Are Libertarians Inherently Selfish?

[Berzerker]

Perhaps because you have no knowledge of history beyond 1934? It's a pretty common high school example. Anyway...

So whats wrong with it? You just ignored my argument and started complaining about using the Nazis. So, pick out the epitome of evil you wont complain about and answer the question.

Are you literate? Can you go back and read all that I said again in its entirety?

Why would I look thru your posts again? You didn't answer my question the first time, or the second, and you still havent.

Don't sound too sure? Are you deliberately misreading what I said? Anyway, I was answering your question about the Nazis here, as if that isn't obvious enough.

What was the answer? All you said was people back then disagreed. I didn't ask for their opinion, I asked for your opinion. And instead of answering me, all you have are insults. Your entire post is just one long insult... Some advice, dont leave the safety of yer computer and talk like that to people face to face.

Monkey see, monkey do.

The denotes sarcasm and/or hypocrisy (both in yer case ) but it appears yer oblivious to its meaning. I'll explain, you said government has moral authority by virtue of being government (it "needs" a monopoly on legitimate force) and I cited the Nazis as an example of a government that did not have moral authority. After you complained about me using the Nazis (and ignoring the point), you then referred me back to the Nazis as an example to use in this debate.

Well, evidently I wasted my time trying to explain these very concepts to you in the post before that. I'm not going to waste anymore time with a person who doesn't read to save his life.

Does that mean you wont explain how and where government gets its moral authority? I'm still waiting for an answer to this question: did the Nazis have the moral authority - a monopoly on the legitimate use of force - when committing genocide?

If you say so. I'd recommend you find out more about the subject matter, but I don't think you'll take my recommendation. People like to talk about politics without knowing anything about it. It's coffeshop talk, basically.

There is no substance to your posts, it sounds like a politician explaining why they voted for something stupid.
You dont defend yer own arguments and you dont challenge mine, you just complain and insult me...thats it...

Naturally you accuse me of wasting yer time

 

[Berzerker]

aelf

I do not like moral relativism

And did the Nazis have moral authority? Did they not claim to have moral authority and succeed? Evidently, to the majority of Germans at that time, they did. To victorious peoples who defeat them later, of course not. Not to the Germans after the fall of the Third Reich either. On this issue, what matters at any point of time is what is there and then.

 

[Ecofarm]

aelf

It's about time someone busted him on that.

 

[Berzerker]

TY Eco

 

[aelf]

So whats wrong with it? You just ignored my argument and started complaining about using the Nazis. So, pick out the epitome of evil you wont complain about and answer the question.

I only said "Godwin's Law". I don't know how that constitutes a complaint.

Why would I look thru your posts again? You didn't answer my question the first time, or the second, and you still havent.

Well, I did. Why should I answer your question again? You didn't read what I said the first time, or the second, and you still haven't

What was the answer? All you said was people back then disagreed. I didn't ask for their opinion, I asked for your opinion. And instead of answering me, all you have are insults. Your entire post is just one long insult... Some advice, dont leave the safety of yer computer and talk like that to people face to face.

I gave my opinion. And in my opinion, other people's opinions matter as well. I'll tell you why.

The denotes sarcasm and/or hypocrisy (both in yer case ) but it appears yer oblivious to its meaning. I'll explain, you said government has moral authority by virtue of being government (it "needs" a monopoly on legitimate force) and I cited the Nazis as an example of a government that did not have moral authority. After you complained about me using the Nazis (and ignoring the point), you then referred me back to the Nazis as an example to use in this debate.

I said "since you love that example". It's like when you speak to kids - you have to use the examples they use.

Does that mean you wont explain how and where government gets its moral authority? I'm still waiting for an answer to this question: did the Nazis have the moral authority - a monopoly on the legitimate use of force - when committing genocide?

There is no substance to your posts, it sounds like a politician explaining why they voted for something stupid.
You dont defend yer own arguments and you dont challenge mine, you just complain and insult me...thats it...

Let's take a look at my opinion and the final answer to your question:

I do not like moral relativism, but in a world where people cannot agree on practical ethics, we have to operate on the basis of a power-based (political) practice of determining rights and privileges. Trying to deny that would be useless and naive. It is good to have the exercise of power motivated by broad principles or virtues that are not relative, but there is no reason to suppose or demand that people can or should (much less do) go beyond that and adopt the same practices. Not unless or until the world unites into a single culture with the same customs and perspective.

