I can’t imagine many circumstances where anyone would be forced to live in a neighborhood where there are openly homosexual people but that that is beside the point. Libertarians are as much for homosexuals or any alternate lifestyle as they are for anyone. What does that have to do with us? Again nothing so why would we care? It is possible to be so self-centered in terms of societal structure that you become selfless when it comes to others. That is what good libertarians strive for.
I believe it is a personality trait more than anything but one that should be respected. I live it myself but I know others hold the same ideals. It is the moderate libertarian’s job to make sure the control freaks of any stripe don’t infringe on individual rights whether they be economic or social.
Note that I didn’t say “neighborhood.” I said “community.” And in today’s world, there are very few communities that are isolated. Indeed, it would be a tremendous burden to try to isolate oneself. The relevant community is really the entire country.
This shows another major error that libertarianism makes—the conceit that every individual is always free to leave any situation at any time for any reason. Not only does society have to balance the rights of individuals against each other, but each individual has to balance multiple factors before making a decision.
In the liberal view, there are certain such considerations that thus should be off the table. In other words, no individual should have to make Choice A as the sole means of avoiding certain circumstances.
It doesn’t matter what you believe. It’s enough that people exist for whom the very concept of homosexual people having rights infringes on their rights and who will act on this. This and ten million billion other attitudes. That’s exactly why people keep insisting that libertarianism only works if everybody has the same beliefs. It’s built into its structure. Libertarians may think this type of infringement is avoidable if people just respect one another. (Or if moderate libertarians do something unspecified that somehow doesn’t amount to coercion.) Opponents have as an axiom that this is impossible.
It’s possible that neither side understands the others’ beliefs. It’s more probable that they are understood very well.
Why would you care if you stuck in a community full of homosexuals, conservative Christians, or Orthodox Jews as long as your individual rights were always protected and you had freedom of movement whenever you could manage it?
Freedom of Assembly is a lot stronger than enforced multiculturalism in the libertarian ideal. That is why we aren’t considered liberals.
There’s a way to protect my rights that doesn’t involve the government? That may be part of your religious beliefs (i.e. Libertarianism), but history doesn’t indicate that it’s shared by many other religions.
I honestly don’t know what you mean by this. But it leads me down a thread of associations. The political reality is that everybody who lived through it understands that the civil rights movement won only because the federal government stepped in to protect and enforce the rights of groups. Since the Civil War hasn’t ended for many people (a little foofaraw that is now seen as also protecting the rights of a group by the government against individuals), it seems likely that this group memory has at least another century to go. The Republican Party unquestionably suffers as the representative of those who promote individual rights over group rights. If Libertarians are going to be more extreme on this issue, they have a real demographic issue for the foreseeable future, like the 21st century.
Anyone want to take a shot at the question I posted: who decides what’s a valid use of government in a libertarian system?
Who makes the decision that maintaining a military is a valid government purpose? That maintaining a police department is a valid government purpose? That maintaining roads and bridges is a valid government purpose? That delivering mail is a valid government purpose? That running a public education system is a valid government purpose? That running a public healthcare system is a valid government purpose?
Okay, I threw that last one in to see if you were still paying attention. But who does decide that it’s okay for the government to run schools but wrong for the government to run hospitals? Who decides that it’s okay for the government to regulate traffic safety but it’s wrong for the government to regulate food safety?
Libertarians seem to feel these things are obvious and pretty much everyone already knows the answers. But is that really true?
Now a majoritarian has a simple answer. We say that if the majority of the people want to regulate food then food safety is a valid government issue. If the majority of the people want the government to run schools than public education is a valid government purpose.
But libertarians, from what I understand, disagree with this view. They don’t think the government has the right to do something just because the majority wants it that way. They say individual rights take precedence over majority rule.
Okay. But that brings us back to my question. If you don’t have majority rule, who’s making these decisions instead?
Libertarians suffer from the ego of revolutionaries, they believe they will be in charge and will be able to get the rest of the world/country to conform to their logic and ideas. The Bolsheviks did not start the Russian revolution and the Brotherhood did not go to Tahrir Square.
Since when are libertarians against regulating food safety? :dubious:
Libertarians would be against fraud in food labeling, but against outright prohibition of a food item. But why would they oppose the government ensuring fraud is not occuring? Taking the example of raw milk, as long as the milk is properly labeled and not attempted to pass it off as pastuerized and has warnings about the dangers posed.
Again I have never seen one bit of evidence libertarians would support fraud.
If safety means the power to ban something completely I am assuming libertarians would be against that, I mean ending drug prohibition is a core tenet of the lib platform. I’ve never anything to indicate they support labeling fraud though.
I don’t know how to define libertarianism, I just saw a source online that claims libs don’t believe in taxes police, so I don’t know anymore.
I don’t even see how taxpayer supported health care would be against libertarian beliefs, what would be against libertarian beliefs is outlawing private health care or mandating people use public health care.
I think that the Pollyanna Libertarians automatically assume that there would be social and economic mobility in a Libertarian society, such that each person rises to the level of their competency. However, given that it is human nature to seek power and wealth, and that those with power and wealth have a much easier time acquiring more power and wealth, I fail to see any way that a Libertarian society could avoid the resulting feedback loop resulting in a the feudalistic society suggested by Dr Trihs. In a democracy those at the base of the pyramid can regain some power through voting in a somewhat coercive government to redistribute power/wealth in case it becomes to concentrated, but I don’t see such negative feedback existing in a Libertarian Society. I would be interested in hearing what the pro-Libritarian argument against this is.
We seem to have different views on what regulating means. Your version of “regulation” seems to be mostly advisory - the government is free to tell people things but has no power. Your government would essentially be the equivalent of Consumer Report.
I’m not saying that’s objectively wrong. But you need to recognize it isn’t regulation. I made the comparison before between food safety and traffic safety. The government doesn’t suggest to drivers that they should slow down - the government sets a speed limit and enforces it. That’s traffic regulation. And food regulation would be the equivalent.
So back to my previous question again: in your hypothetical libertarian society, who decided that the government had the right to regulate traffic but didn’t have the right to regulate food?
The one value (or law, if you will) that most or all people would have to respect and uphold for libertarianism to actually work is this: No one is allowed to gang up on anyone. You might decide you have a fight to pick with someone, your friends might decide they have a fight to pick with the same someone, but banding together to bushwack your opponents is verboten- that way lies government.
You first: under the current system who makes that decision?
Who made the decision to ban the sale of unpasteurized milk? Who made the decision to change the state constitution to ban same sex marriage? And who decided an African American was 3/5th of a man and that women shouldn’t vote?
I’ve already explained this. Under the current system, decisions are made by majority rule. A majority of people decide what they want their government to do and everyone is bound by these decisions - even the individuals who didn’t agree with it.
It’s not always fair. Slavery’s a good example of how unfair it could be when a majority oppressed a minority. But majority rule does work.
So first, you need to show me that libertarianism can work at all and then we can consider whether or not it’s fair.
I’ll admit that based on your posts in past threads, my expectations right now are really low.
If multiculturalism is permitted, then it is enforced. If the rednecks can’t drive the black family out of their house next door, then they are subject to a compulsorily multicultural neighborhood.
To most of us, this is a big “so what?” Yeah, I don’t get to exercise control over whom my neighbors are. Poor little me. But to the racists…it’s a really big deal.