Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheNewerMartianEmperor]

Isn't Libertarianism supposed to be centrist or something?

[Leafsnail]

Depends.  On way of viewing it is to have two different measures - Conservative ---- Liberalism, and Libertarianism ---- Authoritarianism.  Under such a system, you can start to see some of the forms of government (fascism - extreme conservative/ authoritarian, communism - extreme liberalism/ authoritarianism etc).  Of course, this is a ridiculous oversimplification, but it helps to show that not everything can be put on a left/ right chart.

[Rashilul]

Guys, guys, we need to get more unified before the Great One sees this.

[redacted123]

-

[redacted123]

-

[Kagus]

The way I understood it was that Libertarianism was trying to remove a lot of the government's influence on people, and letting us work things out on our own.

For instance, seat belts.   Currently, we have government-instituted laws that make driving without a seatbelt a punishable offense.  Libertarianism would abolish the belt law, and instead leave it to the person driving to decide whether or not they wanted to wear one or not.


It's based off of trying to get rid of the pervasive and sometimes unnecessary laws that are running around, in the belief that people have the common sense (or at least rational thinking) to do what's best for them anyways.

Nothing wrong with educating someone about the dangers of driving without a belt.  By all means, make it blatantly clear what will happen if you do something like that.  But don't try to turn it into a criminal act.


I'm not sure how it reflects on smoking/driving/drinking/sex ages, as those are based on "age of reason" requirements rather than just trying to "coax" people into something...   


But that's the basic gist.  Don't try and prevent us from doing things in our own personal lives.  That's our business.  You make decisions on your business, and I'll make decisions regarding mine.  Leave me alone.  And if something bad happens to me because I did something stupid, well, I had it coming.

[Leafsnail]

Anarchy would probably be surprisingly devoid of freedom - you'd probably end up being controlled by other people, possibly enslaved.

So yes, the left/ right divide can be paradoxical.

For instance, seat belts.   Currently, we have government-instituted laws that make driving without a seatbelt a punishable offense.  Libertarianism would abolish the belt law, and instead leave it to the person driving to decide whether or not they wanted to wear one or not.

On the other hand, it is quite possible to fly out of your seat and hurt someone else.  I'm not sure if they're going to be equally happy with your decision not to wear a seatbelt.

[redacted123]

-

[Leafsnail]

I suppose that would just be included under a calculated risk when they decided to use the road, they knew the danger and they took the risk.

But that means you're restricting what someone else can do by increasing the risk of something bad happening to them.

[Ampersand]

http://jakespurlock.com/links/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/image201952.jpg

[Fishersalwaysdie]

I suppose that would just be included under a calculated risk when they decided to use the road, they knew the danger and they took the risk.

But that means you're restricting what someone else can do by increasing the risk of something bad happening to them.

Maybe we should be more concerned as to how to stop these things from happening instead of cases where it does happen.
Accidents will always happen as long as people are driving, if people are responsible, their seatbelts are the least of your worries.
But how can they be responsible if the government is their nanny?
The government needs to be harsher with irresponsible people, even if it means restricting some of their freedom. 

[ToonyMan]

I don't even know.
Talking about this stuff is like talking about what underwear I'm wearing.
You never know.

One thing though, there is no right or wrong side.

[Il Palazzo]

...

Of your underwear?

[Rashilul]

...

Of your underwear?

There's no top or bottom either.

[ChairmanPoo]

Anarchy would probably be surprisingly devoid of freedom - you'd probably end up being controlled by other people, possibly enslaved.

anarchists dont support lawlessness, JSTYK