Are Libertarians wimps ?

[otago]

Are they a bunch of weeping wimps.
Chatting to a so called libertarian he was saying how
evil all taxes are.
When offered the choice of paying no tax and using
nothing owned by the state nor trading with any firm
that got any taxpayer money, he wimped out.

Like all libertarians he spoke of freedom, so should
the rest of us have the freedom to send libertarians
to Conventry ?
He was against any form of compulsion, yet believed
the state had a duty to protect his freedoms.
So should the state ever use conscripted military
to protect those who are against compulsion by the
state ?

 

[Berzerker]

When offered the choice of paying no tax and using
nothing owned by the state nor trading with any firm
that got any taxpayer money, he wimped out.

User fees are not considered evil under libertarianism. One of you didn't get the story right...

He was against any form of compulsion, yet believed
the state had a duty to protect his freedoms.

Thats why the state exists, maybe a reading of the US Declaration of Independence will help you understand libertarianism more.

So should the state ever use conscripted military
to protect those who are against compulsion by the
state ?

Of course not.

Now, you were saying something about libertarians being wimpy because...? WTH are you talking about?

 

[Bill3000]

Anyone who is against taxes in principle has severely messed up priorities.

 

[Ecofarm]

Libertarians are not wimps but
some consider them to be selfish:

Pillow-weeping, peace-at-all-costs
(as long as the costs are paid
for by other people's mothers
and daughters) are the real wimps]

if not for libertarian;
ideals-
we = sheeple"

 

[Ecofarm]

Anyone who is against taxes in principle has severely messed up priorities.

Because we all know that the government is the most efficient spender. The government knows what is good for you - give them all of your money, fool! Before you make some rash decision and purchase something that might not directly fullfill the greater need that is SO well addressed by bureaucracy.

What a sheeple.

Why not just join a religion and give them all your money? I'm sure they will take care of what is best for you too.

People who think that others can make their purchasing decisions better than they can have seriously messed up priorities and lack a personal sense of being able to do the right thing without an iron fist over their head. They basically want other people to spend their money for them, because they believe they and other individuals are incompetant. Further, they believe the government IS competant!

 

[LightFang]

Libertarians can't be wimps. They advocate getting rid of the police force - only the strong can survive in anarchy.

 

[Ecofarm]

Libertarians can't be wimps. They advocate getting rid of the police force - only the strong can survive in anarchy.

No, they believe in privatising it (with private companies being bound by law, of course). That's different than getting rid of it.

 

[Bill3000]

Because we all know that the government is the most efficient spender. The government knows what is good for you - give them all of your money, fool! Before you make some rash decision and purchase something that might not directly fullfill the greater need that is SO well addressed by bureaucracy.

What a sheeple.

Why not just join a religion and give them all your money? I'm sure they will take care of what is best for you too.

People who think that others can make their purchasing decisions better than they can have seriously messed up priorities and lack a personal sense of being able to do the right thing without an iron fist over their head. They basically want other people to spend their money for them, because they believe they and other individuals are incompetant. Further, they believe the government IS competant!

Hey, if you want to be so deluded to think that the concept of government is so utterly evil as to essentially necessitate its abolishment, or at least completely forget the point of it, go ahead. Feel free to move to Somalia, by the way. I'm not the one you should be calling a "sheeple".

No, they believe in privatising it (with private companies being bound by law, of course). That's different than getting rid of it.

Hey, if you want to create warlordism, be my guest. I repeat my invitation for you to move to Somalia.

 

[LightFang]

We all know that there's a problem with a publicly owned monopoly. But some things are public goods because there's a high exclusion cost and/or because it's a non-rival good!

Come on now, you're smarter than that.

 

[Ecofarm]

I think a private police force would be MUCH more efficient than a public one. Precisely because of competition. The most efficient and effective police force would win the local contract. Each locality could decide on how much police they needed, and what preformace level they required. Look at how many private security firms there are already today... where's the "exclusion cost" or "non-rival" factors there? Every office building needs security, at a high exclusion cost. Yet they manage to get it! Wow! Free market solves the problem!

As far as Somalia goes, quit being dumb.

1) Libertarians do not believe in the complete abolishment of the state. They believe that the state's ONLY job should be national security (including the handling of civil wars, like in Somalia today). Get your facts straight.

2)The warlords of Somalia write their own laws. A private police force in the US would be bound by the law of the land.

Libertarianism = anarchy?

Your analogy fails.

 

[Narz]

Hey, if you want to create warlordism, be my guest. I repeat my invitation for you to move to Somalia.

