3 ms·

It really is a shame that is considered a "conservative" view. I think a lot of Libertarians are coming around to have a view similar to your's. That the commo

by throwaway2016a 9y ago

It really is a shame that is considered a "conservative" view. I think a lot of Libertarians are coming around to have a view similar to your's. That the commons belongs to all of us and polluting and destroying it should be punished. Republican's on the other hand seem to thing liberty only applies to corporations. In fact if you delete the part about wanting big government, I could have almost mistaken you for a Libertarian. However, if you look at the Libertarian's who do support protecting the environment you will find there are ideas out there to address the issue without a huge centralized government organization like the EPA. Some might require changing our laws and our legal system so it is less of "whoever has the most money wins" but there are ways. Like all political parties Libertarians have their extremists too (anarchists) but by and large I think they are reasonable people. Edit: Those people in the Republican party that the media likes to call "Libertarians" are not. They cherry pick what liberties are important to them and what are not based on their moral code and special interests. Edit 2: My original post has the word "not" where it should't have been. See bellow.

bobwaycott 9y ago
> That the commons belongs to all of us and polluting and destroying it should not be punished. Did you really mean should not be punished here?
- throwaway2016a 9y ago
  I fixed it before you posted that comment but didn't put an "edit" note because I thought I edited it quick enough for people not to notice. I was writing quickly and moved some words around that changed the meaning in a bad way :( Yes, of course. The "not" shouldn't have been in that sentence. Polluters should have consequences.
wallace_f 9y ago
The word has been hijacked. Libertarians want to maximize liberty, which since the Age of Reason has been interpreted in government to mean to restrict as few freedoms as necessary to protect the remainder. One example: don't let people commit murder. It is perfectly reasonable this kind of reasoning apply to other types of killing or unjust aggression, such as poisoning the environment. So we have the NAP. But the whole movement is being hijacked by people who either don't care about much else than not wanting to pay taxes, or people who are anarchists (which is decidedly not libertarian). Perhaps we need to run away and invent a new word. I think you'll find a lot of libertarians agree more often with Greenwald than the Koch bros.
- throwaway2016a 9y ago
  I'm actually a Libertarian myself. And I agree with all you say. Except of course the anarchist part because it directly contradicts me :) > But the whole movement is being hijacked by people who either don't care about much else than not wanting to pay taxes Many of those people have moved to the Republican party. Often the same people who think that liberty only applies to you if you have the right income level, color skin, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. As I said in my first post, an dI'm sure you agree, you can't pick and chose who gets liberties. Unfortunately the anarchist have chosen to use the Libertarian party to give themselves a voice. And while I agree they are not true Libertarians, they are the extremist in the party and are the party's demons to fight.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  > or people who are anarchists (which is decidedly not libertarian). I grant you that most anarchists are not libertarians, but I fail to see how Anarcho-Capitalists are not. > Perhaps we need to run away and invent a new word. We've done that, several times. We were once "liberals", then "libertarians", and it feels like we're now fracturing into subgroups that take on various labels: "ancap", "minarchist", "classical liberal", etc.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    Because the central premise of anarcho capitalism is not to maximize liberty. The central premise is to place private ownership above all else--even above rule of law that would forbid murder.

bobwaycott 9y ago

> That the commons belongs to all of us and polluting and destroying it should not be punished. Did you really mean should not be punished here?

throwaway2016a 9y ago
I fixed it before you posted that comment but didn't put an "edit" note because I thought I edited it quick enough for people not to notice. I was writing quickly and moved some words around that changed the meaning in a bad way :( Yes, of course. The "not" shouldn't have been in that sentence. Polluters should have consequences.

wallace_f 9y ago

The word has been hijacked. Libertarians want to maximize liberty, which since the Age of Reason has been interpreted in government to mean to restrict as few freedoms as necessary to protect the remainder. One example: don't let people commit murder. It is perfectly reasonable this kind of reasoning apply to other types of killing or unjust aggression, such as poisoning the environment. So we have the NAP. But the whole movement is being hijacked by people who either don't care about much else than not wanting to pay taxes, or people who are anarchists (which is decidedly not libertarian). Perhaps we need to run away and invent a new word. I think you'll find a lot of libertarians agree more often with Greenwald than the Koch bros.

throwaway2016a 9y ago
I'm actually a Libertarian myself. And I agree with all you say. Except of course the anarchist part because it directly contradicts me :) > But the whole movement is being hijacked by people who either don't care about much else than not wanting to pay taxes Many of those people have moved to the Republican party. Often the same people who think that liberty only applies to you if you have the right income level, color skin, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. As I said in my first post, an dI'm sure you agree, you can't pick and chose who gets liberties. Unfortunately the anarchist have chosen to use the Libertarian party to give themselves a voice. And while I agree they are not true Libertarians, they are the extremist in the party and are the party's demons to fight.
LyndsySimon 9y ago
> or people who are anarchists (which is decidedly not libertarian). I grant you that most anarchists are not libertarians, but I fail to see how Anarcho-Capitalists are not. > Perhaps we need to run away and invent a new word. We've done that, several times. We were once "liberals", then "libertarians", and it feels like we're now fracturing into subgroups that take on various labels: "ancap", "minarchist", "classical liberal", etc.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  Because the central premise of anarcho capitalism is not to maximize liberty. The central premise is to place private ownership above all else--even above rule of law that would forbid murder.