My previous post was a reply to Libertarian, not to Derleth.
Hey, Derleth , long time no see.
A social contract is a semi-codified interpretation of governemnt’s roles. There’s nothing in libertarianism that says you can’t support or give your money to a cause or group that you want to help. The strong argument for libertarianism here (and I may be pointing out the obvious here) is not paying for things you disagree with.
Consent: This may be where the “layers” appear. You consent to being “governed.” That consent can be granted with some misgiving or compromises. Wouldn’t it be cool if we could write down on our tax forms how the money that we are giving them should be spent? The government would become our proxy! Can you imagine…
And what the hell is this thread still doing in the Pit?
Your OP seems high on rhetoric and low on content. Furthermore, I wonder who elected you as spokesman for libertarianism. I’m getting tired of people like you making me embarrassed to call myself a libertarian.
. . . :shrug:
I wasn’t aware you’d ever called yourself a libertarian.
Where do you disagree with Lib’s stance on noncoercion?
Libertarians are basically bizarro-world Communists who haven’t gotten ahold of a country and fucked it up horribly yet, so they’re as shameless about promoting their fantasy world as Communists used to be before Stalin and Pol Pot.
Of course I got my political education from fortune cookies.
-fh
I don’t. Libertarian makes me too embarrassed to do so. Sheesh, can’t you pay attention? 
For starters, the idea that there is no such thing as freedom of speech.
hazel-rah and The Ryan, where do you get your information? Oh yeah, fortune cookies. Where is the connection with communism? Was that just the first word that came to mind when you thought of an ideology that you disagree with which people will most likely automatically associate with “failure?” There are a lot of people saying a lot of horse-hockey and I’m wondering where they get it from, 'cause I ain’t heard any of it before.
No freedom of speech? freedom of speech is not mentioned in libertarian concepts (and I am not well read on the matter, so someone tell me otherwise) because there is no need to. All metters of dispute are interpretted on the grounds of ownership. You can say whatever the hell you want if it is not coercive, even if it’s not a smart thing to say. The government would not have the right to stop you until you do coerce another ('s ownership rights).
Like I said, I’m not well read on the subject, but where are you getting these ideas?
The only practical difference that I can see between the traditional idea of a ‘freedom of speech’ and the libertarian idea espoused here is that it eliminates any possibility that someone’s right to say something could trump someone else’s property rights.
That seems like a vast improvement to me.
I wonder how many times you would have to run that paragraph through Babelfish before it starts to actually make sense?
Makes sense? To who? I got it the first time around. Judging from your prior posts, I don’t think you’ll ever get it.
OK, details. But only because this is the Pit, and somebody will get some entertainment value from it.
The connection with Communism is the dependency of the -ism on not compromising about how to approach free markets. Communists chant “share everything!” while Libertarians chant “share nothing!” Like I said, bizarro-world Communism. If either of them make any exceptions, then they vanish in an ideological puff of smoke and become plain old unsexy Democratic Socialism taken to some malfunctioning extreme, so what was the point in even forming the party? Other than to sport a cool badge at the polling station. That or actually stick to your guns, and grease the wheels for the next USSR. But hey, I’m assuming you just want to look cool and not actually run an entire country into the ground.
And of course, as you noted failure is something else they have in common. I look at the problems America faces today, and when I hear Libertarians float ideas like abolishing the FDA and OSHA to make our lives better, it makes me think they’re taking their political cues from a paragraph about sympathetic magic in a homeopathy textbook.
-fh
the only thing I find “bizarro” is how you reach the conclusions you do.
Then speak out, my friend. The owners of this site, as legitimate rights bearing entities with respect to it, have extended us permission to do just that. I don’t expect every person who calls himself “libertarian” to agree with me about any particular, save one: a man’s right to his own body and mind is inviolate — his right to give or withhold his consent is sacred.
A good introduction is this brief essay by Joseph Knight.
There’s a vast difference between “abolishing” and “privatizing”. Underwriters Laboratories, for example, have helped to keep the public safe for many years, and is certainly as well respected as the FDA. Go to Google and type in “FDA failures” and browse around.
Nor am I surprised that you misrepresented what I said.
Social contracts exist, and so long as every single individual within it gives his free and willing consent, then there’s no problem with it. The problem arises when any particular entity (a “majority”, for example) presumes to extend its own consent to others. In such a case, the social contract is a tyranny.
Note to kuroashi
Libertarianism and volunteerism are synonyms.
I guess in the same way that “masticating” and “milling” are synonyms.
Here’s another good link for people wishing to learn about libertarianism vs. the social contract: Link (I recommend looking over the whole FAQ. I’m sure Lib will recommend differently. <chortle!>)
I suppose that I should give the obligatory Critique of the Critique link, which itself links to both the Critique of the Critique of the Critique as well as the Critique of the Critique of the Critique of the Critique.
And the beat goes on.
BTW, in almost any of these internet anti/pro libertarian sites, there are a plethora of links to various economists and philosophy pages; it would behoove any person who’s interested in this subject (or in government in general) to follow those links. Having done so extensively myself, I can say that I am now able to fake intelligence much more successfully than I ever could before I started arguing with libertarians!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Libertarian *
a man’s right to his own body and mind is inviolateIf a (hu)man’s right to his (or her) own mind is inviolate, then how can there not be freedom of speech? Are you saying that we may think what we want, but we may not express every thought?
Wow, did I mess that up. :o