In your opinion, why hasn't libertarianism come to pass?

[grude]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

This is the fundamental problem with libertarianism. Libertarians act like there's a set of rules written down somewhere that everyone agrees on. That's not true.

If this country became Libertopia, somebody would have to sit down and decide what the fundamental principles actually are. This is something that's been repeatedly pointed out but too many libertarians wave it away like it's not an issue.

So who would be making those decisions? The same majority that emac scoffs at? The libertarian elite that will decide what's best for the rest of us? The ghost of Ayn Rand? Every man for himself?

Until libertarians can answer this question, nobody's going to take them seriously.

If only there was some way to craft a document with thing like enumerated rights.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by grude

If only there was some way to craft a document with thing like enumerated rights.

That's no answer. Again; what are those enumerated rights going to be? Who decides?

[grude]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

That's no answer. Again; what are those enumerated rights going to be? Who decides?

Who decided for every other country? Who wrote the constitution and bill of rights(or equivalent if it exists) for every other country?

I don't quite understand what exactly everyone is grousing about, here is the platfom of the libertarian party:

http://www.lp.org/platform

Its long though, if you are asking who decides really minute stuff like whether its ok to sell unpastuerized milk, I'd assume some from of representative democracy.

[Acsenray]

The point that people are trying to make is that they throw around words like "fundamental," "liberty" and "objective" as if the choices being made have some inherent virtue lacking in modern social-liberal democracy. What it seems to come down to is a small group of people in the name of liberty, objectivity, and fundamentalism seeking ti impose by fiat their particular policy choices which should be left to the democratic process.

What it comes down ti is the fact that the polity might not agree that certain things constitute fundamental rights and the libertarian labeling such policy disagreements as a moral failing.
And that aside from the fact that even enumerated fundamental principles have to be interpreted and the answer, contrary to what libertarians seem to imply, is not always obvious.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

The point that people are trying to make is that they throw around words like "fundamental," "liberty" and "objective" as if the choices being made have some inherent virtue lacking in modern social-liberal democracy. What it seems to come down to is a small group of people in the name of liberty, objectivity, and fundamentalism seeking ti impose by fiat their particular policy choices which should be left to the democratic process.

What it comes down ti is the fact that the polity might not agree that certain things constitute fundamental rights and the libertarian labeling such policy disagreements as a moral failing.
And that aside from the fact that even enumerated fundamental principles have to be interpreted and the answer, contrary to what libertarians seem to imply, is not always obvious.

But libertarians DO believe things like freedom of speech are fundamental, that is their whole platform. If libertarians were willing to waiver on those fundamental freedoms due to public demand they would no longer be libertarians. Inalienable individual rights are the core of the philosophy.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by grude

I don't quite understand what exactly everyone is grousing about ...

... if you are asking who decides really minute stuff like whether its ok to sell unpastuerized milk, I'd assume some from of representative democracy.

I didn't read the platform and skimmed the thread only enough to see that my fundamental question has not been answered.

You say that a "representative democracy" gets to decide "really minute stuff" in Libertopia. Who gets to decide the "really major stuff", like what's in the Bill of Rights? Are Amendments allowed? If the answer is that representative democracy also gets to decide really major stuff, let me point out that in the strongest democracies, like France, etc., more than 51% of voters have agreed that health care should be provided to all, financed in part by taxes on the rich. 51% have agreed that government should regulate employee safety, etc. I for one do not see how Libertarianism is compatible with representative democracy, unless the assumption is that (as is partly the case in U.S.A.) lower-class voters are disenfrachised or somehow coaxed to vote ignorantly against their own interests.

"Libertarians" like to appeal to pot smokers. That's just a facade to attract votes. In fact, Libertarianism is all about Greed-is-God Dog-eat-Dog Capitalism.

[grude]

Originally Posted by septimus

I didn't read the platform and skimmed the thread only enough to see that my fundamental question has not been answered.

You say that a "representative democracy" gets to decide "really minute stuff" in Libertopia. Who gets to decide the "really major stuff", like what's in the Bill of Rights? Are Amendments allowed? If the answer is that representative democracy also gets to decide really major stuff, let me point out that in the strongest democracies, like France, etc., more than 51% of voters have agreed that health care should be provided to all, financed in part by taxes on the rich. 51% have agreed that government should regulate employee safety, etc. I for one do not see how Libertarianism is compatible with representative democracy, unless the assumption is that (as is partly the case in U.S.A.) lower-class voters are disenfrachised or somehow coaxed to vote ignorantly against their own interests.

