Post: #26

"for a forum that seems to lean libertarian (i think) thinking this is okay suprises me."

Where would you rather live, a place where people are free to do as they please, and the vast majority of people are fat? Or where people cannot easily indulge in copious amounts of sugar and synthetic foods, and are thin as a result?

Even forum members are delusional - they think they want libertarianism, yet some of the countries they rave most about are far from libertarian. They are more concerned with the result than the process. Let them square the contradiction by abandoning their libertarianism.

The American sees a foreign culture, and even admires it for its strengths. And then he thinks of how to improve upon it, by imposing his American way of life on it. He doesn't stop to consider that what sets the foreign apart from America, for good and for ill, would fall away were American principles to come to pass. Right or left, the tone of American foreign policy is to Americanize others.

Post: #27

considering i live in place thats closer to #2, im gonna go with place #1. china is far more authoritarean than libertarian, and i can't wait to get out.
you'll disagree with some peoples choices, thats a fact of life, but i dont think thay gives person x the right to take away those choices.

how did this get to americanizing other cultures? i for one have no intention to americanize this indisteial, polluted, laughably corrupt hellhole. but i do need to get stateside about.3 weeks a year or id go insane
have you actually lived in a foreign culture that is not close to your own for any extended period of time?

Post: #28

(08-09-2013 09:59 PM)clever alias Wrote:  considering i live in place thats closer to #2, im gonna go with place #1. china is far more authoritarean than libertarian, and i can't wait to get out.
you'll disagree with some peoples choices, thats a fact of life, but i dont think thay gives person x the right to take away those choices.

how did this get to americanizing other cultures? i for one have no intention to americanize this indisteial, polluted, laughably corrupt hellhole. but i do need to get stateside about.3 weeks a year or id go insane
have you actually lived in a foreign culture that is not close to your own for any extended period of time?

Libertarianism encompasses a wide range of views, but in the end all of its various tendencies share in common a focus upon the role of the government. A private citizen mildly disciplining a child has nothing to do with how large and intrusive a government you think is appropriate or what your view on private property rights is.

In fact, in a libertarian polity it is precisely the role of what Edmund Burke called the little platoons of civil society to step up to fulfill the responsibilities that government has usurped. Among these is the role for reinforcing social mores and codes of behavior.

Post: #29

that doesn't make much sense. in that case moral vigilantism and moral policing are one and the same. if we're putting private rights first, then you would get into a circular argument that walmart guy has the right to voice his displeasure with jow said child is being raised. and i suppose he does. however, if you see a kid in public crying you dont walk up to him, spank him and say shut up. you tell his mom in hopefully a civil manner to get her kid under control.
libertarian thought does not just substitute the state for random citizens. it substitutea the state for civil courtesy. if after telling the woman you think tje kid looks like a faggot and she tells you to fuck off, you dont just say "civil society platoon" and make the kid change. fictional walmart was NOT civil which is half of my point

Post: #30

(08-09-2013 09:53 PM)Emmanuel Goldstein Wrote:  "for a forum that seems to lean libertarian (i think) thinking this is okay suprises me."

Where would you rather live, a place where people are free to do as they please, and the vast majority of people are fat? Or where people cannot easily indulge in copious amounts of sugar and synthetic foods, and are thin as a result?

Even forum members are delusional - they think they want libertarianism, yet some of the countries they rave most about are far from libertarian. They are more concerned with the result than the process. Let them square the contradiction by abandoning their libertarianism.

The American sees a foreign culture, and even admires it for its strengths. And then he thinks of how to improve upon it, by imposing his American way of life on it. He doesn't stop to consider that what sets the foreign apart from America, for good and for ill, would fall away were American principles to come to pass. Right or left, the tone of American foreign policy is to Americanize others.

Both you and clever alias are mistaken. Libertarianism is a political doctrine that applies at the macro level. Libertarianism is specifically designed for a Federal system.

It says nothing about how individual communities can, or should, enforce and police one another.

The United States was more libertarian when it allowed the southern states to own slaves, than it is today when it prohibits states from banning gay marriage. For the Black readers: I'm not saying slavery is a good thing. I'm merely pointing out a perfect libertarian system is quite amoral.

A libertarian system is really the best way to govern a very diverse group of people, by giving each region of the country it's own ability to make laws to govern itself.

Although I am pro-libertarian, I am not deluded enough to believe that Libertarianism will solve all problems. I merely believe it is the best way to have a democracy.

The problem you describe, Goldstein, where "People can do as they please," is not a problem of Libertarianism, but of democracy itself. So while I believe Libertarianism is the best way to run a democracy (by turning it into a representative republic), I am not necessarily convinced a democracy is the best form of government.

Indeed, I think many of the problems we see today in America are intractable problems of democracy itself, and I have already touched upon this problem. I will expound upon this more as time goes on.

Post: #31

(08-09-2013 02:54 AM)LooTa Wrote:  Dismiss it as the ramblings of an internet tough guy, or take it on board as a friendly warning, the choice is yours.

You've been dismissed

Post: #32

In theory, libertarians are not averse to restrictions imposed from on-high. Eg, prohibition. But for it to gain the libertarian stamp of approval, *everyone* must agree to it, or it's allowed by default. You see this with immigration, despite the obvious demerits of some immigration. Devolution reduces this, but it never eliminates it entirely. You'll always have disagreement, and thus according to libertarian doctrine, it would always be immoral to effect any policy. So instead of states implementing non-libertarian dictates, it's private voluntary organizations.

Small government is valuable because it reduces the scope for democratic abuses, yes. But formal libertarianism precludes the state from advancing the general welfare. It's possible, even probable, that the private sphere would step up the self-regulation of the nation as the state sphere declined in size and power, but it's not inevitable.

