Notes from a Libertarian Paradise

[AceHero]

Never occurred to me that anyone would want to live in Belize until Jerry Jeff Walker moved there. He loved it so much he dedicated an entire album to songs about Belize.

My mother says she wants to retire there, but I'm still skeptical. I know they sponsor the Glenn Beck Show and Pat and Stu, but I'd still be worried about the government being taken over by a coup, which is common in those countries.

Thanks for the reference. I just listened to Jerry Jeff Walker's "Gringo in Belize". He makes a pretty good case for not moving to Belize.

It happens.

Here are some good pictures with Jerry Jeff Walker's "Down in Belize":
DownInBelize2.mp4 - YouTube

I've always had a sort of affinity for tropical places (especially in the Pacific). It doesn't seem to pay very well though.

 

[AceHero]

What other kind of liberty is there? If what you want is government to impose your values, liberty where you want liberty and control where you want others to be controlled, then you are really opposing the very notion of liberty.

For example, as a libertarian with sympathies to the left, I've had to come to terms with the 2nd Amendment. I don't like guns; I don't own any guns; I never want to to own a gun; and I am suspicious of people who insist on having them. But, I don't want the government to ban them; it is a liberty that I wish less people would exercise, but it is a liberty nonetheless, and I don't want the government restricting liberties, even when it is a liberty that I personally don't approve of.

I believe in a liberty in which basic rights are respected for all. Libertarians believe in a kind of liberty that is highly individualistic and terrible for a civilized and conservative society.

Wouldn't basic rights "respected for all" be "highly individualistic?"

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm failing to see how libertarianism has anything to do with liberalism in the context of our constitution and how the US was framed.

I understand that our constitution would be considered a liberal document by pre-constitution standards, but once that framework is set, that original framework now becomes the conservative position moving forward (meaning the constitution was a radical document for the time, but once it was defined as THE document, keeping it in tact and wanting to stick with and conserve those principles becomes the conservative position)

Then I suppose support for Obamacare and big government, which are the status quo, would be considered the conservative position.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Then I suppose support for Obamacare and big government, which are the status quo, would be considered the conservative position.

The conservative position would be to adhere as closely as possible to our founding document.

 

[TerranceL]

Wouldn't basic rights "respected for all" be "highly individualistic?"

One would think so.

 

[Paradoxum]

If you talk to 10 people, you'd probably get 10 answers...

Here's mine...

When the tax code becomes longer and more complex than our constitution


...some other symptoms might include
- laws, so complex in nature, that the average citizen without a law degree can't make sense of them

I'd say they could be the signs of a messy government. Though the length of the tax code might be needed. I don't know enough about it to say.

- when the government is taking a third of a person's income and still operating at a deficit

Well I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. It depends how much they earn.

It is not possible to return to something that never existed.

Fair enough. Have chaos.

I have used my brain to figure out what is just yet not everyone agrees with me. Are they all evil and can their disagreement with my perfect vision of right and wrong simply be ignored no matter how much they protest that they are not evil just have a differing opinion?
Democracy= majority vote. Therefore whatever is popular with more people than not is just. Human rights in this scenario are whatever 50% plus one at any given time want them to be. A constitution would possibly insist that there are certain rights that no amount of unpopularity would be able legally strip from the citizen or that no right to another particular thing exists no matter how popular it might be to declare that it did.
I think the question implies that we are not all in agreement upon what constitutes a decent society and that one person's ideal society is another person's worst nightmare.

I think free speech, and promotion of the education and critical thinking of the population will lead to progress in thinking.

If we can agree on more fundamental things like rights and principles, we can use these to argue for progress.

It is impossible to consider anything to be justice without making a moral judgement.

It depends what you mean by the words. What I'm trying to say is that a just legal system isn't the same as one's personal morals. eg: You can say that adultery is wrong, but that it shouldn't be illegal.

I would agree with that and IMO a good Constitution has within it mechanisms for changing like the amendment process for the US Constitution. There are too many that prefer to just change it at any time in any manner that they wish rather than go through the proper processes spelled out in the document for changing it.

I'd agree that there should be a good process for change.

