What's the next guilt stick?

[Yorkness]

You also cannot say that someone else is moral or immoral for the same reason. Again libertarianism doesn't restrict you personal beliefs in morality, it simply doesn't allow you to impose them on anyone else.

Look, this is why I dont use pure ideology. Libertarianism in not allowing imposition would be imposing itself. It's libertarian principles would be imposing the act of imposition by another ideology. This could effectively be called imposing itself on someone else. I think libertarian ideology is not very easy to define or defend for that matter because of it's anarchaic principles of basically "anything goes".

[eyeball]

Unfortunately libertarians are given very little choice in politicians which align exactly with their beliefs. In many cases conservative politicians allign with a libertarian's free market philosophy but do not align with tthe view of imposing moral standards on others. More then likely libertarians pick conservatives as a best fit even if all policies don't align.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "conservative". At its very root definition "convservative" means perserving the status quo, so if you go by that definition then not surprisingly conservatives would be against any change including change to environmental policies. Somehow you seem to lump libertarians with conservatives. I think that this is wrong.

This is the definition I'm using and if you place the prospect of a few more dollars in your wallet above the victims of conservative moral engineering then you fit the definition I usually use for libertarians. I think this goes way beyond wrong.

Libertarians have some policies in common with typical conservatives and other policies with typical liberals. I suggest that by lumping them all together you are not getting a true picture of what motivates either group.

What motivates conservatives and libertarians is an utter mystery to me and frankly I don't care. The results of the alignment are what count when they're lumped together, which is a disproportionate amount of conservatism in our representation and less liberty in our society.

Given that our representation is even further distorted by our FPTP system I have even more justification to be pissed-off.

Edited January 8, 2009 by eyeball

[Renegade]

Look, this is why I dont use pure ideology. Libertarianism in not allowing imposition would be imposing itself. It's libertarian principles would be imposing the act of imposition by another ideology. This could effectively be called imposing itself on someone else. I think libertarian ideology is not very easy to define or defend for that matter because of it's anarchaic principles of basically "anything goes".

No, I don't think that libertaian ideology is a ideolgy of anything goes. It recognizes that some impositions are necessary. What it sees to do is maximize freedoms and to do so, recognizes that some limits are necessary. ("Your ability to extend your arm ends where my face begins")

[Renegade]

This is the definition I'm using and if you place the prospect of a few more dollars in your wallet above the victims of conservative moral engineering then you fit the definition I usually use for libertarians. I think this goes way beyond wrong.

Given that you don't seem to be an expert on libertarian philosophy, I'm not sure your definition is very usefull to me. As I've said libertarians as well as anyone else are everyone else are faced with tradeoffs in their choices of state representation. A libertarian may agree with homosexual marriages, pro- choice and free markets. A "conservative" party may support only some of those policies. A "liberal" party may support others. A libertarian is left to choose which policies are most important to him to have implemented and align with the appropriate party.

What motivates conservatives and libertarians is an utter mystery to me and frankly I don't care. The results of the alignment are what count when they're lumped together, which is a disproportionate amount of conservatism in our representation and less liberty in our society.

I think if you actually were able to make an argument that you can increase liberty, you may get more support from libertarians. Positions which forcibly extract more taxes, do not seem consistent with more liberty.

Given that our representation is even further distorted by our FPTP system I have even more justification to be pissed-off.

It's your right to be pissed off. I'm pissed too at the lack of choice in how much and where my tax dollars go. So... welcome to the pissed off club.

[Yorkness]

No, I don't think that libertaian ideology is a ideolgy of anything goes. It recognizes that some impositions are necessary. What it sees to do is maximize freedoms and to do so, recognizes that some limits are necessary. ("Your ability to extend your arm ends where my face begins")

Great quote at the end. This is what I wanted to understand. That Libertarianism does have it's restrictions and is not a great free for all. Thanks.

[Pliny]

Both are policies favoured by libertarians. I can never figure out why people who believe in free markets don't believe in free choice.

Libertarians would never favour anything tax funded.

[Pliny]

I believe you dont take into account the fact that though one can be libertarian in economic terms yet also perfectly be conservative morally.

The next guilt stick could possibly be the legitimacy of minority governments.

Right. It is perfectly logical to be libertarian and morally conservative. The libertarian would allow others their own moral choices but not through legislation.

...and that may be the next guilt stick!

Edited January 11, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Look, this is why I dont use pure ideology. Libertarianism in not allowing imposition would be imposing itself. It's libertarian principles would be imposing the act of imposition by another ideology. This could effectively be called imposing itself on someone else. I think libertarian ideology is not very easy to define or defend for that matter because of it's anarchaic principles of basically "anything goes".

Only some Libertarians are anarchists. Most are anarcho-capitalists meaning government should not intervene or attempt to engineer the economy and neither should it be involved in social engineering. It's mandate and scope should be very limited and society should be left to evolve as the general populace creates it. Libertarianism only condemns the initiation of force against another without his consent.

Anarchy in my estimation is an ideal and like heaven or hell both is not desirable although the preference toward one over the other is just as obvious as the preference toward anarchy over totalitarianism.

[Yorkness]

Only some Libertarians are anarchists. Most are anarcho-capitalists meaning government should not intervene or attempt to engineer the economy and neither should it be involved in social engineering. It's mandate and scope should be very limited and society should be left to evolve as the general populace creates it. Libertarianism only condemns the initiation of force against another without his consent.

Anarchy in my estimation is an ideal and like heaven or hell both is not desirable although the preference toward one over the other is just as obvious as the preference toward anarchy over totalitarianism.

I was refering to anarchy in economic, and not politcal terms.

[eyeball]

Libertarians would never favour anything tax funded.

You guys are all for using public funds to send the military around the world aren't you?

[eyeball]

QUOTE(Riverwind @ Dec 30 2008, 05:26 PM)

I can never figure out why people who believe in free markets don't believe in free choice.

Neither can I, Riverwind. I like to think that the silent majority has more common sense than those who constantly beat the drum with inconsistent messages.

So...how about we let that silent majority excersize its free choice and demonstrate its common sense in a vote on climate change action?

I can't believe how anyone who preaches free choice would also deny it, notwithstanding Libertarians of course they don't seem to have any problem at all with inconsistent principles.

[Pliny]

You guys are all for using public funds to send the military around the world aren't you?

Not me. Can't speak for the others.

[BigAl]

You're the only one many others are afraid of me seeing them for what they are, liars.

I don't know if it's so much to do with that, Mr. Canada, as it is that people tend to be leery about meeting with folks of extreme opinion in a "real-life" setting...I'm sure you're quite astute and calm in reality, but I try to make it a habit to keep life online separate from life in the world, just as a matter of safety. For the record, I think most of the people on this board (despite my limited experience here) are probably just as devoutly devoted to their opinions in their real lives as you are in yours. I hate to think there would be so many "liars" otherwise.