You and me Monkeys! Libertarianism or bust...!

[_barrelomonkeys]

Are you talking about a pure Communist state?

As in everybody agrees, beleives and / or wants to be 'involved' in Communism?
Or do you mean the attempted 'implementation' by the goverment is 'pure' As in 'full on - no holes barred'?
Or is it neither of the above?

I wasn’t sure if you were suggesting a Communist state as those that are in the first stages of the transition to communism as Karl Marx envisioned (although he was rather vague about what precisely that society would look like other than a utopia) a theoretical communist society that has never been realized.

I think again, I probably knew what you meant. I just need to make sure we’re seeing eye to eye. Either way at some point in the transition I view that some citizens would have their liberties to property as well as their liberties of person (in the form of dissent, free assembly, etc..) stripped from them. I sense that you view this is acceptable if the majority believes it is acceptable that they strip the minority of their rights. I actually would have gotten extremely excited about this 10 years ago (that damn Rand cult indoctrinated me well) and told you all the things wrong with your reasoning in a diatribe. I just don’t care that much anymore. But I will say that I still view stripping people of their property and the extreme redistribution of wealth to ensure equality as being antithetical to a free society.

by the way, have you ever read Rand? That would probably help give you some insight into the mind of US libertarians.

So anyway a communist society would have no elections and everyone would be fully participating in the theoretical model of Marx. At the birth of communism you have the overthrow of the Bourgeoisie by the proletariat and must redistribute the wealth evenly. This in and of itself (appears to me) to be forcing individuals to relinquish their property for the state. I don’t really see this as utopia and (that Ayn Rand cult did effect me!?) view this as a dangerous attack on all individuality. I really don’t see any way that Communism can work as a form of government (even if the majority wishes for this to be the new form of government) where individuals are stripped of their property, their livelihoods, and all is turned over for the welfare of the common good where individual liberty is not infringed upon. I just don’t see how you believe no one has rights violated? Is this in how we view property? There are nuts and bolts to it where issues arise in the transitional phases (Marx assumed the true communist society would have no friction) that results in the stripping individuals of many of their previous states of living.

As a (US) Libertarian I would have disagreed with you. Vehemently.

On the notion of positive rights - period? Or just my interpertation of them?

Well I have actually shifted my thinking quite a bit on the notion of positive rights over the last few years. As a libertarian I would have been more concerned with negative rights and the state essentially not infringing upon those. I wasn’t very concerned with what the state would provide for the individual within the society. The biggest problem for me when it came to positive rights is that it forced someone (other than the individual) or the state to provide for someone else. That was antithetical to the libertarian philosophy as I embraced it.

I don’t view it that way now. Although I still have some difficulty embracing a minimum standard of living and a few other things that deal with welfare. There are no easy answers… I absolutely believe that education is a positive right and is essential to a free society. I actually believe that is the most fundamental of all positive rights which is ironic because that deals more with societal gains than individual. ;) My thinking is still in quite a bit of transition on the issue of positive rights. I’m not entirely sure where I stand.

Hmm.. well I don't really see it that way. I don't view the government the same as the bureacracy. Libertarians in America want to slice and dice the bureacracy and service sector of the government.

Hmmm - ok. So the 'bureacracy' and 'service' sectors are 'integrated parts' of the US goverment? Is that right?
You'll have to forgive my ignorance of how this all fits together in the US, but could you describe in a bit more detail how these different sectors work? What powers they have (or are meant to have), how they are directed (or how they are meant to be directed) etc. - from your point of view at least?

Well as my pov now I believe there are departments and services the government provides that should stay within the public sphere and not be privatized. As a libertarian and a Libertarian I would have wanted to slash almost all departments that provided services for the citizens. I would have wanted them to be privatized with the belief that a free market would work out all the kinks and have the maximum efficiency.

When I say government I think of the 3 branches and the constitution. The bureaucracy is a leviathan of such gross magnitude that it is something completely different in my mind.

Speaking of Leviathan you might want to look here, if you’re interested, at Hobbes and his impact on the founding father’s of America as well as many current political thoughts:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/ ... tents.html

Locke is someone else you may want to take a look at.

In the UK, we have the 'public' and 'private' sectors. But it get's messy. Currently, we have some parts of the NHS being 'privatised', but still (apparently) under 'public' direction. Just to give you an idea of some of the issues here...

I don't know if the parallels are accurate though...

You know I’m not sure. I’m sure I know less about the political climate and trends in the UK then you do about the US. I’m an ugly American I guess and just don’t know as much as I should. This has actually piqued my interest and I’ll be reading up on it!

So are you saying that America literally can't be called a 'democratic' country? That's it's actually technically wrong? Or are you saying that it's just the wrong way to think about it...?
The idea of a 'republic' and a 'democracy' aren't actually mutually exclusive are they? Isn't it more that it's a democracy 'within fixed borders' - so to speak?

