Opinion Is Libertarianism/Anarchy left or right?

[grimballer]

So how is that stuff not “big government” compared to, say, funding universal health care? Isn’t it just a difference in priorities, any of which are expected to be enforced by the government?

without police/military you would essentially have anarchy and then it would lead to the tyranny of the strongest.

So most libertarians agree some type of government is need to avoid a complete chaos.

now with individual rights and freedoms also comes individual responsibilities.

if you wanna be free from big government overreach you gotta accept some personal responsibility as well.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Today in terms of demanding conformity and wanting to use the government to achieve it?

absolutely. Republicans are more tolerant than progressives. Only a partisan hack would deny it.

also what’s called “liberal” today is not the same thing as classical liberal.

classic liberals are closer to today’s libertarians.

I realize that some libertarians try to brand themselves as "classical liberals," but if you actually read people like Smith and Mill, you'll see that they are liberals. Of course there's a pretty wide range of views that are consistent with liberalism. Might be better to make a distinction between left-leaning liberals and right-leaning liberals.

I think it's comical that anyone would think that Republicans are *more* tolerant than progressives. They're obsessed with trying to prevent transgendered people from living their lives, they try to enforce cultural homogeneity, they oppose gays being allowed to marry, etc. The party doesn't even really have a policy agenda beyond demands for conformity. Another way to look at it is that liberals tend to live in cities and rightists tend to live in rural areas. Which of those types of places is more diverse?

 

[brother mouzone]

Lolwut? Fascism is at the same level as communism on this graph?

Ya how crazy is it to think that all totalitarian governments demanding servitude by its subjects belong on the same spectrum

 

[sickc0d3r]

Because it's the governments original intention to protect and serve the community from both internal and external threats. Being stronger in relation to these functions does not denote an expansion of their purview but a strengthening within it.

Funding of universal health care would be an addition to their original intention and therefore an expansion of their purview.

But of course there is a difference in priorities and how we exercise government power from its outset to deal with issues later on.

Sounds to me like rationalizing based on which kind of big government you prefer. Health problems are an internal and external threat and a public concern, health is essential to to the pursuit of happiness. Also, environmental changes are an external threat, are environmental protections an example of big government?

 

[grimballer]

I realize that some libertarians try to brand themselves as "classical liberals," but if you actually read people like Smith and Mill, you'll see that they are liberals. Of course there's a pretty wide range of views that are consistent with liberalism. Might be better to make a distinction between left-leaning liberals and right-leaning liberals.

I think it's comical that anyone would think that Republicans are *more* tolerant than progressives. They're obsessed with trying to prevent transgendered people from living their lives, they try to enforce cultural homogeneity, they oppose gays being allowed to marry, etc. The party doesn't even really have a policy agenda beyond demands for conformity. Another way to look at it is that liberals tend to live in cities and rightists tend to live in rural areas. Which of those types of places is more diverse?

So? Teheran Iran is more diverse than Shelby Alabama, do you think Teheran is more liberal and less conforming than Shelby?

Also I don’t think I’ve ever heard a republican say men shouldn’t be allow to have sex with other men and trans shouldn’t be allowed to have sex change surgeries.

So republicans are not preventing certain groups from living their lives.

progressives, on the other hand, are imposing their views on others.

They want to force ppl to view a biological man as a woman and if they disagree, they should be sanctioned for it.

Same with ssm. Progressives want to force ppl to accept their own definition of marriage and if they don’t comply then they should be punished for it.

 

[grimballer]

Sounds to me like rationalizing based on which kind of big government you prefer. Health problems are an internal and external threat and a public concern, health is essential to to the pursuit of happiness. Also, environmental changes are an external threat, are environmental protections an example of big government?

So is crime and terrorism...

should then government have to right to spy on everybody and install cameras everywhere and force ppl to wear tracking devices for the “greater good” of society?

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Sounds to me like rationalizing based on which kind of big government you prefer. Health problems are an internal and external threat and a public concern, health is essential to to the pursuit of happiness. Also, environmental changes are an external threat, are environmental protections an example of big government?

It's safe to say that if you are being literal in translating the constitution that you probably won't have much ground for universal health care no matter how you interpret it but of course all these things are open to interpretation. If you want more insight then perhaps you should read up on the philosophers most responsible for influencing the document itself for clarity.

If it's interpreted to mean that than sure no problem. If you are asking me i do feel like Environmental protection is a direct responsibility of the government and contrary to what a lot of people believe conservatives aren't necessarily against top down solutions but even then that's open to interpretation......the solution that is.

So for instance. Health as you say is essential to the pursuit of happiness. If it is deemed, constitutionally speaking, essential, does that mean we have to address it with universal health care or could we simply choose another path? If you are already sick then how has government guaranteed your health? Shouldn't it prevent it rather than treat it? Maybe we should restrict things rather than provide them or perhaps we should penalize being obese etc etc.