"Libertarians" like to appeal to pot smokers. That's just a facade to attract votes. In fact, Libertarianism is all about Greed-is-God Dog-eat-Dog Capitalism.

I don't even at this point understand what the discussion is about, if you really think libertarianism is anathema to democracy you don't understand at all what it is about. Every single good thing offered about the philosophy in this thread is just shrugged off with saying it is bait and switch to get party members, what libertarianism is really about is fascism and baby raping and grinding the poor into dog food.

I don't think taxpayer supported health care would be impossible under libertarianism at all.

The "really major stuff" like the constitution and bill of rights would have to be crafted in the usual way, in fact the US constition is probably a pretty good guide to what one would look like with tweaks of course. Who decided these rights were self evident anyway, did anyone vote on them? Goddamn fascists.

[panache45]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

This is the fundamental problem with libertarianism. Libertarians act like there's a set of rules written down somewhere that everyone agrees on. That's not true.

If this country became Libertopia, somebody would have to sit down and decide what the fundamental principles actually are. This is something that's been repeatedly pointed out but too many libertarians wave it away like it's not an issue.

So who would be making those decisions? The same majority that emac scoffs at? The libertarian elite that will decide what's best for the rest of us? The ghost of Ayn Rand? Every man for himself?

Until libertarians can answer this question, nobody's going to take them seriously.

Please tell me what political system this would NOT apply to.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by grude

I don't even at this point understand what the discussion is about, if you really think libertarianism is anathema to democracy you don't understand at all what it is about.

I'm not trying to be coy or play "gotcha." I really want to understand the Liubertarian model. The platform contains

" We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution."

Rightly or wrongly, it is logical for the 70% least wealthy to vote to tax the 30% most wealthy. (Or make it 90%/10%, whatever.) Do libertarians anticipate that the 70% will be wise enough to see that their self-interest is to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the wealthiest 30% ? My question is straightforward, if poorly phrased, and I've never heard the libertarian answer.

Another Doper started a libertarian thread in which he eventually explained that he approved of good government regulations but disapproved of bad ones. Now that's a libertarian platform we can all get behind!

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by grude

I don't even at this point understand what the discussion is about, if you really think libertarianism is anathema to democracy you don't understand at all what it is about. Every single good thing offered about the philosophy in this thread is just shrugged off with saying it is bait and switch to get party members, what libertarianism is really about is fascism and baby raping and grinding the poor into dog food.

I don't think taxpayer supported health care would be impossible under libertarianism at all.

The "really major stuff" like the constitution and bill of rights would have to be crafted in the usual way, in fact the US constition is probably a pretty good guide to what one would look like with tweaks of course. Who decided these rights were self evident anyway, did anyone vote on them? Goddamn fascists.

The rest of us say that it's the other way around. Libertarians are the ones who keep insisting that principles are fundamental and therefore if all individuals agree to these principles there is no need for government to enforce them, interpret them, or mediate between groups who disagree about them.

And the rest of us keep noting the language used by libertarians in this very thread. They make much about being masters of their own property but say nothing about renters. They talk about running their lives without impinging on others as if that is anything other than fantasy. They breathlessly claims that rights are fundamental, which means they can never change even when society does.

The Constitution was put in place without a Bill of Rights. That happened in part because many of the framers thought that they were rights too fundamental to need to be written in. The people did not think that. They wanted the written protection. They wound up with a jumble of rights (freedom of assembly), prohibitions (no quartering of troops), and glittering generalities (9 & 10) that were of meaning to that exact time and place and so open-ended that no two people in the country agree on how they are to be applied in the everyday world. That's why the Court system with enforcing power, again, something that is not valued in a libertarian world, has risen to become a dominant player in the game.

"The Founding Fathers said" is a clause that should stop anyone from reading farther. The Founding Fathers disagreed with one another about everything at the time of writing the Constitution, and they went back and forth in their beliefs later depending upon whether they were in power and had to actually accomplish something or out of power and free to scoff. The entirety of the Constitutional Convention was a series of compromises and kicking cans down the road to be dealt with later. The entirety of American history is the compromises of dealing with those compromises by trying to interpret what rights might be and how they are to be applied at the edges, the thorniest cases. There have been enormous successes and horrifying failures in doing so. What there has never been for a single second is agreement.

