Subject: United States: Election Time

I could care less what Libertarianism is, it is just an idea, a shadow in a wall that might be bigger or smaller depends on where the sun hits the wall, it's nothing, like communism, democracy or any other political-economical idea.

It's an idea so it's nothing. A bit a dark way to see it, no?

HIS ideas aim to make a bigger gap between the poor and the rich.

You can say they would make the gap bigger (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but you cannot say the increase of that gap is the aim of his libertarian ideas. You can say that, but what you say would be nothing ;-)

I want the government out of my life. I don't want a nanny state saying what I can and can't do in every aspect of my life. That's the problem of collectivist ideologies: they always tend to a totalitarian (not necessarily authoritarian!) state.

It's an idea so it's nothing. A bit a dark way to see it, no?

At all levels poitical-economic ideas are brilliant and flawless. How those ideas are materialized is what really matters.

You can say they would make the gap bigger (which is not necessarily a bad thing)
For someone that obviously is on the right side of the gap, who has access to internet and can spend his time on an online game.

but you cannot say the increase of that gap is the aim of his libertarian ideas.
Again I could care less about libertarian ideas, I do care to be ruled by a guy that wants to weaken even more public health and education in a country that it is already hard an expensive.


I want the government out of my life. I don't want a nanny state saying what I can and can't do in every aspect of my life.

Good luck with that! You will need luck and a load s*%^ of guns to keep doing what "you can in any aspect of your life".

That's the problem of collectivist ideologies: they always tend to a totalitarian
Imagine how totalitarian is going to be a non collectivist ideology then!

Imagine how totalitarian is going to be a non collectivist ideology then!

I think you don't understand the meaning of 'totalitarian'. If you do, you're trolling and not worthy to reply.

I think you dont clearly understand that your "liberty" ends up where the "liberties" of the others begin, your point of view is quite selfish and have no consideration at all to the less fortunate, and you sole answer saying that I am not worthy of your reply clearly indicates that you put yourself one step above the rest.

Also the fact that you decide to reply only to a small portion of my argument shows indication that you indeed dont know how to debate, but don't worry, you are totally worth replying.

And yes, I know what totalitarian means.

I think you dont clearly understand that your "liberty" ends up where the "liberties" of the others begin

I agree on that. That's why I like libertarianism.

your point of view is quite selfish and have no consideration at all to the less fortunate

Not true. Your POV is that the less fortunate can only be helped by a strong state in a collectivist system.

and you sole answer saying that I am not worthy of your reply clearly indicates that you put yourself one step above the rest.

I only reply on things I believe were meant serious.

And yes, I know what totalitarian means.

I seriously doubt that. If you did, you wouldn't have said that particular sentence.

You can say they would make the gap bigger (which is not necessarily a bad thing)

for a lot of ppl that will be a bad thing. Ever been to a third world country?

for a lot of ppl that will be a bad thing. Ever been to a third world country?

I was talking about US/Canada/Europe.

He doesn't realise what reality would look like if his ideals were to come true. Right now the only reason he is able to educate himself is precisely because he does live in a 'nanny state'. Had he lived in 19th century England, he would probably have died by now.

Because libertarians want to go back to 19th century-England. Even for you, that's weak.

I want the government out of my life. I don't want a nanny state saying what I can and can't do in every aspect of my life. That's the problem of collectivist ideologies: they always tend to a totalitarian (not necessarily authoritarian!) state.

The idea of liberty/freedom is simply an illusion, you can't blame state for the rules it gives us, unless you blame the same way the economy system for the other rules it gives us. I wonder when someone will start to blame nature for its phisical rules it gives us..

The point I think you miss is that freedom is not something you can build avoiding rules.. (in philosophical thought in the 1800 it was already plain..), you need to build up that idea in a different way!
I'm very surprised some people still belive this in this century.

The idea of liberty/freedom is simply an illusion, you can't blame state for the rules it gives us, unless you blame the same way the economy system for the other rules it gives us. I wonder when someone will start to blame nature for its phisical rules it gives us..

What a comparison. The laws of physics weren't invented by humans. They existed, and after that, the humans began to understand how they worked (we still don't know everything). Laws that limit our personal freedom however are invented by humans. They aren't laws that already existed before the human development. Laws that limit our personal freedom (in areas where we don't limit others' freedom) are just an expression of some humans imposing their way of life on the life of the others.

For instance, in most of the United States, it's illegal to marry a human of your own sex. If you don't like to marry a man yourself (if you're a man), then don't. But why should you forbid others to do the same because of your way of life?

(And the same-sex marriage is just an example (in (Western) Europe, luckily most people aren't against same-sex marriage), you can do the same with all other violations of personal freedom.)

The point I think you miss is that freedom is not something you can build avoiding rules.. (in philosophical thought in the 1800 it was already plain..), you need to build up that idea in a different way!

I don't want to avoid all rules. I want a limit set of rules, which contains the basic human rights (right to live, right on freedom of speech, ...) and some rules to organize society (about police, justice, infrastructure). All other laws should be abolished. I don't see how that wouldn't make us more free than we are today. Tell me.

I don't want to avoid all rules. I want a limit set of rules, which contains the basic human rights (right to live, right on freedom of speech, ...) and some rules to organize society (about police, justice, infrastructure). All other laws should be abolished. I don't see how that wouldn't make us more free than we are today. Tell me.

It's too complex to explain in a forum (300 years of constitutional and philosofical thought..) and moreover for my poor english!

but you found the point:
you need a set of rules for .. (something)
in the defining of that something you want, you CHOOSE the limit of rules!