Im just trying to offer some more perspective on this issue.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So? Teheran Iran is more diverse than Shelby Alabama, do you think Teheran is more liberal and less conforming than Shelby?

Iran has 99% of the population with the same religion. I wouldn't say it's more diverse than Alabama (don't know Shelby, specifically).

Also I don’t think I’ve ever heard a republican say men shouldn’t be allow to have sex with other men and trans shouldn’t be allowed to have sex change surgeries.

But you have heard them say that it's a super important issue that we use state power to prevent trans people from using the bathroom or volunteer at libraries, and that we shouldn't treat them with respect, etc. And that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Also, as I said, they're more likely to try to use the gov't to engineer more ethnic homogeneity. And that people of certain religious persuasions are not real Americans, etc. I think you spoke without thinking, but you gotta admit that this notion of Republicans as more tolerant of nonconformists is pretty crazy.

progressives, on the other hand, are imposing their views on others.

They want to force ppl to view a biological man as a woman and if they disagree, they should be sanctioned for it.

Progressives want to force all men to be viewed as women? Not any that I've ever heard of. I think you're confusing "treat people with respect, even if they're eccentric" with "force everyone to be the same." That's as wrong as it's possible to be.

Same with ssm. Progressives want to force ppl to accept their own definition of marriage and if they don’t comply then they should be punished for it.

Wait, what? What punishment have you seen progressives propose? And until very recently, people *were* in fact forced to accept one definition of marriage (and Republicans even codified that into law). Many Republicans still support that. Again, it doesn't seem that you thought this one through, or do you think that "conformity" means that everyone does their own thing, and "nonconformity" means that you force everyone to do the same thing?

 

[sickc0d3r]

without police/military you would essentially have anarchy and then it would lead to the tyranny of the strongest.

So most libertarians agree some type of government is need to avoid a complete chaos.

now with individual rights and freedoms also comes individual responsibilities.

if you wanna be free from big government overreach you gotta accept some personal responsibility as well.

I just think regardless of which forms of government force you support it is disingenuous to call one thing "big government" and the other "small government". Obviously, if you like that our military is bigger than the rest of the world's combined, you like big government.

 

[sickc0d3r]

So is crime and terrorism...

should then government have to right to spy on everybody and install cameras everywhere and force ppl to wear tracking devices for the “greater good” of society?

No. How is that relevant to anything I have said?

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

No. How is that relevant to anything I have said?

You are indicting others of picking and choosing what the government can and cannot do yet you clearly just drew a line in the same way. You are being hypocritical in other words.

That's why it's relevant.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I realize that some libertarians try to brand themselves as "classical liberals," but if you actually read people like Smith and Mill, you'll see that they are liberals. Of course there's a pretty wide range of views that are consistent with liberalism. Might be better to make a distinction between left-leaning liberals and right-leaning liberals.

"Some"?? They pretty much all do! This is the go-to position for all conservatives that want to sound smart and sophisticated. They realize that being a neocon is shameful because of all the military aggression and Christian fundamentalism stuff, so they're "classical liberals" because they hate taxes (limited government) and are cool with weed (personal liberty).

They preposterously think classical liberals were sociopaths like them and would be cool with amassing as much wealth and power as possible and telling the public to fuck off.

But here's the classicalist of all classical liberals, the so-called father of capitalism, Adam Smith railing against the greed of big business. (And this isn't in some obscure letter or lecture, this in The Wealth of Nations.)

In a particularly vitriolic passage in Book 4, Smith denounces "the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers," and condemns them for their "impertinent jealousy." More bothersome to Smith than their

― 222 ―
"monopolizing spirit" is the fact that merchants and manufacturers have connived to deceive the public; they have duped the latter into believing that what serves the interest of these capitalist groups automatically serves the public interest. "The interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers," Smith writes, "confounded the common sense of mankind."

https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpres...chunk.id=d0e4986&toc.id=d0e4670&brand=ucpress

Right-wingers need to just deal with the fact that their ideological forebears are in the shameful, forgotten bin of history.

 

[Falsedawn]

It's really an accomplishment how current right-wingers have made themselves the ideological inheritors of the Founding Fathers, and of classical liberals in general. All because they were "against the government."

"Against the government" in the mid-late 1700s = against the most oppressive institutions of the time, namely the crown and the church. These were pretty radical ideas and the complete opposite of conservative thought.

To think that the 21st century equivalent of these radicals would be in favor of strengthening the most oppressive institutions of THIS era (private capital) is insane. And yes, strengthening private capital is exactly what happens when you de-regulate, lower corporate taxes, and do all the other things Republicans favor.

Classical liberals and the Founding Fathers would be far left, dangerous globalists today.

You're fighting an uphill battle with these derps.