Representative democracy backed by court enforcement is an answer to the problem of getting a billion competing interests to suffer each other's infringing presence. Mutual agreement is not an answer. It can't happen under any circumstances. And - fundamentally - representative democracy with court enforcement is incompatible with a system depending on universal agreement and free market enforcement. They are two different worlds. Libertarianism fails not because it is bad policy. It fails because it is bad thinking. Nothing in this thread provides the tiniest bit of evidence to the contrary.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

They talk about running their lives without impinging on others as if that is anything other than fantasy. They breathlessly claims that rights are fundamental, which means they can never change even when society does.

How does me being in a bisexual polygamous relationship and smoking marijuana impinge on others lives? Fundamental rights like free speech, freedom of religion, equal treatment by government, etc shouldn't change. Most political systems and nations have guiding principles and inalienable rights, why is libertarianism being singled out?

[Exapno Mapcase]

Let's see if I can condense my post into a few words:

It's not the guiding principles that matter: it's the everyday implementation.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by grude

How does me being in a bisexual polygamous relationship and smoking marijuana impinge on others lives?... Most political systems and nations have guiding principles and inalienable rights, why is libertarianism being singled out?

Asked and answered:

Originally Posted by septimus

"Libertarians" like to appeal to pot smokers. That's just a facade to attract votes. In fact, Libertarianism is all about Greed-is-God Dog-eat-Dog Capitalism.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by grude

But libertarians DO believe things like freedom of speech are fundamental, that is their whole platform.

Which makes them no different than liberals or conservatives. What distinguishes them is that they seem to think it objectively obvious that some larger set of rights should be fundamental and that statements of such fundamental rights are objectively obvious notwithstanding the fact that there is no consensus even amongst libertarians what such fundamental rights and their interpretation should be. What they fail to acknowledge is that libertarianism is not different from any kind of -ism in that it makes certain choices about policy and that such choices are not objective, but rather based on individual values, just like liberals and conservatives, and thus that criticism of such choices does not make someone "anti-liberty" or whatever.

[grude]

In fact I wasn't even aware that the libertarian party took such a hard line approach towards income taxes.

Well the advice I would offer then is to abolish all victimless crimes, this would GUT support for the libertarian party and leave only the whackos and wanna be lords to be seen for what they are.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

What they fail to acknowledge is that libertarianism is not different from any kind of -ism in that it makes certain choices about policy and that such choices are not objective, but rather based on individual values, just like liberals and conservatives.

I'm not sure this is true, and I don't think libertarinism is different.

[septimus]

My remarks may seem to have generated into the snarky
  Libertarians are "fiscal conservatives"(i.e. people who don't like to pay taxes) who smoke pot
but that's because you won't answer the question!

Many political societies have been based on property rights. Often it was only property owners who could vote. Other societies are based on universal suffrage: voting powers are equal. Either model may have merit. What doesn't make sense is to speak of a society where property rights are inviolable and society is controlled by majority rule.

NETA: grude, your recent comments seem to indicate you're more into personal freedom than post-rational Greed-is-God "libertarianism". If so, we're on the same team! I recommend you disassociate yourself from the unfortunately disappropriated label.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by grude

If only there was some way to craft a document with thing like enumerated rights.

There is a way. It's called majority rule. But libertarians apparently want a different way. But when we ask them what their different way is, they're not really sure.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by panache45

Please tell me what political system this would NOT apply to.

I've repeatedly pointed out one way to do this: majority rule.

But some libertarians disagree with majority rule. They don't think the majority should define what basic rights an individual has.

Okay, if that's your position, take the obvious next step. If the majority doesn't decide what basic rights are, who does decide?

It's amazing how many libertarians can't answer this question. And if libertarians can't figure out how libertarianism is supposed to work, why should the rest of us?

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by grude

How does me being in a bisexual polygamous relationship and smoking marijuana impinge on others lives? Fundamental rights like free speech, freedom of religion, equal treatment by government, etc shouldn't change. Most political systems and nations have guiding principles and inalienable rights, why is libertarianism being singled out?

