Unworthy of Life

Starvation, plague, war.

Libertarianism - like socialism, communism, capitalism, monarchies - is an interesting topic of study, and has a lot of good ideas. But like all those other -isms, it is toxic in its pure form.

It is a good idea because it excludes the right to hurt others by either impeding their harmless actions or violence, or that is my estimation anyway. What do you think? Do you think people should be allowed to be violent? Do you think people should be able to mess up other people's affairs, when those affairs do not negatively impact anyone else?
 
communism, capitalism, monarchies - is an interesting topic of study, and has a lot of good ideas. But like all those other -isms, it is toxic in its pure form.

I saw a quote which I think sums up the contrast between socialism and capitalism nicely. It goes like this:


“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries,” said Winston Churchill, to the House of Commons, on October 22nd, 1945. I would say that this applies just as well to the contrast between communism and capitalism.
 
When an environment can no longer sustain a population and the people do not stop further growth, people will begin to die from natural causes, such as the corona virus (so far 5 million dead worldwide), or starvation, or war.

Earlier, I linked to a really interesting and useful link to Albert Bartlett lecture on the exponential function, something which is very easy to calculate.

example: 1 % growth per year yields a doubling time every 70 years, That looks small but, look at this result;

example: 1 % growth per year of a world population of 7.9 billion people results in 15.8 billion people in 70 years (just 1 average lifetime).

You may live to see that many people if the world's population keeps growing at just 1% p/yr.

When nature cannot sustain a certain population, the population will begin to die at a faster rate from all sorts of natural causes, all of them part of natural selection mechanism.

That is why and how 95% of all living things are now extinct. And people are not exempt from this natural law.

Okay. Unless they start to populate other planets.
 
It is a good idea because it excludes the right to hurt others by either impeding their harmless actions or violence, or that is my estimation anyway. What do you think? Do you think people should be allowed to be violent?
People are allowed to be violent in libertarian dogma - to defend themselves or others. A more society-framed system allows police to be violent to protect others from crimes.
Do you think people should be able to mess up other people's affairs, when those affairs do not negatively impact anyone else?
Nope. (However, taxation does not count as "messing up people's affairs.")
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
And yet most successful capitalist companies rely on socialism.
It is pretty much the opposite of monarchies, socialism, and communism.
Not quite. The opposite of libertarianism is communism; socialism is communism's little brother. All three are primarily economic systems, with some bleedover to governance.

Monarchy, democracies and republics are all systems of government. So there is something of an orthogonal axis there.
 
People are allowed to be violent in libertarian dogma - to defend themselves or others. A more society-framed system allows police to be violent to protect others from crimes.

Nope. (However, taxation does not count as "messing up people's affairs.")

And yet most successful capitalist companies rely on socialism.

Not quite. The opposite of libertarianism is communism; socialism is communism's little brother. All three are primarily economic systems, with some bleedover to governance.

Monarchy, democracies and republics are all systems of government. So there is something of an orthogonal axis there.

Yes. It is probably a good idea to use violence to the smallest extent required to defend oneself or others. That is the only exception to this. not doing so would probably involve a greater degree of violence overall as a result.
 
(However, taxation does not count as "messing up people's affairs.")

I'm pretty sure taxation messes up a lot of a lot of peoples affairs.
I don't know. They might like it. They might need it. I very much doubt this however. What was the case for taxation? That the government used those taxes to provide vital services for the people? How about we just let the people choose how to use their money.
 
Why do you use the word dogma here?
Because it is something that is central to libertarianism.
And yet most successful capitalist companies rely on socialism.
Well how?
Amazon and Fedex rely on publicly funded roads. Oil companies rely on protection from the US military. United Launch Alliance relies on NASA and the military.
I'm pretty sure taxation messes up a lot of a lot of peoples affairs.
I don't know. They might like it. They might need it. I very much doubt this however. What was the case for taxation?
The literal answer is that it is called out in the US Constitution to "provide for the common welfare."

The more philosophical reason is that the common good is most sensibly funded by common funds (i.e. taxes.)
How about we just let the people choose how to use their money.
Google "the tragedy of the commons."
 
If you don't want people messing up one another's affairs, then maybe you should become a libertarian too.
I think libertarianism is great. Everyone should read Ayn Rand in college. It's just an incomplete philosophy; it doesn't work on its own.

The reason the US has been as successful as it has been is not that it's a pure democracy (it's not) or that it uses pure capitalism (it doesn't.) It's that it uses the best parts of all the competing philosophies and discards the rest. It thus avoids the excesses of any monolithic ideology.
 
I think libertarianism is great. Everyone should read Ayn Rand in college. It's just an incomplete philosophy; it doesn't work on its own.

The reason the US has been as successful as it has been is not that it's a pure democracy (it's not) or that it uses pure capitalism (it doesn't.) It's that it uses the best parts of all the competing philosophies and discards the rest. It thus avoids the excesses of any monolithic ideology.
Okay. I don't think it would work alone either. What do you propose to support it?
 
Google "the tragedy of the commons."[/QUOTE]
The idea that violence is OK in defense of one's life, liberty and property is indeed central to libertarianism. Many libertarians advocate violent revolution to achieve the goals of their agenda.
So there are some nutters out there. The problem is with them, not my philosophy, despite the implication.
 
Back
Top