Everyone is a libertarian

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

"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?

 

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.

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.

 

What did I mischaracterize?

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

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

 

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.

 

Can you re-phrase that question?

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.

 

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?

 

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.