For me, alarm bells went off -- loudly! -- when I was told that a libertarian society could ban homosexuality. Until then, I had thought that the libertarian ideal followed your logic: homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, and thus no one should be able to ban it. That provided at least a small measure of comfort; now, with that called into question, the ideal of libertarian liberty seems dangerously undermined.

[Acsenray]

Anything can be banned under libertarianism so long as its not the government that's doing the banning. Given that libertarianism also seeks ti reduce the scope of government, meaning that broader swathes of life will be governed by private actors, I don't see how libertarianism can possibly result in an increase in overall freedom.

[panache45]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

. . . when I was told that a libertarian society could ban homosexuality.

You were told wrong. A true libertarian government could never just randomly outlaw anything that isn't a direct threat to anyone else. Plus, there are quite a lot of gay libertarians.

[panache45]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I've repeatedly pointed out one way to do this: majority rule.

But some libertarians disagree with majority rule. They don't think the majority should define what basic rights an individual has.

Okay, if that's your position, take the obvious next step. If the majority doesn't decide what basic rights are, who does decide?

It's amazing how many libertarians can't answer this question. And if libertarians can't figure out how libertarianism is supposed to work, why should the rest of us?

Majority rule has a nasty way of becoming a lynch mob. How does your society protect minorities (including individuals) from the rule of the majority?

[Alessan]

By way of an enlightened society.

It may not a nice thing to hear, but laws - even constitutions - are just words on paper. They can't compel a majority to do anything a majority doesn't want to do. If the majority of a country wants to be a lynch mob, then no law is going to stop them.

[panache45]

Originally Posted by Alessan

By way of an enlightened society.

It may not a nice thing to hear, but laws - even constitutions - are just words on paper. They can't compel a majority to do anything a majority doesn't want to do. If the majority of a country wants to be a lynch mob, then no law is going to stop them.

But if the majority is truly "enlightened," they will respect the rights of minorities and individuals. Otherwise, what does it mean to be enlightened?

[grude]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Anything can be banned under libertarianism so long as its not the government that's doing the banning. Given that libertarianism also seeks ti reduce the scope of government, meaning that broader swathes of life will be governed by private actors, I don't see how libertarianism can possibly result in an increase in overall freedom.

Sure, just like private businesses don't have to respect my freedom of speech in the USA. Only the government is so restrained.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by grude

Sure, just like private businesses don't have to respect my freedom of speech in the USA. Only the government is so restrained.

In our liberal democracy, unlike under a libertarian system, there can be limits to the power of property owners and private actors to do what they want, for example the laws barring discrimination in employment and in businesses offering public accommodations. I'll note that these are some of the laws that libertarians openly want to do away with.

That, combined with the libertarian desire to reduce the scope of the public sphere and increase the scope of the private sphere (while removing all limits on private actors' ability to oppress) makes a libertarian society less likely to be as free as what we have now.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

In our liberal democracy, unlike under a libertarian system, there can be limits to the power of property owners and private actors to do what they want, for example the laws barring discrimination in employment and in businesses offering public accommodations. I'll note that these are some of the laws that libertarians openly want to do away with.

That, combined with the libertarian desire to reduce the scope of the public sphere and increase the scope of the private sphere (while removing all limits on private actors' ability to oppress) makes a libertarian society less likely to be as free as what we have now.

Yes libertarians are for allowing business owners and employers to discriminate by race, religion, etc And decide for instance to allow or ban smoking.

I don't think this is so clear cut a good or bad thing, as long as there is competition let the stupid owners discriminate, more business for everyone else.

They would still be bound by criminal law unless a contract has otherwise been reached, so you could not be robbed and raped just because you go into Burger Hut(unless you agreed to it via contract).

[Acsenray]

And non libertarians believe we should have rights beyond not being robbed or raped or suffering a breach of contract.

Indeed, there was a discussion on this board not long ago that contract law should be the sole protection against an employer who demanded sexual favors.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by panache45

Majority rule has a nasty way of becoming a lynch mob. How does your society protect minorities (including individuals) from the rule of the majority?

How does libertarianism prevent lynch mobs? At least in a majority rule society, you can count on social inertia to slow the crowd down.

There's always going to be bigots in every society. But in a democratic society, the majority restrains those bigits and prevents them from acting on their bigotry.

But in libertopia the bigots are protected from interference by the majority.

