OFFICIAL: "How Libertarian Are You?" Thread

[Travlyr]

The State makes it easier for people to do just that. By legitimizing the theft through the myth of the social contract so that people do not question it. It is much harder to get away with theft when it is naked without being under the guise and justification of the social contract.

And I don't buy your argument. Individual property rights are fundamental to each of us... from each other. Theft is the easiest way to obtain wealth, and it's the most egregious. Theft is wrong and stopping theft is the only function of a just society, yet it is necessary.

The state (collectively) we must protect individual's rights. Protection of personal property is the responsibility of each of us in unison... (government).

 

[Sentient Void]

Not going to happen...


Unfortunately human behavior is not compatible with voluntary government.

This is the way the real world works.

Well, I would address your 'arguments' if there were any actual arguments at all - but they're not, so I'll just leave you to your emotional stockholm syndrome with the state until you're ready to open up at some point

I'd prefer we don't derail the thread in regards to the merits of minarchism vs ancapitalism... there are other threads that are quite long on this already - that we (me, you, heavenlyboy, tremendoustie, et al) have already went over this on, and you can't really help people if they plug their ears.

 

[Sentient Void]

:-/

And I don't buy your argument. Individual property rights are fundamental to each of us... from each other. Theft is the easiest way to obtain wealth, and it's the most egregious. Theft is wrong and stopping theft is the only function of a just society, yet it is necessary.

The state (collectively) we must protect individual's rights. Protection of personal property is the responsibility of each of us in unison... (government).

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion a few times already in other threads, showing you how the state isn't needed for this purpose, and others (roads, etc). And you can't protect property rights by violating them - this will naturally lead to slippery slopes, ugly precedents and inexorable growths of the state as well.

Here's one... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=252325&highlight=Travlyr

 

[Travlyr]

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion a few times already in other threads, showing you how the state isn't needed for this purpose, and others (roads, etc). And you can't protect property rights by violating them - this will naturally lead to slippery slopes, ugly precedents and inexorable growths of the state as well.

Here's one... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=252325&highlight=Travlyr

Yes, and I find voluntaryist's position naive in regards to human behavior.

Yet, I'm done with this thread because I also do not wish to derail it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, and I find voluntaryist's position naive in regards to human behavior.

Yet, I'm done with this thread because I also do not wish to derail it.

If human behavior is such that you do not trust a man to govern himself, why do you trust man to govern others???

This is the question...

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

I have thought a lot about the identity/communication problem inherent in describing yourself as "libertarian" or "liberty movement" or as in my personal case, a Minarchist. It used to bug me because though I knew it was arrogant to act like *I* (or we) am/are objectively right and all Statists are objectively wrong, I also knew there was some fundamental difference between the philosophy of liberty folk & that of those who support government power/coercion.

Then it struck me. Anarcho-isms aside, collectivists are necessarily anti-libertarian. But libertarians are not anti-collectivist. We support the right of private institutions allowing people to mass together, share money, labor, resources. In short, communists may practice communism as long as nobody is forced to practice it with them, socialists may practice socialism with all others who volunteer to, but again not imposing their will on others violently. Collectivists support the initiation of force against those who don't agree with them. Libertarians do not.

So it becomes like saying "We have a difference in opinion, you believe in harming & enslaving people and I don't." It's an insult to ignore the reality of it. But it is worthwhile to explain to well-meaning liberals how their aims could be achieved peacefully.

 

[Jace]

We all like to talk about our libertarian bona fides.


But I'm curious about the members of this forum: How "libertarian" are you?


Do we have more right-libertarian "Constitutional Conservatives" here or do we have more Rothbard/Rand anarcho-capitalist types here?



Just curious....

I just don't like people fucking with me.

 

[Fozz]

We all like to talk about our libertarian bona fides.


But I'm curious about the members of this forum: How "libertarian" are you?


Do we have more right-libertarian "Constitutional Conservatives" here or do we have more Rothbard/Rand anarcho-capitalist types here?

Just curious....

I'd call myself an Old Right conservative.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'd call myself an Old Right conservative.

Good ol Paleo, huh?

 

[Monarchist]

My handle sums it up pretty well.

 

[Volitzer]

Take the test here:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

 

[Sentient Void]

Take the test here:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: 9.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77

Hahah... it's funny... I've taken that exact political compass test at least 4 or 5 times over the course of the past at least 3 or 4 years, and over time I've gone further and further to the right, and further and further down.

Also, one must admit that it definitely has a few false dichotomy questions, and some questions most certainly have a VERY 'liberal' (and I don't mean classical liberal) ent to them.

 

[South Park Fan]

I am more Rothbardian, although I came to that position through the insight of Spooner and the Tannehills. It was Ron Paul's campaign that served as the activation energy for my conversion from minarchism though.

 

[t0rnado]

I'm an individualist anarchist / anarcho-capitalist.

 

[hugolp]

We all like to talk about our libertarian bona fides.


But I'm curious about the members of this forum: How "libertarian" are you?


Do we have more right-libertarian "Constitutional Conservatives" here or do we have more Rothbard/Rand anarcho-capitalist types here?



Just curious....

Ayn Rand was a constitutionalist/minarchist.

 

[hugolp]

Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: 9.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.77

Hahah... it's funny... I've taken that exact political compass test at least 4 or 5 times over the course of the past at least 3 or 4 years, and over time I've gone further and further to the right, and further and further down.

Also, one must admit that it definitely has a few false dichotomy questions, and some questions most certainly have a VERY 'liberal' (and I don't mean classical liberal) ent to them.

I hate that test. Its totally manipulative. There are better ones.

 

[CCTelander]

I'm in favor of Voluntaryism. Both morally and pratically it's the only logical choice.

 

[someperson]

It would be nice if all of those label reassignment "quizzes" died off. Individuals should represent themselves by their specific ideas and reject the temptation to accept a label.

I'm happy to see that several individuals here have done just that

 

[wizardwatson]

You are all very great, but what are you doing?

 

[YumYum]

It would be nice if all of those label reassignment "quizzes" died off. Individuals should represent themselves by their specific ideas and reject the temptation to accept a label.

I'm happy to see that several individuals here have done just that

If we put labels on ourselves, it shows that we are followers, and not leaders.