Posted on 03/04/2005 5:12:44 AM PST by kjvail
I want an explantion as to why a libertarian society based on the principles in our founding documents can't exist, yes. Why is either a stifling government or a stifling society necessary?
That's not necessarily so. Why can't private charity do the job of helping those who can't be self-sufficient?
That's a good question from an intelligent position.
But like I said, it presupposes that everyone is created equal.
We are not.
And those who are not able to hold their own or compete will immediately begin to undermine that libertarian ideal.
That Sir, is human nature.
Yes, that's the point.
A state is the product of its society and culture. It handles the problems that social convention cannot. It's strength at any given moment is the inverse of that of the civil society underneath it.
You have laws when ostracism and the raised eyebrow no longer work. Libertarianism's folly is thinking you can combine no cultural rules and no state rules. Human interaction needs rules. People will demand rules and they will choose state rules over cultural rules.
Every system has those who would undermine it. Why must they necessarily prevail?
In the case of those who do not have the capability, charities work fine.
But what about the greedy? The jealous? The vain? The indolent? Those who do not possess moral fiber?
You mischaracterize libertarianism. What you describe is anarchy. Libertarian is minimalist on rules, but not abhorrent to them.
Give me one specific example, an area of human concern that demands either of the evils that you insist are necessary.
Why thank you!! I'll save it on my desktop till the next time.
You are clueless about libertarianism, and apparently, about almost everything else as well.
You know what they call purposeful mischaracterization.
What about them? Why can't they just be ignored?
Some people are simply worthless human beings, and no social order or legal order can change that. There will always be dregs in any society... as you say, that's human nature. If they commit a crime, they can be punished for it. If not, let them act as they will. If someone is greedy, others will be less likely to deal with them. If someone is vain, others will be less interested in socializing with them. To each the result of his own actions. That's fair, consistent, and workable.
Yes, they call it a strawman, and I've pointed that out several times.
If possible, you have them punished for crimes they commit. If not possible, you shoot them in self-defense, they are dead, and they don't bother anyone else ever again. That's half the purpose of the Second Amendment.
Have you ever heard of human imperfection ?
You know the broken window theory ? That if a window isn't fixed soon, others will be broken. That once anti-social behavior becomes okay, it will deepen and worsen.
Democracy requires a culture with a very high level of impulse control, deferred gratification, and respect for the law. These are not innate qualities. They must be taught. That is what Victorian society did. When Victorianism collapses and you have a sensual popular culture that preaches instant gratification you have a society less and less able to communicate these values. So the government must step in to protect people from themselves and each other.
As I mentioned above, marriage. The entire subject of family law.
I agree whole heartedly with the 2nd ammendment answer to those problems.
However, what to do with those sneaky folk who refuse to confront you in a "stand up" manner? Who twist and distort words to pursue an agenda that you may or may not be aware of?
(:-) if you haven't guessed, I am a firm libertarian. playing devils advocate helps cause the synapses to fire correctly when needed. fun conversation.)
Impulse control and deferred gratification should be taught to children as a matter of course. Without that you have uncivilized barbarians and no society to speak of, anyway.
Respect for the law is easy. Make sure every man, woman, and child has a gun and knows how to use it. Make as few laws as possible so that everyone can know the whole of the law.
Be more specific please. What about the subject of family law requires a tyranny of government or society?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.