You did a nice job of not reading what I said or not reading it entirely, as expected.

You see, I make a distinction between practical politics (politics I apply in my life, not realpolitik) and politics as a science. In political science, what happens happens. The moral authority of governments might not sit well with your own conceptions of morality. Not with mine either. People usually fail to recognise one of these aspect of politics. In your case, you're trying to deny that some facts exist. In other cases, people swear by realpolitik and the use of force and nothing else.

So, your denial is naive; others' cynicism is shallow. The fact of the matter is for people to live well, they need a synthesis of the two, which I tried to describe in the paragraph above. That is my opinion, which has taken into consideration these two aspects.

Satisfied?

Naturally you accuse me of wasting yer time

Well, I had to repeat myself.

 

[Princeps]

Morals and laws are not the same thing. Just to point out.

 

[aelf]

Morals and laws are not the same thing. Just to point out.

That's your opinion, which I agree with, but isn't a given fact. No, I wouldn't say that anyone can really equate laws with morality so simply. But legal power, yes.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Inherently? No. Some are very generous to others, but feel that the state is an efficient means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged. Others want a reduced government to keep more of their money to themselves. It's all dependent on the person.

You can say the same thing about Democrats and Republicans who want the government to provide them with either special economic benefits or programs through funding from other taxpayers.

 

[Berzerker]

I only said "Godwin's Law". I don't know how that constitutes a complaint.

Its a complaint about using the Nazis in a debate, and thats all you said instead of answering the question. And you still didn't answer the question...

Well, I did. Why should I answer your question again? You didn't read what I said the first time, or the second, and you still haven't

No you didn't. I asked you if the Nazis had the moral authority - the legitimate power - to commit genocide and you said people back then disagreed about that. I dont give a damn about them, I asked you if the Nazis had the moral authority. You never answered that question, I dont see you answering much at all. You make these ridiculous assertions and insult people instead of defending them.

I gave my opinion. And in my opinion, other people's opinions matter as well. I'll tell you why.

You didn't give me your opinion, you gave me the conflicting opinions of people alive at the time of the genocide. Other people aren't in this thread making your assertion that government has moral authority by virtue of being government so dont hide behind them.

I said "since you love that example". It's like when you speak to kids - you have to use the examples they use.

If the Nazis are an example even children understand, why did it stump you? You said government has moral authority because it needs a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I pointed to the Nazis and you ran away leaving Godwin's Law to defend your argument. And what you said aint even true, what governments have banned self-defense? The US government recognizes the legitimacy - moral authority - of self defense. So much for your required monopoly on force.

Let's take a look at my opinion and the final answer to your question:

You gave your answer to my question to someone else and then complained about me not reading it? This is my question: did the Nazis have the moral authority - a monopoly on the legitimate use of force - when committing genocide?

You did a nice job of not reading what I said or not reading it entirely, as expected.

You mean the part where you defended moral relativism after claiming to oppose it?

You see, I make a distinction between practical politics (politics I apply in my life, not realpolitik) and politics as a science. In political science, what happens happens. The moral authority of governments might not sit well with your own conceptions of morality. Not with mine either.

Wait a minute, does government have moral authority or not? You said it did and now you say that doesn't sit well with you. I said you didn't sound too sure and you still dont sound too sure.

People usually fail to recognise one of these aspect of politics. In your case, you're trying to deny that some facts exist. In other cases, people swear by realpolitik and the use of force and nothing else.

What facts?

So, your denial is naive; others' cynicism is shallow. The fact of the matter is for people to live well, they need a synthesis of the two, which I tried to describe in the paragraph above. That is my opinion, which has taken into consideration these two aspects.

And this means the Nazis had the moral authority to commit genocide or they didn't?

 

[Eukaryote]

By the OP's definition, yes they are selfish.

 

[aelf]

Its a complaint about using the Nazis in a debate, and thats all you said instead of answering the question. And you still didn't answer the question...

No you didn't. I asked you if the Nazis had the moral authority - the legitimate power - to commit genocide and you said people back then disagreed about that. I dont give a damn about them, I asked you if the Nazis had the moral authority. You never answered that question, I dont see you answering much at all. You make these ridiculous assertions and insult people instead of defending them.

