My, that’s eloquent.
So you’re saying the only possible bad thing in the world is forcing somebody to do something they don’t want to do?
Not really. An injunction on murder is a moral value forced on other people.
Uh, that’s the exact opposite of what Libertarianism is.
Not a single word of that is correct.
The only thing that post has going for it is that you didn’t mention Somalia.
I don’t want to argue about objective and subjective morality unless you can show that there actually is such a thing as objective morality.
To use your examples, what standard would a libertarian use to establish that that murder, theft, fraud, and rape are objectively immoral but racial discrimination is (presumably) only subjectively immoral? How did the libertarian know what morality was objective and what was subjective?
Libertarianism/Randism is basically the ideological equivalent of psychopathy, so “we want to do whatever we want without regard for the consequences” is a central feature of the ideology, right along with “we don’t owe anybody anything”.
Nonsense; they object to the government doing anything to stop the powerful from forcing everyone else to do as they demand.
No, it’s all correct. Libertarianism is about handing unlimited power to the wealthy and reducing the government to a tool to keep the common people from rebelling. It’s anarchy for the rich; “anarchists who want police protection from their slaves”.
So? I’ve heard libertarians praise Somalia as being superior to the US due to its lack of government.
Call it “normative” then. I should not have switched terms in the same post. But you need to realize that there are two uses of the term, and you are conflating them.
The same way other philosophies do. Libertarians think that the only normative morals to be enforced by the state are coercive acts by one person on another. This derives from the postulate that freedom is an end in itself, and needs no justification of qualification.
Ultimately, all political philosophies deal with normative morality.
Nope.
Nope
Cite that this is anything even remotely mainstream in the Libertarian Party?
More eloquence from the defenders of [del]sociopathy[/del]libertarianism
I have no idea if it is or not; you were the one who brought up Somalia anyway. And it’s funny that you don’t even try to make an argument against me, just saying “nope” and then start demanding cites from me.
That belief is not “moral”.
No sense in arguing against garbage posts. You need to bring some cites in to support your so-called arguments. As it is, they are just uninformed opinions. Those can be dismissed out of hand.
Ah, the old “you aren’t worthy” dodge". The Right on this board seems to like it for some reason.
Of course I could say the same about your posts on the subject. Where are your cites? What in fact would even qualify as a “cite” about a never actually officially implemented political philosophy? Am I supposed to just take all their claims at face value like you appear to be doing? I’ve never seen anyone produce a cite on the bad effects of attempts to impose libertarianism without the defenders of libertarianism instantly dismissing it as not real libertarianism.
Der tribe, a simple Nope is all that is necessary to respond to your posts. You never make an argument, you just make assertions based on your views of other people’s motives. A counter-asserfion is all that is needed to negate a bare assertion. Staff actually making arguments for your positions and you’ll get more than a nopekn return.
No. I’m just saying it is one bad thing that I am stopping. You are actively encouraging it, which is arguably worse than simply doing nothing to stop it.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:71, topic:614010”]
Ah, the old “you aren’t worthy” dodge". The Right on this board seems to like it for some reason.[/qoute]
Nope. Never said anything about you, personally. And you can save your comments about “The Right” for those who are on “The Right”.
No, but you are simply making stuff up about what Libertarians believe. Let’s look at your first statement in that post:
That is simply not true, and no reading of the Libertarian Platform can reasonably come to that conclusion. If you think it can, then quote the part that supports your claim.
Well, it depends on your definition of “bad”. I’m not a member of the Libertarian Party, but I sympathize with many of their goals and I’ve admitted in this very thread that some people will be discriminated against in the workplace in Libertaria. They will be discriminated against because of their sex, their race and/or their sexual orientation.
Lots of “bad” things will happen in Libertaria. Just as lots of “bad” things happen in every country. I don’t know of any political philosophy which claims it will prevent all “bad” things from happening.
Okay, you’re right that social liberals do that too. And social liberals are confused when they talk like that as well. Moral beliefs are moral beliefs. If there’s a problem with banning contraceptives, it certainly isn’t that it’s “legislating morality.” Laws against murder also “legislate morality.” So do laws against rape.
Only if you want to implicitly admit the baselessness of your positions.
In other words yes, we are supposed to just take their claims at face value.
No, only if I want to explicitly show the baselessness of your assertions.
I noticed you conveniently left off the sentence where I invited you to quote from the LP’s platform to support your claims. I guess we can assume you are unable to do that.
Please explain the absence of large numbers of female doctors and lawyers in the more libertarian '50s and '60s, before sex discrimination laws. Did women all of a sudden get the ability to do medicine and law? Government then certainly did not prevent women from taking these jobs, but let employers basically blacklist women. Clearly lots of the women they banned would have made good employees. How come the market didn’t work there?
There are private clubs and private clubs. There are real private clubs, limited to a small number of people. Then there is the private club I joined in Salt Lake City (dues, $1) in order to drink at a martini bar. Or the private club I used to be registered at automatically at my hotel in Oklahoma City so I could drink at their bar (which I never did.)
Those clubs increased freedom. Would you support a similar private club, in a restaurant say off a main street, whose purpose was to exclude somebody being legal in Libertaria?