Everyone is a libertarian

[AmF]

Your claim that "everyone" is a libertarian is wrong. Terribly wrong. You say we all are liberatarian's because we believe rape, murder, theft, and other stuff is wrong? Well what about the people commiting those crimes? They're not libertarian's are they? So your point fails.

 

Your claim that "everyone" is a libertarian is wrong. Terribly wrong. You say we all are liberatarian's because we believe rape, murder, theft, and other stuff is wrong? Well what about the people commiting those crimes? They're not libertarian's are they? So your point fails.

Already addressed. Go back and read the thread.

 

[AmF]

Already addressed. Go back and read the thread.

The point's you create make no sense. In my opinion, you just continue making stuff up, to try and prove that you're correct, but in fact, you're wrong.

The statement's you make are not fact, as you portray them to be.

 

The point's you create make no sense. In my opinion, you just continue making stuff up, to try and prove that you're correct, but in fact, you're wrong.

The statement's you make are not fact, as you portray them to be.

Thanks so much for your enlightened opinion; I'm sure you have a much deeper understanding of man's ethical nature than I do. And, being the keeper of such superior ethical wisdom, I'm sure you would agree that it would be only the deepest depravity not to share this precious knowledge with a world clearly tearing itself apart for the simple lack of it.

Or would you be as a doctor withholding medicine from a dying child?

Or perhaps you have no answer, and perhaps you do not understand the argument. Perhaps ethical absolutes scare you, cause you to question your own actions?

In either case, please do enlighten us. Perhaps you could explain in what way I am "making stuff up".

 

[FFLOL]

So the argument goes as:
Moral people are exclusively libertarian. Libertarians are exclusively moral. Everyone is moral and therefore libertarian.

This argument is flawed in all three of its components.

 

[Public Enemy Number One]

You all already believe that murder, theft, rape, and slavery are wrong. You're all libertarians already. Forget all the nonsense arguments. Just apply the values you already hold to your life and to your beliefs. That's all you need to do. Just be honest, just be consistent.

The grand libertarian speech:
*clears throat*
"THEFT AND MURDER ARE WRONG"
"thank you"
*sits down*

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized."

http://www.lp.org/platform


Being a Libertarian is more then believe murder is wrong.
It's about our rights as human beings, and that no matter the circumstances we have those rights. No amount of Government involvement should be able to take them, and no person can take them.

Edit: Just because a person has morals doesn't mean they are libertarians.
Libertarians are politicians too - and politicians are often corrupted by money or greed.
So what's to keep a morally "acceptable" person, AKA a Libertarian, from selling out their beliefs in exchange for Main-Party support or for personal wealth?

 

[Tgump]

So the argument goes as:
Moral people are exclusively libertarian. Libertarians are exclusively moral. Everyone is moral and therefore libertarian.

This argument is flawed in all three of its components.

Well that's just a strawman. Libertarianism states that theft and murder are wrong, and that is what libertarianism philosophy is at its core. If you are consistent with these (read: Never stealing or murdering) beliefs, then you have at least partial libertarian philosophy.

Edit: Just because a person has morals doesn't mean they are libertarians.
Libertarians are politicians too - and politicians are often corrupted by money or greed.
So what's to keep a morally "acceptable" person, AKA a Libertarian, from selling out their beliefs in exchange for Main-Party support or for personal wealth?

Well this has been discussed earlier. Libertarian politicians like those you mentioned hold those values, they just don't apply them consistently. Sometimes they think theft and murder are wrong, but when it benefits them, it doesn't.

 

[FFLOL]

Well that's just a strawman.

What did I mischaracterize?

Libertarianism states that theft and murder are wrong, and that is what libertarianism philosophy is at its core.

Is this exclusive to libertarianism? If not, is it even meaningful?

If you are consistent with these (read: Never stealing or murdering) beliefs, then you have at least partial libertarian philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

 

So the argument goes as:
Moral people are exclusively libertarian. Libertarians are exclusively moral. Everyone is moral and therefore libertarian.

This argument is flawed in all three of its components.

No the argument is: people have libertarian morals. If people consistently applied the moral values they already purport to hold then they would be libertarians.