You didn't give me your opinion, you gave me the conflicting opinions of people alive at the time of the genocide. Other people aren't in this thread making your assertion that government has moral authority by virtue of being government so dont hide behind them.

If the Nazis are an example even children understand, why did it stump you? You said government has moral authority because it needs a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I pointed to the Nazis and you ran away leaving Godwin's Law to defend your argument. And what you said aint even true, what governments have banned self-defense? The US government recognizes the legitimacy - moral authority - of self defense. So much for your required monopoly on force.

You gave your answer to my question to someone else and then complained about me not reading it? This is my question: did the Nazis have the moral authority - a monopoly on the legitimate use of force - when committing genocide?

You mean the part where you defended moral relativism after claiming to oppose it?

Wait a minute, does government have moral authority or not? You said it did and now you say that doesn't sit well with you. I said you didn't sound too sure and you still dont sound too sure.

What facts?

And this means the Nazis had the moral authority to commit genocide or they didn't?

You just confirmed yourself as a gigantic boor and ignoramus. Read my answers again. Which part do you not understand? Evidently, everything. It's simple enough English, though, so I don't see why the difficulty. But perhaps I shouldn't blame you. It might be natural after all.

 

[Berzerker]

Whatever, you still haven't answered the question and its obvious to anyone reading this thread as to why...

Government creates or obtains moral authority because it needs the legitimate use of force. That was your argument and a child's example tore it to shreds.

 

[aelf]

Whatever, you still haven't answered the question and its obvious to anyone reading this thread as to why...

Government creates or obtains moral authority because it needs the legitimate use of force. That was your argument and a child's example tore it to shreds.

Let me give you an example of thick-headedness at work:

And what you said aint even true, what governments have banned self-defense? The US government recognizes the legitimacy - moral authority - of self defense. So much for your required monopoly on force.

Check out what I said very early in the argument:

The state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. All other non-punishable usage is under the consent of the state.

So, do you know how that works in practice? In some (if not all) states in the USA, if you can prove that you fired a shot in self-defence (or maybe to protect your property), you would be acquitted of murder or manslaughter. That means you had the consent of the state in retrospect. If you can't prove it, you get punished. This does not affect the state's monopoly on the use of legitimate force, because if you use force without the consent of the state, the state would physically force you into jail. Simple.

That is just one example of deliberate ignorance or misreading of what I said on your part.

Like I said, maybe it isn't your fault.

And, oh, I missed a delicious little morsel here:

Some advice, dont leave the safety of yer computer and talk like that to people face to face.

So what happened to my moral right of self-defence, huh? Does that mean years martial arts classes can finally see some sunlight? Pathetic hypocrite

 

[blackheart]

Just as (un)selfish as anyone else.

Liberal: Give me your money, I want help!
Conservative: I don't want to help you, it's my money!
Libertarian: I might help, as long as I can freely do it.

 

[Bill3000]

Just as (un)selfish as anyone else.

Liberal: Give me your money, I want help!
Conservative: I don't want to help you, it's my money!
Libertarian: I might help, as long as I can freely do it.

You've got the last two in reverse.

 

[Berzerker]

Let me give you an example of thick-headedness at work:

Check out what I said very early in the argument:

So, do you know how that works in practice? In some (if not all) states in the USA, if you can prove that you fired a shot in self-defence (or maybe to protect your property), you would be acquitted of murder or manslaughter. That means you had the consent of the state in retrospect.

No, it means the shooting was "justified" - thats called moral authority. And I checked out your argument, whats yer point? You said the state needs a monopoly on the use of legitimate force to have moral authority (you aint defended that nonsense yet).

"All other non-punishable usage is under the consent of the state."

We dont need consent here to defend ourselves, we'd be dead waiting for it. Our system recognizes self-defense as a right, not a privilege.

If you can't prove it, you get punished. This does not affect the state's monopoly on the use of legitimate force, because if you use force without the consent of the state, the state would physically force you into jail. Simple.

If you didn't shoot in self defense, then it aint self defense.

That is just one example of deliberate ignorance or misreading of what I said on your part.

Like I said, maybe it isn't your fault.

And, oh, I missed a delicious little morsel here:

So what happened to my moral right of self-defence, huh?

Go ahead and defend yerself. You'll have to if you mouth off like that to people face to face. And they'll argue before a jury that you're an . .. .. .. .. .. .. . who provoked them with fighting words, and they might just win. Go ahead, give it a try...