I do believe that ought to precede the writing of any constitution and usually does. I also think that those coming after rather than ignoring that fact and assuming not only that they are somehow less fallible but also that they are the first to consider what might be just, ought to study the ideas of the writers on that score and see if those writer's thoughts were reasonable before dismissing them as lesser beings of lesser intelligence or moral fiber that could never understand the complexities of the modern world or their thoughts as antiquated and out of touch. Finally, if a Constitution is indeed in place, and the rules it sets forth for limiting government and safegaurding the rights of the populace are able to be amended to suit new or different situations or new or different POVs by a straight forward and easily understood process, why wouldn't an honest government official attempt to amend that Constitution by using those rules( especially after taking a solemn oath to protect and defend that Constitution ) rather than circumventing the Constitution altogether in order to be sure that his/ her will was what was carried out ? A will not only not necessarily the will of the consensus of the citizenry but not necessarily what is just but only concerned with that which was desired by that particular official on a certain subject.

I don't think the writers of the US constitution (for example) were stupid or particularly less moral (slaves though? :s). But we don't have the benefit of having more lessons from history, and more time to have thought about issues in a rigorous way.

By the way, I don't have anything in the constitution in mind that needs change. Maybe some thing do, but I don't have any in mind really while writing this. I'm not hating on the current US constitution.

 

[Creech]

Wouldn't basic rights "respected for all" be "highly individualistic?"

Libertarians are often viewed and see themselves as being anti-collectivist. This strain of anti-collectivism goes against human nature and conservative values. Humans put themselves into collectives and groups. Conservatives believe that racial, ethnic, religious, family, etc. groups are very important for society and must be recognized. I think my posts have shown that libertarianism is a left-wing ideology that goes against traditional conservatism. Although there are many things conservatives and libertarians agree on, their world view must be rejected by conservatives entirely.

 

[dies-l]

Libertarians are often viewed and see themselves as being anti-collectivist. This strain of anti-collectivism goes against human nature and conservative values. Humans put themselves into collectives and groups. Conservatives believe that racial, ethnic, religious, family, etc. groups are very important for society and must be recognized. I think my posts have shown that libertarianism is a left-wing ideology that goes against traditional conservatism. Although there are many things conservatives and libertarians agree on, their world view must be rejected by conservatives entirely.

I think it is an error to call libertarianism conservative or liberal. Liberalism and conservatism have to do with the type of values a society ought to embrace. Libertarianism and statism have to do with how the coercive power of government ought to be used to further those values. To say libertarianism is conservative (or liberal) is like saying tall is fat or round is blue.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Libertarians are often viewed and see themselves as being anti-collectivist. This strain of anti-collectivism goes against human nature and conservative values. Humans put themselves into collectives and groups. Conservatives believe that racial, ethnic, religious, family, etc. groups are very important for society and must be recognized. I think my posts have shown that libertarianism is a left-wing ideology that goes against traditional conservatism. Although there are many things conservatives and libertarians agree on, their world view must be rejected by conservatives entirely.

That intolerance of European conservatism gave rise to fascism and Nazism.

I recommend you reject it, follow your religious convictions and let others make their own choices.

​

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'd say they could be the signs of a messy government. Though the length of the tax code might be needed. I don't know enough about it to say.



Well I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. It depends how much they earn.

If the government can operate correctly by taking 10% of income rather than 33% but takes 33% because those in power desire the extra money for graft or to give out favors in order to garner votes and campaign contributions so they can maintain their positions of power, to quote Hillary Clinton "what difference does it make." how much a person earns.

Fair enough. Have chaos.

Can't have what doesn't and never has existed.

I think free speech, and promotion of the education and critical thinking of the population will lead to progress in thinking.

Too bad so many governments want to stifle free speech and critical thinking. I don't ascribe to the idea that we progress as a society so much as we change sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.

If we can agree on more fundamental things like rights and principles, we can use these to argue for progress.

That's where constitutions come in handy as a way of expressing basic agreement on fundamental things like rights and principles. I would argue for doing what we consider right not what we consider progress as movement from bad to worse is a progression just not a beneficial one.

