You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What is a Libertarian?
- Thread starter piezoe
- Start date
And everyone else should be free to boycott/ostracize etc them!Piezoe.. you wrote... this..
There are these folks, a lot of them on ET, that describe themselves as libertarians but certainly don't have much to do with classical libertarian beliefs, because they want indiscriminate freedom to do whatever they want, particularly when it comes to business.
Please explain how(without government assistance)?They espouse laissez faire business practice which would once again enslave the working class in sweat shops just like the 19th and early twentieth century. We'd have more monopolies and cartels. The rich would be free; the poor indentured.
I.e. all-knowing, unselfish, infallible etc human beings should rule over other people, through an abundance of laws regulating everything?These folks can't get it through their heads that if you want freedom you need government, but a certain kind of government. They seem incapable of promoting good government, instead they espouse starving the government indiscriminately.
That is specious twist of the ideals of Laissez faire and of what we (the non lefties here) stand for.
We believe in Rule of law and quality local govt and limited federal govt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
Fundamentals of laissez-faire[edit]
As a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the following axioms:[15]
1. The individual is the basic unit in society.
2. The individual has a natural right to freedom.
3. The physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system.
4. Corporations are creatures of the State and therefore must be watched closely by the citizenry due to their propensity to disrupt the Smithian spontaneous order.[21]
These axioms constitute the basic elements of laissez-faire thought, although another basic and often-disregarded element is that markets should be competitive, a rule that the early advocates of laissez-faire have always emphasized.[15] To maximize freedom and allow markets to self-regulate, early advocates of laissez-faire proposed a Impôt unique, a tax on land rent to replace all taxes that damage welfare by penalizing production.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]And everyone else should be free to boycott/ostracize etc them!Please explain how(without government assistance)?I.e. all-knowing, unselfish, infallible etc human beings should rule over other people, through an abundance of laws regulating everything?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
Fundamentals of laissez-faire[edit]
As a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the following axioms:[15]
1. The individual is the basic unit in society.
2. The individual has a natural right to freedom.
3. The physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system.
4. Corporations are creatures of the State and therefore must be watched closely by the citizenry due to their propensity to disrupt the Smithian spontaneous order.[21]
These axioms constitute the basic elements of laissez-faire thought, although another basic and often-disregarded element is that markets should be competitive, a rule that the early advocates of laissez-faire have always emphasized.[15] To maximize freedom and allow markets to self-regulate, early advocates of laissez-faire proposed a Impôt unique, a tax on land rent to replace all taxes that damage welfare by penalizing production.
1. The individual is the basic unit in society.
isn't that really the thing that separates conservatives from liberals?
the liberals are quite willing to sacrifice individual freedom for the good of the whole.
for us conservative libertarians, we don't care how good it is for the country if it hurts then individual.
there's always a balance and usually both sides don't get all they want
Piezoe is just trying to turn libertarianism on its head the same way FDR turned the bill of rights on its head.
The bill of rights were implemented to keep the boot of the gov't off of individuals necks. Along came FDR and he claimed that what people really had the right to was other people's money. Positive rights.
Now Piezoe wants to do the same thing with liberty and libertarianism. The desire to be at liberty from gov't intrusion and for government's role to be to protect your life, liberty, and property.....has now been turned by Piezoe into the idea that liberty means your needs and wants are guaranteed by the gov't. At the expense of someone else. It's the same positive rights theory as FDR.
But what do these so called positive rights do to the other people who's property rights are being usurped? That is usually not mentioned.
Bastiat's 'The Seen and the Unseen'
The bill of rights were implemented to keep the boot of the gov't off of individuals necks. Along came FDR and he claimed that what people really had the right to was other people's money. Positive rights.
Now Piezoe wants to do the same thing with liberty and libertarianism. The desire to be at liberty from gov't intrusion and for government's role to be to protect your life, liberty, and property.....has now been turned by Piezoe into the idea that liberty means your needs and wants are guaranteed by the gov't. At the expense of someone else. It's the same positive rights theory as FDR.
But what do these so called positive rights do to the other people who's property rights are being usurped? That is usually not mentioned.
Bastiat's 'The Seen and the Unseen'
the governments role changes as the country grows. At one time we decided it was in our best interest for all children regardless of income to be educated and it would be the governments role to insure that happened and was paid for. Just one example of progressive change. By the same token, as a libertarian, I would sure like to get rid of the Dept of Education.Piezoe is just trying to turn libertarianism on its head the same way FDR turned the bill of rights on its head.
The bill of rights were implemented to keep the boot of the gov't off of individuals necks. Along came FDR and he claimed that what people really had the right to was other people's money. Positive rights.
Now Piezoe wants to do the same thing with liberty and libertarianism. The desire to be at liberty from gov't intrusion and for government's role to be to protect your life, liberty, and property.....has now been turned by Piezoe into the idea that liberty means your needs and wants are guaranteed by the gov't. At the expense of someone else. It's the same positive rights theory as FDR.