Does that mean years martial arts classes can finally see some sunlight? Pathetic hypocrite

Unless you walk around insulting people to their face, you're the hypocrite for doing it while hiding behind a computer. Now why are you calling me a hypocrite?

 

[aelf]

No, it means the shooting was "justified" - thats called moral authority. And I checked out your argument, whats yer point? You said the state needs a monopoly on the use of legitimate force to have moral authority (you aint defended that nonsense yet).

"All other non-punishable usage is under the consent of the state."

We dont need consent here to defend ourselves, we'd be dead waiting for it. Our system recognizes self-defense as a right, not a privilege.

The consent is simply in retrospect. That's a no-brainer. Yes, it's justified. And politically speaking it's justified because the state consents to it.

And,

You said the state needs a monopoly on the use of legitimate force to have moral authority (you aint defended that nonsense yet).

No. I said it needs that to have authority. Any problem with that? Did you fail your reading test?

If you didn't shoot in self defense, then it aint self defense.

It's all a matter of proving it.

Go ahead and defend yerself. You'll have to if you mouth off like that to people face to face. And they'll argue before a jury that you're an . .. .. .. .. .. .. . who provoked them with fighting words, and they might just win. Go ahead, give it a try...

Sounds like a corrupt justice system. As far as I know, whoever throws the first punch is at fault.

Unless you walk around insulting people to their face, you're the hypocrite for doing it while hiding behind a computer. Now why are you calling me a hypocrite?

Because your veiled threat is still obvious, hoodlum. You just made another one above.

Are you sure you're not some gangster-wannabe kid? You talk like one and you certainly don't make much more sense. I haven't actually spoken in real life to someone who talks like that in a very long time. Unless the person I'm talking to is obviously much bigger or skilled, yes, I would say similar things if the level of conversation is this low.


PS: Oh, yes, I remember knowing quite recently a kid who was trying to act like a smarty and a gangster at the same time. If I was not extremely sarcastic to him, I was ignoring him.

 

[Adebisi]

I voted no, because outside of discussion forums most libertarian-ish people think everyone would be better off in their ideal society. Utilitarism, in other words, hardly selfishness.

Libertarians do admit that selfishness can be and most often is good though. That isn't really limited to them though, it goes back to Adam Smith. Everyone probably realises on some level that it is true.

 

[CheScott]

Libretarians are inherently self-centered, not selfish.

I voted no, because outside of discussion forums most libertarian-ish people think everyone would be better off in their ideal society. Utilitarism, in other words, hardly selfishness.

Libertarians do admit that selfishness can be and most often is good though. That isn't really limited to them though, it goes back to Adam Smith. Everyone probably realises on some level that it is true.

This is not necessarily true. Libretarians seem to take on the ideology of a form of 'Social Darwinism' if you will. That everything will figure itself out if you let everyone act in their own interestes, however this is often not the case. The great majority of Man's history exist in cooperative societies, not competitive ones like American culture. It is quite unnatural and seems to even have a socio-psychological breaking point, where the level of competitiveness within the culture leads to extreme expectations of the self that go unfufilled. A life lived with such extremes in disapointment, no matter how comfortable they are in comparison to others, has only two options change the self or psychological break down. I think that factor may explain the enormous level of violent and sexual, and often senseless or extreme, crime in America.

Now, I don't expect many will take that seriously.

But, if you've played Civ4, you should know that the quote for the discovery of 'Guilds' is from Adam Smith. "People of the same trade seldom meet togeather, even for merriment or diversion. But the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."

Clearly, John Smith was aware that no system can ever truely be 'Free'. Neither people nor markets can ever be completely free. Humans have rules they must abide by, and so then, so must business establishments. The freest Man, is the dead man and the freest market is the non-existent one.

 

[Ecofarm]

Libretarians are inherently self-centered, not selfish.

As an ecocentric semi-libertarian, I object. Only pacifism, among the current libertarian party's platform do I not like. What, specifically, do you hold against it?

They think they can take votes from McCain in some key states, but I'm not sure what their exact issue is at the moment. Why are they getting 3rd party votes?

If one is a dem, I suggest they begin kissing libertarian ass whenever possible in public, because libertarians hurt McCain politically (not Obama?!). They could do to McCain what the Greens did to Gore in 2000 (Florida, specifically).