I see El Concession is in here trying to play like kings are left wing again. He's not the brightest crayon in the box.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

You're fighting an uphill battle with these derps.

I see El Concession is in here trying to play like kings are left wing again. He's not the brightest crayon in the box.

Wow Jack let you outside of your cage today? Remember the time you tried luring me into the left lounge because you couldn't argue a point on your own and then you conceded any ways? Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

Oh how cute you pay for a platinum membership.

 

[Falsedawn]

Wow Jack let you outside of your cage today? Remember the time you tried luring me into the left lounge because you couldn't argue a point on your own and then you conceded any ways? Pepperidge Farm Remembers.

Oh how cute you pay for a platinum membership.

You mean the time when you tried to tell me that monarchy was a left wing system of government?

You and being deadass wrong go together like Whitney Houston and crack, which is ironic because you might just be the product of crack.

 

[sickc0d3r]

You are indicting others of picking and choosing what the government can and cannot do yet you clearly just drew a line in the same way. You are being hypocritical in other words.

That's why it's relevant.

That's not true, please show me where I am indicting anyone for what they think the government should do. I'm just trying to get coherent definitions of big and small government that don't mean "more stuff I like and less stuff I don't like", but apparently none are forthcoming.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

You mean the time when you tried to tell me that monarchy was a left wing system of government?

You and being deadass wrong go together like Whitney Houston and crack, which is ironic because you might just be the product of crack.

It coincided with the time you attempted to flex your knowledge on the subject because you read the fascists manifesto.......a fucking pamphlet.

"Ahumbly bumbly do you even know what facism means? I have read the manifesto in it's entirety now let me tag you in the left lounge for some even handed platinum paying conversation"





Don't you have a calcium deficiency to tend to?

 

[Falsedawn]

It coincided with the time you attempted to flex your knowledge on the subject because you read the fascists manifesto.......a fucking pamphlet.

"Ahumbly bumbly do you even know what facism means? I have read the manifesto in it's entirety now let me tag you in the left lounge for some even handed platinum paying conversation"





Don't you have a calcium deficiency to tend to?

So let me get this right, i'm not smart because I read The Doctrine of Fascism and constructed an argument quoting it directly, but you're smart because you consistently give false information in outright contradiction to not only history, but the avowed beliefs of the people representing those systems of government?

Son, you went full retard. And not just because you're the Jenny McCarthy V.D. of the War Room. Oh yeah, I forgot the poli sci degree, whatever good that scrap is doing for your goofy ass lmfao.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

So let me get this right, i'm not smart because I read The Doctrine of Fascism and constructed an argument quoting it directly, but you're smart because you consistently give false information in outright contradiction to not only history, but the avowed beliefs of the people representing those systems of government?

Son, you went full retard. And not just because you're the Jenny McCarthy V.D. of the War Room. Oh yeah, I forgot the poli sci degree, whatever good that scrap is doing for your goofy ass lmfao.

Stopped at the bolded part for misinformation. I have no problem actually sorting it out for you if you'd like however.

Im trying to stop myself from saying that you are a right winger as well.

You guys have a hierarchy and you don't even realize it. Jack is the one who holds the leash you are the one that wears it, Trotsky and fawlty are the gay couple next door and rational is there pet that humps you ever so gently.


obligatory

 

[Falsedawn]

Stopped at the bolded part for misinformation. I have no problem actually sorting it out for you if you'd like however.

Im trying to stop myself from saying that you are a right winger as well.

You guys have a hierarchy and you don't even realize it. Jack is the one who holds the leash you are the one that wears it, Trotsky and fawlty are the gay couple next door and rational is there pet that humps you ever so gently.


obligatory

I'm going to ask you a really important question, and I think you need to answer it for this conversation to continue in earnest.

King George, the guy the revolutionaries y'know, revolted against. Was he left wing or right wing? By your standards.

How did the economy run a the time? Was he a functional monarch that dictated law? Was their a representative democracy/republic in place at the time of king George? Was there a constitution that they (the citizens) adhered to in the time of king george? Were their checks and balances on power to protect from over reach? How about individual liberties and freedoms did they have em?

Either way yes by my standards and how history has currently unravelled he is absolutely a leftist. Being a radical egalitarian isn't a precondition to being a leftist anymore. I clearly define this along statist/anti-statist and collectivist/individualist lines. Any form of bloated centralized authority will always be on the left. Regardless of your feelings on how the republican party is being run.

Now honest question. What is a right winger?

I'm taking it to the lounge because you just honestly told me that King George was the left wing goddamn King of England. I just can't. You're way farther along on the path than I am.

Who knew, the October Revolution was left on left violence. Fuck me running, this is amazing.

That king, who was both head of state and head of his church, presiding over an Empire of conquest? What a fuckin' liberal!!!!

Oh and here's the post you staunchly refused to address too, you mental midget.

https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/134581947/