[Lumpy]

Perhaps slightly off-track but there was an absolutely fascinating editorial in my local paper about an early-twentieth century writer named Hilaire Belloc, who wrote a book called "The Servile State" which presciently anticipated much of our current debate on progresssivism, government regulation, the free market and the prospects of personal freedom.

Links go to subscription archives after about a week so I would urge to read it soon:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/c...1&c=y#continue

[clairobscur]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

And now I understand anarchism a little better. It's debatable whether the abolition of government would inevitably mean the end of most private property, but if you suppose it does, then anarchism makes more sense.
.

In the theories of anarchism I read, the general idea was that freely formed communities would draw agreements with other similar communities. So, an anarchist country would look like, say, a collection of kibutzim tied by a variety of agreements.

Of course, the artificial concept of private property would essentially be non-existant since any rational individual would have understood that it's only a tool of oppression. Slight difference with the libertarians

[panache45]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

How does libertarianism prevent lynch mobs? At least in a majority rule society, you can count on social inertia to slow the crowd down.

There's always going to be bigots in every society. But in a democratic society, the majority restrains those bigits and prevents them from acting on their bigotry.

But in libertopia the bigots are protected from interference by the majority.

And what happens with the bigots are in the majority, as in California's Prop. 8, and all the states that voted to prevent SS-marriage? Look around you, at all the idiots you encounter every day. Do you want them deciding what your rights are?

In a true libertarian society (as opposed to anarchy), there is only one basic law: Don't hurt anyone, except in self-defense. All other laws are derived from that.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Perhaps slightly off-track but there was an absolutely fascinating editorial in my local paper about an early-twentieth century writer named Hilaire Belloc, who wrote a book called "The Servile State" which presciently anticipated much of our current debate on progresssivism, government regulation, the free market and the prospects of personal freedom.

Not off-track at all. Belloc points out that extreme capitalism needs big government; a point made in several ways in this thread, but which "libertarians" do not seem to comprehend:

Both Belloc and Chesterton saw big government and big capitalism as coconspirators bent on keeping the common man in his ever more powerless place. In fact, both Englishmen argued that modern capitalism compelled the creation of what we have come to call the welfare state -- or the very state that Belloc more accurately labeled the "servile state."

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by panache45

And what happens with the bigots are in the majority, as in California's Prop. 8, and all the states that voted to prevent SS-marriage? Look around you, at all the idiots you encounter every day. Do you want them deciding what your rights are?

In a true libertarian society (as opposed to anarchy), there is only one basic law: Don't hurt anyone, except in self-defense. All other laws are derived from that.

Libertarians seem to think there are shortcuts and prophylactics to avoid social and political struggle. There aren't. There is no system that you can set up that will allow Libertarian A to live under exactly the political system he wants to without ever having to try to persuade the rest of the polity that things should be a particular way.

Sometimes the bigots do win. And then you have to fight them and win next time. I'm sorry, but life is just like that and there is no system that you can set up that will prevent it.

[Shagnasty]

Originally Posted by septimus

Not off-track at all. Belloc points out that extreme capitalism needs big government; a point made in several ways in this thread, but which "libertarians" do not seem to comprehend:

Some versions of capitalism do require big government but libertarianism and capitalism are not synonymous. They tend to go together but they don't have to. Libertarianism is an ideal unto itself and not just a mechanism for allowing capitalism to work in the best way possible.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by panache45

And what happens with the bigots are in the majority, as in California's Prop. 8, and all the states that voted to prevent SS-marriage? Look around you, at all the idiots you encounter every day. Do you want them deciding what your rights are?

Then you're fucked. I've said majority rule isn't perfect. But it's better than libertarism because you have to have 51% of the population to oppress people in a majority rule system but you only need 1% of the population to oppress people in a libertarian system.

Originally Posted by panache45

In a true libertarian society (as opposed to anarchy), there is only one basic law: Don't hurt anyone, except in self-defense. All other laws are derived from that.

But you're still avoiding the central question. Why won't gay people being oppressed in a libertarian society? There's nothing in your theory that prevents it.

You can argue that in a true libertarian society, gay marriage would be legal even if the majority wants it to be illegal because true libertarian principles overrule the majority opinion. But it's equally true that in a true libertarian society, gay marriage could be illegal even if the majority wants it to be legal because true libertarian principles overrule that majority opinion. Once you give some special elite the power to overrule the majority, you have no idea where that elite will go with it.