Continuing with my example - I was reading a diet book which said among other things that the traditional Pacific Islander diet was pretty much ideal, and that the Islanders were in terrific health. Their diets have since westernized, and the very same islands often have the highest obesity rates in the world. The libertarian would have no grounds on which to oppose the importation of Western goods unless every single islander on an island opposed it. A wise chief islander who may have heard of other islands being ravaged by obesity after the implementation of Western diets would be powerless to refuse under libertarianism. So everyone gets fat, because the ability to drink coca cola is sacrosanct. I could go on about why this is a bad thing, but that should be self evident.

Of course, the libertarian, in the political sphere, has no priority except freedom. So this outcome is acceptable to him. If you value anything besides freedom, libertarianism alone is obviously inadequate and even harmful.

Post: #33

(08-10-2013 11:33 AM)Emmanuel Goldstein Wrote:  A wise chief islander who may have heard of other islands being ravaged by obesity after the implementation of Western diets would be powerless to refuse under libertarianism. So everyone gets fat, because the ability to drink coca cola is sacrosanct. I could go on about why this is a bad thing, but that should be self evident.

Not true. A libertarian system would first inquire, "What kind of government has been elected on that Island?"

If the elected government type was a democracy, then the libertarians would hold the vote. But if the elected government was rule by the chief, the libertarians would respect the rule of the chief.

Quote:Of course, the libertarian, in the political sphere, has no priority except freedom. So this outcome is acceptable to him. If you value anything besides freedom, libertarianism alone is obviously inadequate and even harmful.

The priority isn't freedom - it's the scope and limits of government power.

The problems you describe aren't particular to libertarianism, but democracy itself.

Post: #34

" Not true. A libertarian system would first inquire, "What kind of government has been elected on that Island?"

If the elected government type was a democracy, then the libertarians would hold the vote. But if the elected government was rule by the chief, the libertarians would respect the rule of the chief."

You misunderstand libertarianism. Free trade is an elemental part of libertarian policy, while democracy is not - in theory one could have a dictator who backs a minimal government that would be reasonably libertarian. That a majority of people assent to a regulation is not sufficient for a libertarian to approve it, because that means some minority is being coerced and having their rights limited.

From Wikipedia:

"While minarchists propose a state limited in scope to preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud, anarchists advocate its complete elimination as a political system...

The U.S. Libertarian Party promotes individual sovereignty and seeks an end to coercion, advocating a government that is limited to protecting individuals from the initiation of force."

Western foodstuffs are not theft, fraud, aggression or breach of contract of course - there is no scope for a libertarian state to regulate them. Regulating food as I've described, as a political matter, is inimical to libertarianism; it could only be done on private grounds, through each individual refusing to consume Western foodstuffs. Provided enthusiastic purveyors of fattening Western foods, a libertarian state would have no jurisdiction to keep them at bay.

Post: #35

Lol this thread is telling me who the forum fags are.

Post: #36

i feel like the libertarian would say that there does not need to be a vote, let tje food be imported and let those that want to become fatty mcfatfucks and those that wish to continue the healthier, native diet can.
im not sure where this notion is coming from that libertarians will trade perceived powerlessness to a state for perceived powerlessness to a majority.
of course im open to the possibility that i am mixing up libertarianism with something else

Post: #37

(08-10-2013 12:51 PM)Emmanuel Goldstein Wrote:  " Not true. A libertarian system would first inquire, "What kind of government has been elected on that Island?"

If the elected government type was a democracy, then the libertarians would hold the vote. But if the elected government was rule by the chief, the libertarians would respect the rule of the chief."

You misunderstand libertarianism. Free trade is an elemental part of libertarian policy, while democracy is not - in theory one could have a dictator who backs a minimal government that would be reasonably libertarian. That a majority of people assent to a regulation is not sufficient for a libertarian to approve it, because that means some minority is being coerced and having their rights limited.

From Wikipedia:

"While minarchists propose a state limited in scope to preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud, anarchists advocate its complete elimination as a political system...

The U.S. Libertarian Party promotes individual sovereignty and seeks an end to coercion, advocating a government that is limited to protecting individuals from the initiation of force."

Western foodstuffs are not theft, fraud, aggression or breach of contract of course - there is no scope for a libertarian state to regulate them. Regulating food as I've described, as a political matter, is inimical to libertarianism; it could only be done on private grounds, through each individual refusing to consume Western foodstuffs. Provided enthusiastic purveyors of fattening Western foods, a libertarian state would have no jurisdiction to keep them at bay.

You're mixing up what libertarians would do at the Federal level vs. the State level - many libertarians, although not all, are extremely strong supporters of states rights.

In fact tons of libertarians believe that Lincoln was a tyrant and violated the Southern states right of self-determination during the civil war just for this reason.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...civil-war/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/con...-civil-war

The Libertarian movement gets a lot of criticism over this issue as well, because it comes down to two conflicting principles:

Minimal government (i.e. giving as much power to states as possible) vs. Individual rights (i.e. having a strong central government to enforce basic rights).

So, to answer your original question, some libertarians would believe that the island chief has no right to ban foodstuffs, while other libertarians would say the island chief has total authority to ban foodstuffs.

However, I believe most libertarians would side with states rights over a food issue, the same way Ron Paul does over gay marriage.

Libertarianism is a macro policy. Your misunderstanding is very common of the movement.

Now, to keep this thread from being derailed, here's how this relates to the original article:

Child rearing is in NO WAY the responsibility of the government. They should not be able to tell parents how to raise their children, and the hypothetical walmart man would need to work at the state or town level to ban homosexuality if he did not want to see other children raised this way.

I know the ideal answer would say a good government bans homosexuality everywhere, outright, so mothers wouldn't try to raise their sons into fags, but ultimately I think we would lose more as a society than we would gain under such an approach.