Is this really so hard to understand

http://www.lp.org/platform

The "Libertarian party" is 'big l' libertarianism.

A "Libertarian party" is a group of individuals who believe they can join the government to change its ethical nature. However this is not possible, and makes about as much sense as joining an association of slave owners in order to abolish slavery.


You can define anything however you want; This I do not care about. The fact remains that you hold moral values which you do not consistently apply in your life and to your beliefs. If you wish to be an ethical human being, you should start applying your moral values to your life and to your beliefs. If you do not wish to be an ethical human being, then just drop the pretense altogether.

 

[FFLOL]

No the argument is: people have libertarian morals. If people consistently applied the moral values they already purport to hold then they would be libertarians.

Is this really so hard to understand

Of course it is. When you cross economics with sociology and morality, you don't get a clean cut of pie.

Governments (or that lack thereof) aren't formed by morals. They're formed by human nature. Let's get that straight.

 

Governments (or that lack thereof) aren't formed by morals. They're formed by human nature. Let's get that straight.

Have you got an argument / evidence to support this assertion?

 

[Tgump]

Is this exclusive to libertarianism? If not, is it even meaningful?

Can you re-phrase that question?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

That is irrelevant. If you hold libertarian values consistently, then you are a libertarian. As was just said it's not hard to grasp.

Goodbye, FreedomFight.

 

[TobyL65]

You can't argue that because we murder, rape etc we are libertarian that is absurd. The exact Determinist argument could be applied to that to turn phrase, consider forms of sociological Determinism; a boy who grew up with parents in jail in an extremely rough crime filled area is more likely to murder than a boy grown up with two working parents in a wealthy area.
Is the first boy free when he is disadvantaged so greatly?

 

The exact Determinist argument could be applied to that to turn phrase, consider forms of sociological Determinism; a boy who grew up with parents in jail in an extremely rough crime filled area is more likely to murder than a boy grown up with two working parents in a wealthy area.
Is the first boy free when he is disadvantaged so greatly?

This is an interesting argument, and one I'd like to have another time. But for the purposes of this thread, and this debate, what relevance does it have?

Because people seem to be having so much trouble understanding the argument, let me restate it as clearly as I can.

1. Most people have libertarian morals (they are against theft, rape and murder.) If they were to apply those morals consistently then they would be (ethically speaking) libertarians.

2. Ethics serve no purpose without consistent application to one's life and beliefs. Inconsistently applied ethics are no ethics at all.

3. You should apply your ethics to your life and to your beliefs. If you do not wish to apply your ethics, then at least be honest and clear and drop the pretense of having ethics in the first place; As per point #2, you are not an ethical human being unless you consistently apply your ethics.

It's pretty simple.

 

[Greg]

Of course. You are welcome to go build your own city/nation/government/etc and invite any that you want in, providing that you do not infringe upon their rights.

But If you did such a thing what rights would they have. You could create and raise a society that would accept all the things we disprove today. If you where a child grown to know that murder, rape, and other things are acceptable why would you think wrong of them. The only reason we are a libertarians is because we where raised to be so, we all live in a civilized community and doing such things would be frowned upon. So really none of us are libertarian by choice more it is of our nature.

 

[Tgump]

But If you did such a thing what rights would they have. You could create and raise a society that would accept all the things we disprove today. If you where a child grown to know that murder, rape, and other things are acceptable why would you think wrong of them. The only reason we are a libertarians is because we where raised to be so, we all live in a civilized community and doing such things would be frowned upon. So really none of us are libertarian by choice more it is of our nature.

I'm trying to make sense of your post. At the end, you state that we're only libertarians because we're raised that way, and then the very next sentence you say that it's just our nature to be libertarians (which would be correct.)

You've answered your own question as to why people might think wrong of someone that did such things, even if they were grown in a society of acceptance of the aforementioned acts, which would not last very long. If everyone is murdering and raping you whilst stealing your food, you don't have much of a society in the first place.

The reason that there are no societies where people freely rape and slaughter each other is that it is the antithesis to a society. Thousands of years of Natural selection (or Survival of the fittest if you please) has hard-wired us to belong to groups for survival. Those who impulsively slaughtered, raped, or committed other crimes simply didn't survive.