The ultimate goal of your ideology? - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14632904
One more note. I am aware of the fascistic 'organic state theory'. I don't know whether that question was intended as a setup or not. I never implied any such concept though (I know things get lost in the current on the internet sometimes).
#14632915
I'm not trying to be adversarial. I was genuinely confused by the use of the word artificial to refer to nation states since all of them are man made. I agree with everything you said, we just use different terminology.

Rich wrote:There are 2 types of freedom- freedom from and freedom to.
No there aren't. The might be two forms of expression for the same freedom. Take the freedom to be free from land monopolies. Tyrannical Libertarian parasites think they should have freedom to steal land monopolies from us. They think they have the right to land monopolies.

I guess I should have expended on that to be clearer. If someone has the freedom to do something that infringes other people's freedom from the same thing. As you say if someone is free to own land exclusively that infringes on others' freedom from landlords.
#14633022
Crantag wrote:They are inherently artificial, although there is varying degrees of naturality in them. The most artificial though are the ones formed as administrative regions by colonial powers, especially in Africa and the Middle East.

Yes, there is a difference between being a nation-state being man-made by those who live there and it being imposed by force of arms, for reasons of power or profit, by people thousands of miles away.
AFAIK wrote:If someone has the freedom to do something that infringes other people's freedom from the same thing. As you say if someone is free to own land exclusively that infringes on others' freedom from landlords.

No, not just "freedom from landlords." It abrogates their freedom to access and use the natural opportunities they would otherwise have been at liberty to access and use. Whether you are paying a landlord or not, you have still been deprived of your liberty.
#14688128
Rei Murasame wrote:This topic is not intended to be a discussion on what anyone thinks libertarians is in practice, or what it becomes in practice.

This topic is for the purpose of asking libertarians this question:

What is the purpose of being a libertarian in your view? Are the non-aggression principle and private property an end in themselves, or are they just a means to some other end that you haven't mentioned?

Both.

On the one hand, reams of data (which as I know you're somewhat wonkish, I'm well willing to discuss with you if you'd like) suggest that non-interference with private affairs is the best way that governments can guarantee prosperity.

On the other hand, I personally don't really like rules. Rules appeal to the median person, and I'm not particularly common.

Though actually that last one is not strictly an appeal to the NAP, is it?
#14746686
Social issues[edit]
The Libertarian Party supports the legalization of all victimless crimes,[51] including drugs,[94][95][96][97] pornography,[94] prostitution,[94][95][96][97] polygamy,[98] gambling,[99] removal of restrictions on homosexuality,[96] opposes any kind of censorship and supports freedom of speech,[100] and supports the right to keep and bear arms[95] while opposing Federal capital punishment.[101] The Libertarian Party's platform states: "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."[91]


The above is from the Libertarian platform. I resurrected this thread in trying to find an answer to a question I have. How can the Libertarians take a stand on national issues without violating their own beliefs in the right of individuals? They seem to pick and choose which rights the individuals are entitled to, and therefore deny the rights of individuals that differ. I am confused by their apparent support of some things not being left up to local government while believing in decentralized government.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]