way)

That is exactly my point. Consumer's drive markets. However in this case, consumers sat on the side-line waiting for the corporations to slug-it-out. Consumer's could have made the decision themselves in purchasing power, but they choose not to.

Corporations are at the consumer's mercy sans monopolies - corporations that have monopolies could give a rat's derrière about the consumer.

Have you noticed the mega-mergers occurring during the Bush Administration's term in Office?

Oh i do have a strong opinion on this matter, but im open to being wrong, and also beign better informed on it. what i have seen however is a lot of theory and little practicality.

nor do i see much difference in what systems we have in place now and the system that libtertarians want.

any new system would be corrupted by the "messiness" of mankind, much as our political systems are corrupted today. the strength of the systems we have today are in the fact that we have some say in matters. I can see us having no say in matters where we werent part of the contract, we may have an interest in other matters, these other matters may affect us and afect us deeply.

but if youre not part of the "deal" or the corporation, you get nada.

now i may be assuced of being a fascist for having interests in issues beyond my walletss reach, i may be accused of being a fascist for having an interest in how markets and peoples actions are guided. its a pretty watery definition of fascist.

ive got a lot out of this thread.

I see its largely founded on a theory of Natural rights, a fine theory something which i dont think exists in reality, as rights have changed so much in response to various conflicts (war, conquest, social movements, political idealogies)

I now see that in a libertarian society there is just as much scope for interference in an individuals life, as long as there is justification for it. and as weve seen throughout history, justifications can be found wherever and whenever you look. The rules and philosphies may be different but the end results largely the same!

i now know there has been no real experiment in the world of the "new kid on the block" philosophy, so the benefits accruing from a new system are largely in the realm of conjecture.

there would be state "enforcers" of peoples rights, whatever form they may take. a nd being a human organisation it is bound to overstep its authority and original brief and rules. their inner fascists will get the better of them.

(aint conjecture grand? you can fit anythign you want into it!)

I just dont see the benefit of tearing down what we have now to take a leap into the dark.

I would not dismiss the broad thrust of libertarianism when it comes to peoples rights, its a good theoretical foundation stone, a good balancing factor. but by itself it cannot be the entire foundation.

Great post Schlack

Actually, Schlack, I do not think you have learned much about the subject of this thread. I think you are leaving with the same preconcieved notions you had when you began it. That is okay though, since I am not here to teach -- just express an opinion; if some are interested enough to delve deeper as a result, good.

And no, it is not a "leap into the dark", it would be a leap out of darkness -- a darkness that has been man's lot for millinnia. Apparently most people in this ol' world feel comfortable remaining in it despite it vulgar and brutish character, as long as they can pretend there is a collective light at the end of the tunnel.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

hmmmmm

apologies o learned one.

I of course meant to say a leap of faith.

sooo many questions remain unanswered satisfactorily.

What mechanisms in a libtertarian society would prevent the inner fascist from revealiing him/herself?

What mecnahisms in a libtertarian society will prevent the stonger freely associated groupings from infringing on other rights? as far as i can see its adherence to this particular philosophy. and we all know how good humans are to sticking with those when personal and group advantages are at stake

What would happen to those sections of society who are unable to care for themselves and who would have no obvious benefactors. orphans, the mentally ill, decrepit old people with no money and family. do we engage in social darwinism and by our choice of inaction leave them to fend for themselves?

what mechanisms would resolve disputes between different groups of people with diametrically opposed interests? voting is apparently out as that is merely mob rule, and democracy akin to the dictatorship of the mob.

How would a desicion on the route of a road to be built be made?

Do we do away with all centralsied planning, infrasructure plans

and speaking of pre-convieved notions.....


where we are now is the result of the constant struggle of competing politial idealogies, geopolitics, indivivdual invention and action, destruct testing of legislation in the courts, competing sectional interests, successful and failed initiatives.

light at the end of the tunnel? dont think so, we are neither bound into any one particular course of action, nor is the route pre-determined.

its a messy evolution.

of course our old fiend Iss is certain he has the answers here, Schlack. the problem is, i haven't seen them, Iss. i wonder about are Irish friend's questions. i have stated in the past that much of your individual philosophy, and libertarian as well, finds itself relying on the irony of group cooperation, a collectivist strategy if there ever was one, but you said i was wrong, that voluntary cooperation and individualism, and i suspect libertarianism, are not the same. ironically, since i am read on the subject and even practiced - i'm wondering, Iss, how much of what you enjoy posting here do you actually attempt to put to work in your life? - i offered you links to Mildred Loomis and Ralph Borsodi's decentralized philosophies and cooperative individualism. you never responded to that post? why not? is it because, perhaps, Borsodi and Loomis showed us what individual philosophy looks like up close and personal? while i can't answer for you, of course, i would say they did do this. and it is not a bad picture, really. at any rate just thought i would touch base and say hello.

yours in worth,
2wins