But what do these so called positive rights do to the other people who's property rights are being usurped? That is usually not mentioned.
Bastiat's 'The Seen and the Unseen'
in theory... in an economy which exists along with a good rule of law promote fairness and not monopoly and govt cronism and the the barriers to competition which go with it.
If the were not a a privately owned central bank and income and death taxes.
the 1% would be a far more fluid situation because of competition and innovation.
For instance the old guard on wall street would have been wiped out and a new one would already be ascending.
If the were not a a privately owned central bank and income and death taxes.
the 1% would be a far more fluid situation because of competition and innovation.
For instance the old guard on wall street would have been wiped out and a new one would already be ascending.
How would the 1 % rule the 99 %(workers/consumers etc) without the governments blessing/assistance?
Thomas Hobbes is a father of central planning, statism, collectivism etc...ergo a strawman justfying his own bullshit.
Piezoe is just trying to turn libertarianism on its head the same way FDR turned the bill of rights on its head.
The bill of rights were implemented to keep the boot of the gov't off of individuals necks. Along came FDR and he claimed that what people really had the right to was other people's money. Positive rights.
Now Piezoe wants to do the same thing with liberty and libertarianism. The desire to be at liberty from gov't intrusion and for government's role to be to protect your life, liberty, and property.....has now been turned by Piezoe into the idea that liberty means your needs and wants are guaranteed by the gov't. At the expense of someone else. It's the same positive rights theory as FDR.
But what do these so called positive rights do to the other people who's property rights are being usurped? That is usually not mentioned.
Bastiat's 'The Seen and the Unseen'
Piezoe's definition sounds more like what rioters in the inner cities seem to want, a jungle ruled by gangs and thugs.
Objecting to the EPA's overreaching, eg its war on coal, or the NLRB's illegal actions does not reflect the rejection of all government regulation. It merely reflects opposition to rule by unelected bureaucrats who distort laws to promote political goals. Or to a president who seems to think he has dictatorial powers.
Libertarianism etc vs collectivism(conservatives/liberals).1. The individual is the basic unit in society.
isn't that really the thing that separates conservatives from liberals?
The conservatives are quite willing to sacrifice individual freedom for the good of some special interest group(the liberals "good of the whole", is bullshit, they to represent some special interest group.the liberals are quite willing to sacrifice individual freedom for the good of the whole.
for us conservative libertarians, we don't care how good it is for the country if it hurts then individual.
there's always a balance and usually both sides don't get all they want
thanks... I have to admit when reading new deal stuff, my textbooks were glowing in their approval and at the time i was less aware of motives.
That was a nice review of history and the problems with positive rights and progressives.
That was a nice review of history and the problems with positive rights and progressives.
Piezoe is just trying to turn libertarianism on its head the same way FDR turned the bill of rights on its head.
The bill of rights were implemented to keep the boot of the gov't off of individuals necks. Along came FDR and he claimed that what people really had the right to was other people's money. Positive rights.
Now Piezoe wants to do the same thing with liberty and libertarianism. The desire to be at liberty from gov't intrusion and for government's role to be to protect your life, liberty, and property.....has now been turned by Piezoe into the idea that liberty means your needs and wants are guaranteed by the gov't. At the expense of someone else. It's the same positive rights theory as FDR.
But what do these so called positive rights do to the other people who's property rights are being usurped? That is usually not mentioned.
Bastiat's 'The Seen and the Unseen'
Last edited:
[/QUOTE]
Thats the funny thing about the far left, people like Piezoe are authoritarians who want the government to dictate how every single aspect of a persons life should operate, and in their world view there is no middle ground between wanting to limit the size and scope of government, and total anarchy, in their view the government is operating at a perfectly efficient clip, and cutting 1 regulation means that you support dirty air and dirty water, in their mind it is as if there is not a single onerous rule or regulation between where we currently stand, and a "mad max" type scenario where people are raping and pillaging in the streets.
Piezoe's definition sounds more like what rioters in the inner cities seem to want, a jungle ruled by gangs and thugs.
Objecting to the EPA's overreaching, eg its war on coal, or the NLRB's illegal actions does not reflect the rejection of all government regulation. It merely reflects opposition to rule by unelected bureaucrats who distort laws to promote political goals. Or to a president who seems to think he has dictatorial powers.
Thats the funny thing about the far left, people like Piezoe are authoritarians who want the government to dictate how every single aspect of a persons life should operate, and in their world view there is no middle ground between wanting to limit the size and scope of government, and total anarchy, in their view the government is operating at a perfectly efficient clip, and cutting 1 regulation means that you support dirty air and dirty water, in their mind it is as if there is not a single onerous rule or regulation between where we currently stand, and a "mad max" type scenario where people are raping and pillaging in the streets.
Last edited: