3 ms·
> Libertarians argue against regulations Every party has flaws. Every philosophy that derives from first principles has flaws. If there's a flaw in libertari
by bmelton 11y ago
> Libertarians argue against regulations
Every party has flaws. Every philosophy that derives from first principles has flaws. If there's a flaw in libertarianism, it's that it doesn't recognize externalities well.
That it infuriates you is problematic. I bounce all over the spectrum on what I believe, and I frequent the DMV voter registration guy to change parties enough that he knows me by name. That said, no matter how much you love any particular philosophy, it can't always hold to be the rightest thing ever.
The American left thinks that it's too burdensome to demand an ID to exercise the right to vote, which isn't even enumerated in the constitution, but think that in-depth background checks are perfectly acceptable to purchase a firearm. The American right feels exactly the opposite. A true civil libertarian believes that an ID infringes on both, and would reject registration hurdles for both.
In scenarios like this I believe that libertarians hold the most enlightened view, which is why I sometimes refer to myself as a libertarian for convenience, depending on the conversation.
> libertarianism has no shades of gray.
On this I disagree vehemently. There are many, many shades of gray within libertarianism. Yes, there are absolutists in every camp, and yes, as with every other camp, they tend to be vocal, but there's no singular libertarian rulebook that everybody follows. There's even a Wiki article on their quibbles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debates_within_libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debates_within_libertarianism
Generally speaking, the one universal truth within libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which states that force should not be used. As most penalties eventually result in force (not paying taxes results in jail), it tends to seem absolutist, but not all libertarians are propertarians, nor are they universally opposed to business obligations (like carbon offsets and the like).
- vacri 11y ago> Generally speaking, the one universal truth within libertarianism is the non-aggression principle, which states that force should not be used. Which is one of the most nonsensical things about libertarianism - that any time authority want you do to something, it's referred to as 'violence'. It's 'violence' because if you keep refusing to comply, then at the end of a long chain of events, eventually an authorised officer will start to manhandle you. Hence even the smallest thing becomes 'violence'. Yet... Libertarianism offers "the courts" as the solution to pretty much all disputes. What happens when someone doesn't comply with court rulings? The court finds that your activities have injured your neighbour and you must give remuneration. You flip off both the court and the neighbour. What happens now? Libertarianism has quite a few of these blind spots. Again, you don't have to be a Libertarian to be for civil liberties.
- cpursley 11y agoTake a listen to For a New Liberty, Episode 4 - Police, Law and Courts: https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/for-a-new-liberty/id380694819?mt=10 https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/for-a-new-liberty/id380... The entire (free) audiobook is a fascinating listen, even if you walk away disagreeing with everything.
- burntsushi 11y ago> What happens when someone doesn't comply with court rulings? Again, that problem is not specific to libertarianism. Every socioeconomic system must address it, and none of the solutions are pretty. In our current world, a person who ignores a court's ruling is physically forced to comply. I don't see any particular reason why something similar couldn't work in a more libertarian world.