I think Kenya's got his heart.

 

[Ecofarm]

Kenya's doing well. The violence from the last election has subsided and it appears that democracy will contunie an onward march there. And the Masai are the most beautiful women in the world. And it has a passive coastline. And it is equatorial. And it has mountains.

Yea, Kenya pwns me. I need to get back to my research there soon. Miles' description of life in SE Asia lit a bit of a spark under me.

 

[LightFang]

I think a private police force would be MUCH more efficient than a public one. Precisely because of competition. The most efficient and effective police force would win the local contract. Each locality could decide on how much police they needed, and what preformace level they required.

Public goods represent a form of market failure. Competitive markets undersupply or fail to supply public goods such as: public schools, public roads, and the salient point, police protection. That's why these sorts of things are supplied by the government at no charge and are financed by taxes.

Why? A public good is a good or service whose use by one person does not reduce its use to others and whose use by nonpayers cannot be prevented. That is: public goods are characterized by nonrival consumption and nonexclusion.

Most goods with high exclusion costs are normally provided through the government for a reason. Hey.

As far as Somalia goes, quit being dumb.

1) Libertarians do not believe in the complete abolishment of the state. They believe that the state's ONLY job should be national security (including the handling of civil wars, like in Somalia today). Get your facts straight.

Right, so that's functionally like a lack of a state since it won't be able to do jack. And some libertarians are anarchists à la Probability Brooch.

2)The warlords of Somalia write their own laws. A private police force in the US would be bound by the law of the land.

They have no incentive to follow the law since they are the police force.

 

[Ecofarm]

Right, so that's functionally like a lack of a state since it won't be able to do jack. And some libertarians are anarchists à la Probability Brooch.

Just because some libitarians are anarchists does not mean that libitarianism = anarchy. Some liberals are communists. Lib = communism? You're smarter than that.

They have no incentive to follow the law since they are the police force.

Yet the police in the good ole USA follow the law despite being the police...

Being the police does not make you beyond the law anymore than being a politician does - IN AMERICA.

One cannot simply choose Somalia as an example of libertarianism, and thereby write off its ideals and principles. That's too stupid. Somalia has nothing to do with libertarianism. Libertarianism supports the rule of law. Somalia does not. End of comparison.

 

[LightFang]

Just because some libitarians are anarchists does not mean that libitarianism = anarchy. Some liberals are communists. Lib = communism? You're smarter than that.

It's different with Libertarians - I get the impression that the vast majority of them are either anarchists or some strange thing called miniarchists wherein they want 99% of government to be dismantled. So I just figured that most of them were pretty crazy on the political spectrum.

Yet the police in the good ole USA follow the law despite being the police...

Being the police does not make you beyond the law anymore than being a politician does - IN AMERICA.

Yeah but it's a governmental police force and there's a healthy system of checks and balances and stuff.

 

[Japanrocks12]

They have no incentive to follow the law since they are the police force.

I can probably categorically say that in this instance, they may lack the "incentive" to follow the law, but a majority (maybe even a vast one) will continue to do so, frightened by the prospect of breaking duty and pursuing something that they could not fathom doing.

 

[Ecofarm]

Yeah but it's a governmental police force and there's a healthy system of checks and balances and stuff.

And yet security firms, employed for the enforcement of laws, are private and THEY TOO are bound by law.

Amazing that private security firms work just fine for companies and universities all over America. Where's the checks and balances?!

---

Why is it not ok to call liberals communists and conservatives Nazis, but you can call libertarians anarchists? Selective demonization? Why?

 

[Berzerker]

there goes Bill again claiming Somalia as some libertarian paradise... Telling him otherwise wont do any good, he has reserved the right to define what we believe while at the same time expressing righteous indignation should anyone define what he believes.

 

[LightFang]

And yet security firms, employed for the enforcement of laws, are private and THEY TOO are bound by law.

Amazing that private security firms work just fine for companies and universities all over America. Where's the checks and balances?!

Because they know that there's a governmental police force that can keep them in line? Hey-o.

---

Why is it not ok to call liberals communists, and conservatives Nazis, but you can call libertarians anarchists?

Because the vast majority of Libertarians whom I've spoken to seem to be either anarchists or miniarchists, that strange 99% get-rid-of-government breed? I mean I've talked to a lot of the liberals and there are very few Communists in there; I've talked to conservatives and there have been even fewer Nazis.

 

[Japanrocks12]

it has to do with the connotation. There hasn't been bad stuff perpetrated by anarchists significant enough for the term, when used against others, to pack that level of vitriol that communism and Nazism pack.