Well no, I think it’s okay to call America a democracy, I’d wager most Americans say America is a democracy. It’s just not very accurate to think of America’s government as a democracy.

But in the meantime, what's your opinion on amendments to the constitution? If the democratically elected leaders of the country can 'add' to the constitution, does the constitiution actually perform the 'role' it is meant to - in your eyes?

Yah. Amendments are actually quite difficult to add to the constitution (another stumbling block the founders put in to add friction to the process) and I have no reason to believe that there is anything unsavory in the addition of amendments. As well as adding amendments there can be later amendments that amend the former amendments. ;)

The legislators at the federal level do not amend the constitution, it’s the state legislators that amend the constitution. by the way, the amendment to grant women the right to vote finally succeeded with a legislator in TN (where I live) when he said he couldn’t go home to his Mama without voting against his party and voting for the amendment. I just like that story. :D

I get the feeling were actually looking at each other now, as were talking ;)

Yah. Although you may have fallen asleep.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Just saw a news report on the TV that made me think of this thread.

There was a terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport a few weeks ago. A guy drove a jeep into a terminal, and then the jeep burst into flames.
The driver was arrested alive, but horribly burnt. I just saw in the report that the terrorist is being treated on the NHS!

I can't remember who made the comment (some poltician I guess), but this was the comment:
"This simply empathises the priority this country places on human life..."

Yah. Hmm... I like that in most industrialized countries there is a respect for human life. I think the US falls behind in that regard. I know we do actually.

[_Ren]

Either way at some point in the transition I view that some citizens would have their liberties to property as well as their liberties of person (in the form of dissent, free assembly, etc..) stripped from them. I sense that you view this is acceptable if the majority believes it is acceptable that they strip the minority of their rights.

Hmm - this is a point that really needs to be addressed. I don't think what you've said above represents my view - but that's probably because I haven't explained myself very well. Or my viewpoint is too wacky and unpractical to be even recognised at first glance - which I could well beleive!
Let me use a totally far-out hypothetical example to try and get my viewpoint across:

Let's imagine that literally every single person in a given state suddenly decides that - starting tomorrow - they are all becoming communists. (Let's imagine that this isn't' a republic - it has no 'constitution' that could oppose such a drastic change in attitude) Rather than any goverment official coming round to 'take anything from anybody', everybody is actually taking their stuff to the goverment of their own free will and saying 'Here ya go', entrusting them to create the classless utopia they are all giddily dreaming about.
All the individuals do this. All the businesses do this. (Handing over all the keys, authority etc.)

(I'm sure what I've just described as a 'sudden bout of communism' is horribly simplistic, but hopefully it's good enough to go along with the hypothetical situation for now...)

Every single person that is, except you (Or me, or whoever). You don't want this. At all.
So eventually someone turns up - at the border of your property - from the new communist goverment and asks 'OK - so when are you bringing over your "stuff" for assimulation into the Borg collective then?'
You - shotgun in hand - tell the goverment official that they'll get their hands on any of your 'stuff' over your dead body.

Now - before we go any further, have their been any attacks on Libertarianism up to this point? Hopefully, we can agree that there have not been.
But if the goverment official were to call in the cavalry, I would absolutely agree that that would be a direct attack on Libertarian principles. I mean, forget arguments about 'It's only the state that can acknowledge ownership anyway...' and all that malarky. I think any 'true' Libertarian should recognise the sheer attack on 'liberty' that act would entail.

Here's what I beleive the 'Libertarian' answer from the goverment official would be:
"Fair enough.". And then he walks off.

You get to keep everything you currently own. (As was established and agreed before the 'shift' in politics all around you). Your land. Your house. Your car. Your 'stuff'. All yours.
BUT, you are no longer considered 'An official member of the state', by the new communist state. (I've been wracking my brain with a term to use, and this is the best I can come up with right now...)

Ok - now I could go on for pages and pages with this example situation - that certainly isn't the end of the story of course! For one, the practicalities involved - I'll freely admit - are pretty rediculous. But what I'm hoping is that this get's across what I meant when I said "ALL people should have the option of opting out of society". I've made this example rediculously extreme to get the principle across, and also to try and disconnect it from 'real world' states - because I think that can muddy the waters a bit. This isn't America, or the UK, or any other known country. It's just a 'generic state'.

My position is:
No-one should be forced into a communist state. And I mean no-one.
But at the same time, I beleive that no minority should be able to tell the vast majority that the state CANNOT be communist! Going back to my extreme example, could it be considered to be in accordance with libertarian principles if - just because YOU didn't want the state to be communist, that would mean that every single other person in the state - with a sigh of moral indignation - have to take back 'all their stuff', and get busy with the capitalist dream?

But anyway, before I waffle on endlessly on this example, maybe it's best if you indicate if your even able to take the situation seriously - or whether you see the example as flawed for all kinds of reasons. What I'm worried about is that I'll waffle on for pages and pages, only to find that you find the situation a flawed one (as far as sensible examination) right from the off...
I'm guessing the objection may not be with the literal situation itself, but more with the way it comes about. I'm guessing the objection might be that 'It just wouldn't happen that way...'.

by the way, have you ever read Rand? That would probably help give you some insight into the mind of US libertarians.