It depends what you mean by the words. What I'm trying to say is that a just legal system isn't the same as one's personal morals. eg: You can say that adultery is wrong, but that it shouldn't be illegal.

And both conclusions would be moral judgements. If one thinks a thing ought or ought not to be illegal one is making a moral judgement about the worth or lack of worth of that thing. If one says a thing is just or unjust it is a moral judgement.

I'd agree that there should be a good process for change.

Good

I don't think the writers of the US constitution (for example) were stupid or particularly less moral (slaves though? :s). But we don't have the benefit of having more lessons from history, and more time to have thought about issues in a rigorous way.

By the way, I don't have anything in the constitution in mind that needs change. Maybe some thing do, but I don't have any in mind really while writing this. I'm not hating on the current US constitution.

I was not suggesting you were doing any of the things I listed . It was a general statement that fits many if not the majority of the citizens of the US. I did not suppose you, as a citizen of a completely different country, were one of the ones I was alluding to and if you took it that way I assure you I did not mean it that way.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The conservative position would be to adhere as closely as possible to our founding document.

Perhaps, but only if you make the case that the liberal position has become to adhere as closely as possible to the status quo and that the conservative position has become to change the status quo to conform to our founding documents. I think I would prefer, due to the constant redefinitons the classic terms have undergone, to use less confusing language and say that there are statists and constitutionalists rather than liberals and conservatives. .

 

[dies-l]

Perhaps, but only if you make the case that the liberal position has become to adhere as closely as possible to the status quo and that the conservative position has become to change the status quo to conform to our founding documents. I think I would prefer, due to the constant redefinitons the classic terms have undergone, to use less confusing language and say that there are statists and constitutionalists rather than liberals and conservatives. .

Liberal and conservative have their value, but not in differentiating statist and libertarian. A libertarian can be liberal/progressive (like me) or more conservative (like, I assume, NHE). A statist can be conservative (like, I assume Creech) or liberal (sorry I don't have a specific name in mind, but there's lots). Liberal and conservative are more important to distinguish for statists than for libertarians. A liberal statist wants government to use its coercive power to promote liberal ideals. A conservative statist, conservative ideals. A libertarian wants to minimize the state's use of its coercive power to where it is vitally necessary, not to promote a specific liberal or conservative agenda.

 

[Creech]

That intolerance of European conservatism gave rise to fascism and Nazism.

I recommend you reject it, follow your religious convictions and let others make their own choices.

​

I think that is a silly argument. One could say that religion gave rise to many wars and conflicts in this world. Does that mean religion should be rejected?

 

[NightHawkeye]

I think that is a silly argument. One could say that religion gave rise to many wars and conflicts in this world. Does that mean religion should be rejected?

If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
​

I think if one wouldn't want to live under a totalitarian despot, then one shouldn't advocate that for others.

 

[Creech]

If any man have an ear, let him hear. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
​

I think if one wouldn't want to live under a totalitarian despot, then one shouldn't advocate that for others.

But I am not.

 

[NightHawkeye]

But I am not.

Good.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Here's a libertarian utopia...

Political theorist Murray Rothbard, a significant contributor to modern libertarianism, wrote in his essay Children and Rights that while parents cannot aggress against their children, they can in his libertarian utopia legitimately kill them by doing so passively, such as not feeding them. But far be it from anyone to suggest that the government or any other coercive, large entity require the parents to feed or even so much as transfer them to willing, capable guardians, for such a requirement trespasses on this absolute right of liberty of the individual! After all, to erect such a positive obligation opens the door to other such requirements in slippery slope fashion, or so we're to believe.

It should be perfectly clear that this worldview has nothing whatsoever to do with the concern for the well-being of people and their potential suffering. Of course this should come as no surprise to those who have understood libertarianism's deontological nature. To persist in a philosophical system that calls for a maniacal embrace of liberty as an absolute, so absolute even that it becomes diabolical to defend and blinds us to any other values we could possibly care about as homo sapiens, is to endeavor to become a psychopath even when one is not already dispositionally so (which makes it worse—why would anyone who isn’t a psychopath want to be and live in a society that would make even the most ambitious psychopath blush?).