4 ms·

I honestly don't see what libertarianism has got to do with this. Could you elaborate? What are these ideals, and what is the idelogy that lacks them?

by Fargren 10y ago

CamperBob2 10y ago
Libertarianism deals with the rights of the individual over those of the state. This is authoritarianism in action, which is essentially what people advocate when they argue against libertarianism.
- exclusiv 10y ago
  It's not about the rights of the individuals OVER those of the state. It's about the fundamental belief of liberty which our Founders made a core tenet. Everyone is entitled to personal liberty and freedom so long as they don't infringe on the liberty of others. So you can't compel a doctor to provide healthcare, whether you think it's a good thing or not. Libertarians are for state's rights. You can be for both individual rights & liberty AND state's rights. That's perfectly inline with the Constitution. And votes may go against individual liberty at the state level, but at least that's the proper domain for most decisions and it's local.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    Note that I'm using the term "state" in the abstract sense, not as shorthand for states' rights in the US-specific sense. It would have been better if I'd referred to "the rights of the individual over the powers of the state," since the original intent behind the Constitution and its amendments was to enumerate the latter but not the former. Once again, though, this has nothing to do with the dichotomy between federal powers and those reserved to the individual US states.
clarkmoody 10y ago
Libertarian ideology is based on the classical liberal tradition that each person has the a priori right to life, liberty, and property. Since you have these rights, you may dispose of your person and property as you see fit as long as you do not infringe upon these rights of another. This leads to the non-aggression principle, which in bumper sticker form is "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff." Basically, the initiation of violence is prohibited unless it is in defense of property or as punishment for a crime. All individuals in society should be treated equally under the law, including members of law enforcement and others within the government. If I am not allowed to commit violence against you until you have been convicted of a crime, neither should anyone else, whether or not they wear a police uniform. Indeed, libertarianism advocates for private, rather than public, police forces. > what is the ideology that lacks them Statism in all forms grants special privilege to members of the government, including the power to tax and hold monopoly on the use of force. The US criminal code is full of exceptions for on-duty police officers, judges, and others, especially regarding firearms laws. Police officers can carry firearms into school buildings where others are guilty of a felony if they do, for instance. Thus you have inequality under the law. Such police immunity is what leads to the abuses we see every day.
- Thimothy 10y ago
  I'm not arguing against your point, but most western countries manage to have a more or less competent police without such adherence to libertarianism. Maybe is easiest to implement, they have done so.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Fargren 10y ago
  Thanks for the elaboration. I don't entirely agree with you though. On on one hand you are right, libertarinism does strongly oppose the existence of a state force with rights that common citizens don't have. On the other, many other political mindsets have different sets of checks and balances to avoid this kind of situations. They are all fallible in different ways, and I doubt libertarianism is the exception. At the end of the day a system will follow the morals of those with de facto power, and power will arise even in the face of non-existent power structures.

I honestly don't see what libertarianism has got to do with this. Could you elaborate? What are these ideals, and what is the idelogy that lacks them?

by Fargren 10y ago

I honestly don't see what libertarianism has got to do with this. Could you elaborate? What are these ideals, and what is the idelogy that lacks them?

CamperBob2 10y ago

Libertarianism deals with the rights of the individual over those of the state. This is authoritarianism in action, which is essentially what people advocate when they argue against libertarianism.

exclusiv 10y ago
It's not about the rights of the individuals OVER those of the state. It's about the fundamental belief of liberty which our Founders made a core tenet. Everyone is entitled to personal liberty and freedom so long as they don't infringe on the liberty of others. So you can't compel a doctor to provide healthcare, whether you think it's a good thing or not. Libertarians are for state's rights. You can be for both individual rights & liberty AND state's rights. That's perfectly inline with the Constitution. And votes may go against individual liberty at the state level, but at least that's the proper domain for most decisions and it's local.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  Note that I'm using the term "state" in the abstract sense, not as shorthand for states' rights in the US-specific sense. It would have been better if I'd referred to "the rights of the individual over the powers of the state," since the original intent behind the Constitution and its amendments was to enumerate the latter but not the former. Once again, though, this has nothing to do with the dichotomy between federal powers and those reserved to the individual US states.

clarkmoody 10y ago

Libertarian ideology is based on the classical liberal tradition that each person has the a priori right to life, liberty, and property. Since you have these rights, you may dispose of your person and property as you see fit as long as you do not infringe upon these rights of another. This leads to the non-aggression principle, which in bumper sticker form is "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff." Basically, the initiation of violence is prohibited unless it is in defense of property or as punishment for a crime. All individuals in society should be treated equally under the law, including members of law enforcement and others within the government. If I am not allowed to commit violence against you until you have been convicted of a crime, neither should anyone else, whether or not they wear a police uniform. Indeed, libertarianism advocates for private, rather than public, police forces. > what is the ideology that lacks them Statism in all forms grants special privilege to members of the government, including the power to tax and hold monopoly on the use of force. The US criminal code is full of exceptions for on-duty police officers, judges, and others, especially regarding firearms laws. Police officers can carry firearms into school buildings where others are guilty of a felony if they do, for instance. Thus you have inequality under the law. Such police immunity is what leads to the abuses we see every day.

Thimothy 10y ago
I'm not arguing against your point, but most western countries manage to have a more or less competent police without such adherence to libertarianism. Maybe is easiest to implement, they have done so.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Fargren 10y ago
Thanks for the elaboration. I don't entirely agree with you though. On on one hand you are right, libertarinism does strongly oppose the existence of a state force with rights that common citizens don't have. On the other, many other political mindsets have different sets of checks and balances to avoid this kind of situations. They are all fallible in different ways, and I doubt libertarianism is the exception. At the end of the day a system will follow the morals of those with de facto power, and power will arise even in the face of non-existent power structures.