WTF? What a hopelessly moronic and myopic understanding of our inoffensive philosophy. Could you be any more mistaken? There’s no such thing as “freedom of speech”, flag burning is a property rights issue (there are no rights outside the context of property ownership), and libertarian types oppose government funding of art. Period.
Congratulations, Lib, I found the above statements to make absolutely no sense on any logical level while at the same time being morally and ethically repugnant. You’ve managed to offend me intellectually and emotionally.
Where the hell do you get this shit ?
All that with a Camus quote to boot
That was a general statement of the libertarian idea. It makes perfectly good logical sense, and even preferable if you dislike being taxed to support things you disagree with, or do not explicitly agree to.
What is so repugnant about that? Or are you talking about flag buring? An existentalist like you (or do you just like the quote without understanding it?) should be able to fathom that a flag is a thing. Perhaps repugnance, too, is inevitable for some.
In case anyone’s curious, link. The quote’s said by december most of the way down the page.
No, a flag is not just a thing–it is given a symbolic meaning by both those who would burn it to send a message, and those who would be offended by that message (among many possible meanings). No thing is just a thing to any of us. We give meaning to things–that is part of our existence as human beings.
What I found repugnant, inexplicable and insupportable is the assertion that freedom of speech does not exist, while freedom to own property does. Both rights are equally human inventions. If one of them exists, there is no reason for the other not to.
Happiness comes from living a good and ethical life–not from owning things. Wisdom from many traditions, religious and secular, East and West, tells us that in can even get in the way.
Here’s some more Camus for you: “It is better to be good than to be right.”
You fell into the trap. This isn’t about flags. It’s about the misinterpretation of libertarianism, and it looks like the writer of the quote in the OP as well as yourself have misinterpreted it on different sides.
I’ll take accurate over self-righteous
…buit Libertarian, that’s what you were hoping for wasn’t it 
Phooey.
Right.
You’re a busybody.
Phooey.
Right.
[…shrug…]
Phooey, right?
No, kabbes, dammit. When you speak, I have to listen.
In that case, I shall say something hopefully a little more worthwhile.
As I understand it, libertarianism as a philosophy operates on one simple principle: Thou shalt not interfere with anybody else. Since in reality everything we do intereferes with somebody else, this is codified a little more practically into the ideas of “non-coercion” and “property rights” (otherwise known as “Thou shalt interfere with others as little as possible”).
Within this context, I should imagine that there are as many divisions as there are in socialism, communism, capitalism or any other -ism you can think of. Nevertheless the creed should hold. If it does not, in cannot be truly said to be libertarianism.
There are two examples given: flag burning and arts funding.
From the non-interference ethos, the solution is straightforward. If you stop someone from burning a flag then you are interfering with them unreasonably. If you make somebody contribute funds to something then you are interfering with them unreasonably. Therefore libertarianism supports the right to burn flags and rejects the idea of arts funding.
Incidentally, there is a lot there that I philosophically disagree with. But I don’t really want to turn this quite simple question of what libertariansim advocates into a discussion on whether what it advocates is positive.
What else is there to discuss?
pan
Splitter!
Eh, kinda sorta. Unfortunately much is lost if the one simple principle loses a critical clause: Thou shalt not interfere with anybody else who isn’t interfering with thee. See below.
That’s why the subordinate clause is so critical.
You may indeed stop someone from burning a flag if the flag they are burning is owned by you. And you may force someone to contribute to art funding if they have consented to be forced.
In essence, libertarianism is not about interference, but consent.
Hmm. Lib, I’m not overly familiar with libertarianism and so out of curiosity: What’s the libertarian view of Locke and his concept of a social contract?
Thousand words or less please.
OK Lib, that was what I was attempting to do with my more pragmatic version, but yours works better. Hardly surprising really - I suspect that you’ve thought about it a bit more than me!
Still, taking your adapted ethos rather than my original one it becomes even clearer what a libertarian take on flag-burning and arts funding would be. I’m not sure where december(?) got his version from.
pan
. . . thus proving that libertarianism is inadequate to address this type of issue: since when has the debate about flag burning had anything whatsoever to do with who owns the physical flag?
Well, lissener, perhaps it should be.
Merely pointing out that the argument hasn’t been about ownership doesn’t imply that the argument to this point has been valid. The current flag burning debate is emotional on both sides and prone to enormous amounts of demogoguery.
But if I own a flag I reserve the right to destroy it at my discretion, regardless of the type of flag it is. Just as I reserve the right to destroy anything else of which I hold clear title. From my house to my safety pins they’re mine to do with as I (or more properly, Lady Chance) wishes.
Bad.
My, aren’t you terse.
(Yes, this is my first post on the Reformed SDMB.)
As I understand Locke’s social contract, it’s a very Libertarian concept. I consent to the government interfering with me to a limited extent (taxation and laws) to save me the trouble of dealing with true anarchy (a situation I don’t think would be very stable) and to give me all the other benefits of living with a limited government.
If the government breaches the contract, I have a right to aid in its overthrow. If I breach the contract, the government has the power to exercise punitive actions against me.
So libertarians don’t believe there is any such thing as a social contract? SIGH It doesn’t surprise me.