[grude]

On a new topic.....

I Joe Blow voter believe that the drug war is one of the most destructive things in American society, it has tendrils and roots that extend to all sorts of rotten areas like the obscene prison population and private prisons and judicial corruption and institutionalized racism.

Of all the domestic issues I feel this is one of the most important to do something, anything about at all. I know if I vote libertarian the candidate won't win, but they are the only party even addressing the damn issue! Do I spend my whole life voting the lessor of two evils, or actually vote with the platform I agree with?

[grude]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Why won't gay people being oppressed in a libertarian society? There's nothing in your theory that prevents it.
.

Because it is against the hypothetical constitution, or the hypothetical bill of rights includes equal protection and rights for gay people. Now you will ask who decides that and then I say because it is one of the cornerstones of a libertarian society, if it wasn't then this hypothetical society isn't libertarian at all. Libertarian is a descriptor, if it doesn't match then you don't have a libertarian society simple as that.

If you are saying there is nothing stopping private individuals from oppressing gay people openly or on the sly, you got me there. Libertarian societies offer no explicit protection from private oppression as long as laws aren't being broken, it is a known weakness.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by grude

On a new topic.....

I Joe Blow voter believe that the drug war is one of the most destructive things in American society, it has tendrils and roots that extend to all sorts of rotten areas like the obscene prison population and private prisons and judicial corruption and institutionalized racism.

Of all the domestic issues I feel this is one of the most important to do something, anything about at all. I know if I vote libertarian the candidate won't win, but they are the only party even addressing the damn issue! Do I spend my whole life voting the lessor of two evils, or actually vote with the platform I agree with?

A difficult question. There are two strategies.

The first is to vote for the party whose current platform you agree with even if this party has no chance of winning any elections. The second is to vote for the electable party that's closest to the platform you want and try to nudge them in a better direction.

Which plan is better? Who knows? Neither is going to get drugs legalized in the short-term. And it's impossible to predict which will be more likely to get drugs legalized in the long-term.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

A difficult question. There are two strategies.

The first is to vote for the party whose current platform you agree with even if this party has no chance of winning any elections. The second is to vote for the electable party that's closest to the platform you want and try to nudge them in a better direction.

Which plan is better? Who knows? Neither is going to get drugs legalized in the short-term. And it's impossible to predict which will be more likely to get drugs legalized in the long-term.

If both parties realize they are losing voters it will probably be the only way to wake them up.

[Lumpy]

Re. gay marriage being "legal" or "illegal": the thing is, when you're talking about legalizing gay marriage, you're not saying that gays will no longer face the sanction of the law for wedding- no one cares if they consider themselves wedded or not. What you're saying is that the law will force other people to respect their matrimony, under penalty. In most versions of libertarianism I've heard of, there are no nanny-state laws guaranteeing that life will be fair. If someone wants to be a bigoted asshole, as long as s/he doesn't resort to force, they're free to do with their own what they will. And other people in turn are free to shun the bigoted asshole.

In a sense, no one has any "rights" in a libertarian system besides freedom from compulsion. They're on their own. Or it's been put another way (Heinlein?): everyone has exactly two rights- to do whatever they choose to, and to accept the consequences.

[Shagnasty]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

But it's equally true that in a true libertarian society, gay marriage could be illegal even if the majority wants it to be legal because true libertarian principles overrule that majority opinion. Once you give some special elite the power to overrule the majority, you have no idea where that elite will go with it.

The 'Special Elite' only applies at the beginning of a libertarian society and this is hardly unique to libertarians. It is decided by a small group and put into a Constitution and Bill of Rights and certainly can't be modified easily after that. Sound familiar? It should. It is the way the U.S. was founded as well as most other 1st World nations. You don't allow everyone to vote on a constitution or Bill of Rights or you won't ever have a real one.

Those are considered inalienable rights. The general democratic piece comes afterwards but has to work within that framework and the rules that were originally set up. The main trait that distinguishes the libertarian model is an emphasis on personal rights. Gay equality (from a government standpoint) as well as other behaviors that are personal and don't directly involve anyone else would certainly be included in that umbrella. There is no special protection for gay people for private matters under libertarian philosophy except for criminal matters that apply to anyone but there isn't for anyone else either. It is true equality.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

. . . In a sense, no one has any "rights" in a libertarian system besides freedom from compulsion. They're on their own. Or it's been put another way (Heinlein?): everyone has exactly two rights- to do whatever they choose to, and to accept the consequences.