But you still miss that freedom is not the same for everyone.

The point is that if I say: "anyone can go wherever he wants"
I didn't offer that freedom to everyone, I permit it only tho ones that can afford it. It's more freedom for someone, less for others..
If I say:"anyone must be counted as one and has the right to vote his representants"
I didn't guaranteed anything, unless I give everyone instruction and access to a free information to know what he's doing.
Again more freedom for someone (that can have it by themselves), less for others..
If you abolish all labour rules you will not get more freedom in working! you'll get less if you offer work, more you buy it..
If you decide sanity is private, the ones that can buy it will have a choice about what to do, the others will not..


lets make an example of the needs that lead to stabilsh rules:
Freedom of movement: anyone can go wherever he wants?
No, not in private property.
anyone can go wherever he wants. except in pr. properties?
No, not where you ruin a important public value (parks, institutions, museums)
anyone can go wherever he wants? except in pr. properties and other deterinated areas?
No, if I had not the money to pay a car how can I be free to go wherever I want?
anyone can go wherever he wants? except in pr. properties and other deterinated areas, and there must be some kind of affordable public transportation.

And I can go on..

Unless you think that state rules and economic possibilities are not related, but this is simply stupid, the idea of property itself cannot exist without a state protection of it.


The word I contest more on your speech is that "US", there's no "us" in setting rules. Every rules is an advantage for someone and a disvantage for someone else..
and we set rules on our balances of power..

I'd like to add some ideas :

A private property is related to a lack of liberty... Why ? Because as soon as private property has been decided by someone, it obstructs the liberty of the other. If someone takes control of some space, it obstructs liberty of the other. How can we define the ability to have some private property ? Or by being the stronger and it destroys the liberty of the other or by creating rules defined by some people (always the stronger) who declare who has the liberty to have some space and it destroys again the liberty of the other.

It's always equally amazing that tragicomic absurdity of the left worldview which offers only evolution as an answer to what brought us here and then equally hopelessly tries to deny evolution as an answer to where we have to go further.

Evolution is the survival of the strongest. Economies function well when economic evolution is working. So, we need to have the stronger and the weaker and then the stronger need to act humanely toward the weaker. But first we need to know who are the stronger and who are the weaker.
(edited)

The point is that if I say: "anyone can go wherever he wants"
I didn't offer that freedom to everyone, I permit it only tho ones that can afford it. It's more freedom for someone, less for others..

You did offer that freedom to everyone. That some people don't have the money to use a car/train/whatever is irrelevant to the question. You gave him the opportunity to go wherever he wants. I don't have the money to go into space, does that make me less free than the ones that do have the money? No. It limits my movement, of course, but that limitation is not due to a collectivist institution.

So yes, freedom is not the same for everyone. Some people have more money to use their liberties more/better than other people. So what? Is that unequal? Yes. Is that unfair? No.

lets make an example of the needs that lead to stabilsh rules:
Freedom of movement: anyone can go wherever he wants?
No, not in private property.

Of course not, "my liberty stops where yours starts".

anyone can go wherever he wants. except in pr. properties?
No, not where you ruin a important public value (parks, institutions, museums)

What is important value? For me, a church isn't, for others, it is. For me, museums are important, for others, they aren't. Who are you (or me) to determine what is important value and what is not? There is no public value. Their is only private, individual value. What people like you call public value is just what a certain group (you inclusive) think is important. Their is no truth however about what is important value and what is not, so don't impose your idea about important value on others.

Those who want to go to museums, must pay for it. Why should people who don't like museums pay for museums (museums get subventions which are paid by the tax payers, so the people who don't like museums pay for the museums too)?

anyone can go wherever he wants? except in pr. properties and other deterinated areas?
No, if I had not the money to pay a car how can I be free to go wherever I want?

You are still free to go wherever you want, even without the money. That you won't get there (like I can't get into space) because you don't have the money, doesn't change your freedom.

You could say of course that in that case, your freedom is useless. That's true in some occasions, yes. But still, you are free.

anyone can go wherever he wants? except in pr. properties and other deterinated areas, and there must be some kind of affordable public transportation.

Public transportation is not necessary. If there is demand for such service, it will be offered. Hail the free market ;-)

Unless you think that state rules and economic possibilities are not related, but this is simply stupid, the idea of property itself cannot exist without a state protection of it.

I never said there should be no state. I never said state rules and economic possibilities are unrelated. That is stupid indeed. However, as I've never said that before, I don't see why you would bring that up here. I don't like libertinism, I like libertarianism.

The word I contest more on your speech is that "US", there's no "us" in setting rules. Every rules is an advantage for someone and a disvantage for someone else..

That's what I say. I say their is no 'us'. That's why we need as less rules as possible. The only rules (apart from organizational rules, for police, justice) should be the ones who protect the liberties of the people.

and we set rules on our balances of power..

Most rules are made in order for the people in charge to keep the power.

A private property is related to a lack of liberty... Why ? Because as soon as private property has been decided by someone, it obstructs the liberty of the other. If someone takes control of some space, it obstructs liberty of the other. How can we define the ability to have some private property ? Or by being the stronger and it destroys the liberty of the other or by creating rules defined by some people (always the stronger) who declare who has the liberty to have some space and it destroys again the liberty of the other.

If you follow this logic, your right to live is a violation of my liberty (in which I could kill you). This is a libertine logic that makes a society impossible. That's why I prefer not to follow this logic.