I haven't - no. I'll make an effort to.
Anything you recommend to start with?

I've read though the rest of your post. There's some good explination and information on the US situation there, and I'll take some time and get more familiar with it. You've given me a lot of good information to mull over. (And I already had plenty to mull over before - so apologies for not having much more to say at this point. I'm gonna need some time [or a new brain] first!)
But currently, I'm thinking that a lot of the basics here rest on what you have to say about the example I've given above. So I'm gonna wait to see what you have to say about it before going further...

[_barrelomonkeys]

Short answer Renegade.

If everyone collectively decides to turn their property over to the state that is not an infringement upon anyone's liberty. That's free will. We agree!


I don't own a shotgun. But I'd probabably hike over to my dad's house cause he has a crap load of guns and is waiting for the Chinese to attack. :p

I may think it's stupid to turn over everying to the state, but as a libertarian I shouldn't concern myself with other's stupidity as long as they don't infringe upon my own ability to be stupid in turn. :D

[Guest]

by the way, have you ever read Rand? That would probably help give you some insight into the mind of US libertarians.

I haven't - no. I'll make an effort to.
Anything you recommend to start with?

I'd suggest Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead. That's a good place to start.

*the cult singing Blondie softly in the background "One way or another, we're gonna find ya, we're gonna getcha getcha, getcha, getcha"*

[_barrelomonkeys]

I just thought of something I'd like to know from your perspective. What about the state as a nanny? Do you believe the state can impose their morality on the citizens? What about your view of drugs? Suicide? Essentially anything that protects a person from themself. I'd be really interested to know your thoughts on these things from a UK left Libertarian perspective! Please blather on as much as I did.

:D

[_Ren]

Barrel,
It really seems like were building up some common ground from which to work from here, which is very cool.
Don't worry - it won't be boring for too long though. I'm sure we'll get back to disagreement in due course. But at least it feels like we are moving off from the same spot now.

Don't really have time now to do a full reply, but just to give you an idea of where I wanna go...

First - as I mentioned, I've been mulling the idea of the constitution around for a while now, and I really am having a problem with it within a Libertarian framework. I think such an idea has all the best intentions, but can be considered to ultimately contridict Libertarianism. But of course - hopefully I can keep an open mind as we going along. (Or at least, I'll certainly be claiming to be!)
I also wanna go further with the example I came up with - in both the timeline of the example itself (what happens next...), but also in terms of trying to relate to a more believable situation, and some historical situations that I see that kind of relate to it.
And I wanna try and tie it all in with the details about the US you provided me with earlier. I certainly think I understand the kind of issues you have in mind better now.

I've done big old long (boring, pointless) dialogues on suicide and drugs on the MAD board - I'll see about looking it up and pulling it over.Actually,I think I remember linking you to it on the MAD board. If you look back there, you might be able to find it. I was talking with 3ODP about it...
Might have to wait till tomorrow actually... But don't worry - in the words of the great statesman himself:

"I'll be back"

*the cult singing Blondie softly in the background "One way or another, we're gonna find ya, we're gonna getcha getcha, getcha, getcha"*

Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean their not out to get me! *looks around nervously*

Heh - I f'ing love Blondie!
'The tide is high, but I'm holdin' on!'

[_barrelomonkeys]

Short answer again. Sorry. I have a sick child at home today. And my 3 year old got into some green food coloring.


I believe a constitution is an essential requirement to state the rights of the citizens, the responsibilities of the government, and place a limit as to the scope of government.


I'll be back later with the rest.

[_Ren]

I believe a constitution is an essential requirement to state the rights of the citizens, the responsibilities of the government, and place a limit as to the scope of government.

*blink* Woah -paradigm shift!
...ermm - yeah. You're right. Even in my model, I'd need a constitution.
Sheesh, I feel foolish.

Without a constitution, the population could vote themselves into a state run by a party that promised to abolish democracy for good...!
...and that don't jibe with my view on things. Not at all...

Ok - well, I'm sold. And I'll have to ponder how I missed that...!
But ok - while were on a roll, here's another question that may help me decide how 'thick' this consitiution (that I now agree is required) should be.

Let's take the example I described earlier, and apply it to one of the states. Given the forum, let's use Utah - for fun ;)
Let's imagine that every single citizen of Utah woke up tomorrow morning and decided that they wanted Utah to become a communist state.
...what would happen? Could it happen? (I don't mean could the people come to this conclsion - I mean could the communist state actually come to be?) And how would the current US constitution interact with the new-found madness of the inhabitants?

[_Ren]

Barrel,

For that discussion I had with 3DOP about suicide and drugs:
Start here:
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208187369

Keep going for a few posts. 3-4 or so.
You even get some prostitution thrown in for free...!