How is this restrained anywhere short of total anarchy? I choose to lynch the guy living next door because I don't like his race/nationality/sexual practices/music/whatever. (Lynch, not compel. I'm not compelling him to anything. I respect his right not to be compelled. I'm just killing him.) I accept the consequences...which are nil, because I have forty big strong friends with shotguns to back me up.

Uh oh, turns out the dead guy had sixty big strong friends with shotguns...

If there is a police/posse/militia/vigilance committee out there to deter such action, then we have a government, and it isn't anarchy any more...but that also means we have a right not to be killed, so the premise of "no rights" no longer applies.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

The main trait that distinguishes the libertarian model is an emphasis on personal rights. Gay equality (from a government standpoint) as well as other behaviors that are personal and don't directly involve anyone else would certainly be included in that umbrella. There is no special protection for gay people for private matters under libertarian philosophy except for criminal matters that apply to anyone but there isn't for anyone else either. It is true equality.

Hardly. It just means that people can be freely oppressed as long as the government isn't the one that does it. Libertarians oppose personal rights; the government is the only reason those rights exist, and they want to eviscerate it.

[Lumpy]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Hardly. It just means that people can be freely oppressed as long as the government isn't the one that does it. Libertarians oppose personal rights; the government is the only reason those rights exist, and they want to eviscerate it.

Is the government the only possible instrument for preventing oppression? What happens when the little people all have guns and there isn't a state with laws and police to defend the tyrants?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Lumpy

Is the government the only possible instrument for preventing oppression?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Lumpy

What happens when the little people all have guns and there isn't a state with laws and police to defend the tyrants?

Whoever is the best at organizing the guys with guns become tyrants themselves; warlords. And people flock to them because they provide a modicum of protection, and the individual gun fetishists won't be able to stand against them. Guns and numbers are much less important and effective than organization.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Libertarians oppose personal rights; the government is the only reason those rights exist, and they want to eviscerate it.

I love how you use this fallacious reasoning over and over and over, even when I point out the obvious fallacy to you over and over and over.

Here's the fallacy:

1. You look at policies that some people wants to enact.
2. You come up with what you think the results of those policies will be.
3. You believe that those people specifically intend for those results to occur.
4. You rail against those people for specifically intending those results.

You never make an argument based on policy considerations, it's all just railing against libertarians for being poopyheads based on the above fallacious line of reasoning.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

1. You look at policies that some people wants to enact.
2. You come up with what you think the results of those policies will be.
3. You believe that those people specifically intend for those results to occur.
4. You rail against those people for specifically intending those results.

You do realize that you are "defending" libertarians by insisting that I should call them morons instead of ill intentioned? "They don't mean badly! They're just clueless!"

[septimus]

There seem to be two types of Libertarian. One supports personal freedoms (recreational drugs, gay marriages, etc.); the other is all about the advantages of Adam Smith's Dog-eat-dog philosophy, and that the government should stop trying to help the Underdog.

You libertarians even confuse each other! It was grude who pointed us ignoramuses to the libertarian platform: I spent 20 seconds skimming that platform, quoted from it in this thread (Libertarian Party wants to abolish Income Tax) and grude himself was surprised to learn that!

It sounds like you Dog-eat-dog libertarians have recruited grude deceptively (but of course deception in U.S. politics is all-pervasive now).

Something else that confuses me (and, I'll guess, others) about libertarianism is that we have no clear view of the political structure you envision. Can you point to an historic example of a society close to your ideal? Will the needy be tended by relatives, charities, government, or not at all? Will there be universal suffrage? In most societies throughout history, as well as in the libertarian model as often presented, the rich have disproportionate political power (e.g. only land owners can vote); is this the view? You'll get more respect from an honest answer, than the claim that slaves will be free to vote but enlightened enough to vote for continued servitude.

If no historic example presents, what does your Utopia look like? John Lennon's featured "Imagine no possessions ... I wonder if you can," but this doesn't seem to be the libertarian model.

Until we get a clear idea of your "Utopia" we'll just continue to develop caricatures of it.