Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Are there any true libertarians in here? I would like to debate you.

  1. #11
    tWebber Darth Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,180
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    116
    For those truly interested in hearing about an anarchist working with a political party I will be a guest on the Johnny Rocket podcast (NSFW) next week.
    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.


  2. #12
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,274
    Amen (Given)
    144
    Amen (Received)
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by The Thinker View Post
    No, some libertarians are for small govt, some are for no govt. I'm looking to debate philosophy and policy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Xena View Post
    I am not going to get into this debate except to offer a correct. NO ANARCHIST IS NOT CONTRADICTORY TO LIBERTARIANISM. That is utterly ridiculous. I sit on the Libertarian National Committee. I am an anarchist. The Vice Chair of the LNC is an anarchist. Two other representatives are anarchists. The Chair is likely an anarchist though he tends to keep his ultimate opinion to himself. About twenty percent of the state chairs of the LP are anarchists.

    The Party was founded with anarchists. The founder become an anarchist. The Statement of Principles was edited (a near impossible task) to give explicit nods to anarchism.

    I do not care to debate policies. I am way too busy doing real politicks in the real world.
    These terms are used with varying definitions, and these statements depend on which of the definitions one is using.

    Sometimes libertarians make a distinction between "government" and "the state". Under which distinction, even libertarians who call themselves anarchists do want "government"; they just are opposed to "the state" as it is typically conceived. They are "anarchist" in the sense of wanting no "state". They are not "anarchist" in the sense of wanting no "government." They are even more so not anarchist in the sense of wanting chaos. They argue that the state is actually contrary to good government.

  3. #13
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,274
    Amen (Given)
    144
    Amen (Received)
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by The Thinker View Post
    I'm looking to debate a libertarian on economic issues, like for example, what helps create more jobs, libertarian policies, or liberal policies.

    I personally think liberal economic policies work better, but I've heard good libertarian arguments. I think many of them are wrong, but I need to confirm this by debating it.
    I'm happy to discuss and debate libertarianism with people.

    I'm wary of debating The Thinker, because my past debates with him have all taken the following form:


    Thinker: I say that the color blue doesn't exist. Additionally it is an incoherent concept. It's not even logically possible. The only possible colors are red and green. Therefore blue cannot possibly exist. If you think otherwise, you must provide a positive proof that blue is a coherent concept (i.e., not self-contradictory).

    Me (or anyone else): What? Look at the sky on a clear day. It's blue.

    Thinker: That can't possibly be true because the red-green dichotomy proves that blue is impossible. The dichotomy shows that there cannot be any evidence of blue. Our perception of blue must therefore be an illusion.

    Me: Your dichotomy 'argument' is just assuming that red and green are the only possibilities, which is begging the question.

    Thinker: I didn't beg the question. I gave an argument in my OP that blue is impossible. I'm still waiting for you to give a positive proof that blue is possible. If you can't do that, just say so.

    Me: How can someone give a positive proof that something is logically possible? I mean all one can do is contemplate "blue" and see no way in which it makes any claims about itself that contradict itself. And I experience blue every day. Wouldn't the burden of proof be on the person who claimed that it's logically impossible?

    Thinker: I did prove just that in my OP. You just are failing to understand the dilemma. And you have the burden of proof because yours is the positive claim that blue is possible. Plus I note that you've conceded that blue is impossible. So I win, and anything more you say is irrelevant.

    Me: I conceded wha?


    But I'm willing to have an honest, rational discussion with anyone. As long as you can do that, I'm happy to participate.

  4. Amen Sparko amen'd this post.
  5. #14
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,274
    Amen (Given)
    144
    Amen (Received)
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    It would be interesting to have them describe their libertarian (politics) philosophy. For example; Which politicians do they identify with and why.
    To put it briefly, libertarians are in favor of human interaction being consensual. And that non-consensual actions (physical force, coercion) is morally permissible only in restraint or restitution against someone who first violated someone's rights via physically interfering with them without their consent. Thus the traditionally accepted list of rights: life, liberty, and property.

    Libertarians seem not to identify with politicians as personalities so much as to identify with anyone insofar as they aim to respect and defend these human rights.

  6. #15
    tWebber Darth Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,180
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    116
    I make a distinction between the government and the state, yes.
    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.


  7. #16
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    North Pacific Coast USA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,146
    Amen (Given)
    100
    Amen (Received)
    141
    Darth Xena and Joel, what is exactly "government" and what "state"?
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

  8. #17
    tWebber Darth Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,180
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    116
    I don't have time for detailed explanations, so if you don't care if I give links, here you go

    http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/...nd-government/

    http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/...ts-and-states/

    ==Thus, it is my own description that whereas government is a role in society, the State is an institution that forces itself upon the people. Where there is a State, this State takes up the role of government as part of its activity. Thus, all States necessarily govern, but not all governments are States.==
    The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.


  9. #18
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,274
    Amen (Given)
    144
    Amen (Received)
    419
    Quote Originally Posted by Truthseeker View Post
    Darth Xena and Joel, what is exactly "government" and what "state"?
    In most cases I have seen, "government" (in this context) is the protection of rights (life, liberty, and property). In which, force may be used only defensively (restraint and restitution).

    A "state" claims to be a provider of government, and is a monopoly that uses force beyond the limits of legitimate government. But true government is supposed to protect us against such uses of force. And thus such uses of force are contrary to government (and would properly be called crimes). To be pro-government, then, is be to be anti-state.


    To illustrate, under these definitions, the vast majority of what modern states do is criminal/unjust/anti-government.
    "Minarchists" aim for a minimal state which provides government except that it uses force to compel contributions (taxes) and to maintain its monopoly position.

    Some minarchists go further, arguing that it is possible and desirable to eliminate taxation too, so that the only anti-government use of force is in maintaining the state's monopoly.

    So-called libertarian "anarchists" take the final step of arguing that forcing the monopoly is unnecessary and undesirable and unjust, and that government can be provided (and perhaps would be better provided) via voluntary human interaction. It is thought that when the monopoly is no longer forced, that most or all of the functions of government would be available from a multitude of providers, often in a competitive market.

  10. #19
    tWebber Darth Xena's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,180
    Amen (Given)
    10
    Amen (Received)
    116
    Joel nailed it

  11. #20
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    North Pacific Coast USA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,146
    Amen (Given)
    100
    Amen (Received)
    141
    Bravo, Joel! I cannot recall any such praise from Darth Xena of my Tweb posts.

    I have challenged statists to show that indeed the state makes the world better overall, or can. So far no response comes up to the level of Joel's defense of anarchism.

    I would be for a state if we can or should expect it to indeed make the world better than the no-state alternative world (theoretical only--may never actually exist in our lifetimes).

    I recall that some people were advocating for self-governance years ago. Voluntarily follow rules such as the NAP or the Golden Rule. Indeed for anarchism to come about in a great significant way, the world does have to attain a high degree of self-governance. Something wide-world like "love your neighbor as yourself."

    Who could be against that--the Thinker?
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •