Anyone else here a left-leaning libertarian?

[murrayrothbard]

Well, either choose a government or anarchy. You can't have a government and cry that you're getting robbed - it's your own choice.

Ok, I choose no government. Does that mean your hired thugs won't come rob and kidnap me when they don't get their check?

 

[anotherone]

Well, either choose a government or anarchy. You can't have a government and cry that you're getting robbed - it's your own choice.

Anarchy? Very few here want anarchy. A basic function of government that we should all agree on is a functional local police department and justice system.

 

[jamesmadison]

I see no reason why freedom equates to wealth equality. It is the nature of the people that there is wealth inequality. Some may resent this, but it does not give the government the right to alter this.

The poor may form unions or other collectives to ensure their own well being. There is freedom of association in a free society. Those with enterprising ideas profit from those who freely help enact their ideas. We should not punish those who invent to always create artificial equality.

Question: Who are you voting for in the primary?

You don't quite grasp the concept of freedom.

Freedom depends on individuals respecting the rights of individuals. Once the respect is broken, you don't have freedom.

Without basic necessities you cannot have freedom.

 

[jamesmadison]

Anarchy? Very few here want anarchy. A basic function of government that we should all agree on is a functional local police department and justice system.

If you want government, you must have taxes.

 

[jamesmadison]

Ok, I choose no government. Does that mean your hired thugs won't come rob and kidnap me when they don't get their check?

If you give me your money, no.

 

[anotherone]

You don't quite grasp the concept of freedom.

Freedom depends on individuals respecting the rights of individuals. Once the respect is broken, you don't have freedom.

Without basic necessities you cannot have freedom.

Well. I'll have to continue this disagreement with you later. I'll add that we must have differing opinions on what freedom is, and I may do some research on the founding fathers to back up my opinion.

 

[anotherone]

If you want government, you must have taxes.

Yes, we must. Local taxes are okay by me. Not federal income tax.

 

[murrayrothbard]

Freedom depends on individuals respecting the rights of individuals. Once the respect is broken, you don't have freedom.

Without basic necessities you cannot have freedom.

Exactly you have a right not to be robbed. But I don't get the second part? Are you claiming "basic necessities", whatever that is, as a right?

 

[jamesmadison]

Yes, we must. Local taxes are okay by me. Not federal income tax.

Ok. So when Mexico comes and invades your land - go take your gun and defend yourself against Mexican tanks.

 

[murrayrothbard]

If you give me your money, no.

But I choose not to. You said it was my choice, right?

 

[jamesmadison]

But I choose not to. You said it was my choice, right?

You have a choice until you're dead.

 

[jamesmadison]

Exactly you have a right not to be robbed. But I don't get the second part? Are you claiming "basic necessities", whatever that is, as a right?

Basic necessities are as much of a right as any other right. They are contingent on decisions of not only you, but the rest of mankind.

 

[murrayrothbard]

You have a choice until you're dead.

Wow, ok the truth comes out. So you are proponent of common thuggery. There is actually no point for you to be even be arguing, since that presupposes a desire to convince another individual of your opinion. But since you endorse aggression, why bother with the argument?

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

Or am I a lone wolf among the hardcores?

Over time I've definitely become a libertarian adherent to the principles of KYFHO (Keep Your F*ing Hands Off).

There's a KYFHO FAQ page here: http://www.paganvigil.com/C1252147800/E1585240526/index.html
A brief excerpt from that page:

It is concept, a philosophy, a political platform, and a warning, but only if you are willing to back it up.

I first ran across the word KYFHO in a collection of stories by F. Paul Wilson. I've embraced it ever since as a practical philosophy and personal goal.

There are three assumptions that KYFHO rests on.

First, nobody owns you except you.

Second, others have no right to do things to you without your consent, or take the things you value without your consent.

Third, if anyone does try to do something to you without your consent, any and all resistance is justified.

Notice how this matches the so-called "Jeffersonian ideals." Those same ideals of minimum government (or ANY) interference in your life became unpopular with the Great Depression. We've been paying the price ever since.
​

Highly recommended reading - An Enemy of the State by F. Paul Wilson. While it is technically a sci-fi novel, it has uncanny parallels to our current situation.

I still have much sympathy for those in need but I feel certain that if our government would just keep it's f*ing hands off, we'd all have plenty of money to give to private charitable organizations that would in turn provide care of all kinds to those who need assistance.

 

[murrayrothbard]

Basic necessities are as much of a right as any other right. They are contingent on decisions of not only you, but the rest of mankind.

What's a basic necessity? I don't get it? Who gets to decide what my basic necessities are? You? Me? And after they have been somehow determined, if I don't have them I'm justified in using force to go get them?

 

[jamesmadison]

Wow, ok the truth comes out. So you are proponent of common thuggery. There is actually no point for you to be even be arguing, since that presupposes a desire to convince another individual of your opinion. But since you endorse aggression, why bother with the argument?

I'm talking about a hypothetical situation. Your choice is either anarchy (where you don't pay taxes) or government (which requires it to steal from you). In anarchy there it is pretty much guaranteed that individuals will form groups that will prey on weaker groups and individuals. You may die, you may live - you are free to do whatever you want (which is the highest quality of liberty) but the trust within society is ruptured. So you can say all you want about the government stealing from you but it's your choice to exist within a governmental structure rather than become a criminal and promoting anarchy.

 

[jamesmadison]

What's a basic necessity? I don't get it? Who gets to decide what my basic necessities are? You? Me? And after they have been somehow determined, if I don't have them I'm justified in using force to go get them?

Biology, basically.

You need food.
If you're sick, you need care.

Otherwise you're dead.

It's simple. I'm not sure what is so difficult to grasp.

 

[murrayrothbard]

In anarchy there it is pretty much guaranteed that individuals will form groups that will prey on weaker groups and individuals. ..... So you can say all you want about the government stealing from you but it's your choice to exist within a governmental structure rather than become a criminal and promoting anarchy.

Ha ha, a group of individuals that prey on other individuals is exactly what a state is! Why is promoting anarchy criminal? Because the ruling group of predators says so?

 

[murrayrothbard]

Biology, basically.

You need food.
If you're sick, you need care.

Otherwise you're dead.

It's simple. I'm not sure what is so difficult to grasp.

A "right" is something that you can legitamely use force to enforce. If biology says you need sex does that make it ok to get it by force?

 

[jamesmadison]

Ha ha, a group of individuals that prey on other individuals is exactly what a state is! Why is promoting anarchy criminal? Because the ruling group of predators says so?

Well, if the state promotes the liberty of individuals I would disagree with you that it is predatorial in fashion. You have to justify things you say, otherwise I will not respond to them. There is nothing logical about your arguments.

You see.

You have rich people who may live a better life than others. You have a government that protects rich people. The rich people pay the government for protection. Without the government the poor would disapprove of this inequality. The rich would be murdered - the money redistributed. The government is not stealing from the liberty of the rich, it is GRANTING THE RICH LIBERTY.