Philosophy Discussion Forums

Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 16th, 2020, 10:27 am Jeez I'm make a real mess of this post. If anyone's interested, please ignore the above correction. The first post was actually correct.

It happens to all of us.
Btw, check out the latest media manipulation in said topic.

Shocker!

Steve3007 wrote: ↑October 16th, 2020, 10:42 am

Terrapin Station wrote:Yeah, the reason that I left behind being a "party line Libertarian" is simply because I came to realize that a lot of people are in bad situations/dire straits/etc...

Have you ever discussed Libertarianism with GE Morton? I know you've discussed and disagreed on some other things but I don't remember seeing you discuss that. I ask because he seems to be what you describe as a "party line" Libertarian and has defended that brand of strict Libertarianism here several times.

No. I wasn't aware that he was a Libertarian.

There's probably not much to discuss about my divergence from traditional American Libertarianism, though. I simply came to feel that it's not right to have homeless people who don't want to be homeless, people who do without healthcare because they can't pay for it, people who do without education because they can't pay for it, etc.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 16th, 2020, 10:31 am...

But definitely very few Libertarians think that some people shouldn't have the benefit of police protection, fire departments, public court systems, etc.

However rare it may be, Man With Beard is not the only one of us who has encountered people who identify as libertarian who said that fire departments should be private and no one should get their house fire put out for free. I have encountered such people decades ago. So, mainstream libertarian or not, it is not a position that no one takes.

Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 16th, 2020, 2:05 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 16th, 2020, 10:31 am...

But definitely very few Libertarians think that some people shouldn't have the benefit of police protection, fire departments, public court systems, etc.

However rare it may be, Man With Beard is not the only one of us who has encountered people who identify as libertarian who said that fire departments should be private and no one should get their house fire put out for free. I have encountered such people decades ago. So, mainstream libertarian or not, it is not a position that no one takes.

If you want to know how that works (privatised fire service) just watch Gangs of New York..
Or just take a look at the great fires of civilisation; Great Fire of London, Fire of Rome.
Libtards are similarly anti vaccines - and much the same argument against the idiocy makes fools of them for both reasons.

It's all very well being rich and libertarian, and paying your FIre Insurance, until one day the whole street is ablaze and your firemen can't access your house becuse the city is a flame.

One practical reason to want fire protection for all is that someone who didn't pay for it might live close to you, in which case a fire left to burn often has a good chance of spreading to your place.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 16th, 2020, 4:11 pm One practical reason to want fire protection for all is that someone who didn't pay for it might live close to you, in which case a fire left to burn often has a good chance of spreading to your place.

Makes you wonder if anyone is stupid enough to want that differently.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑October 16th, 2020, 4:11 pm One practical reason to want fire protection for all is that someone who didn't pay for it might live close to you, in which case a fire left to burn often has a good chance of spreading to your place.

This is part of the general malaise of disrespecting science, that is, ignoring the huge bodies of knowledge carefully accumulated by generation after generation hoping to pass their learning to the next generations.

So we have this strange disrespect of physics and biology. Many have been cosseted in an almost exclusively human environment for so long that actual physical reality outside of societal norms - like blazes and diseases - do not register. They see human opinion as all that matters, supported in their illusions by the countless safety measures society has evolved over millennia to partition people from nature.

What they don't understand is that the very wealthy who are not sweating about climate change have god reason not to worry. They and their families will be fine. It's the poor and the middle classes, so often manipulated into voting against their own interests by manipulative media, who will bear the brunt.

I am sorry that you all don't want to enter the 2nd chapter. I would like to read all of your opinions.

hegel wrote: ↑October 10th, 2020, 5:13 pm

Arjen wrote: ↑October 7th, 2020, 3:44 pm The other day I heard someone discuss the political field in an original way. Where I am used to divide political opinions into left and right, with on both ends a totalitarian model (national socialism and communism), this person claimed those 2 extremes were actually the same thing. I did argue this before, given that both are forms of fascism and contain an extreme of socialism. It surprised me, because, to be honest, I do like a touch of socialism, but not the extreme forms. The argument was that on the left side, we see a strong and large government, while on the right side, we see smaller governments with less laws. The extreme right therefore should be anarchism. When I was young, I did often argue in favour of anarchism, because the more force against freedom, the less people can solve their own problems and this limits for example the self correcting market principle of capitalism.
Is this a true thought? Is national socialism extreme left, but misunderstood as extreme right?

Previously, I think with @Greta I argued for a different division, with moderate governments (left and right) on 1 side and extremism (all sorts of fascism) on the other side. It would make the political discussions completely different, I thought. Is anarchy an extreme? Could the above fit my idea for a different division, which I was hoping to accomplish?

Please, amaze me with all of your insights

Libertarians do not believe in small government. They believe the purpose of government is to protect private wealth. They think police cars should patrol their neighborhood but not that the IRS should be auditing the tax returns of the wealthy.

Libertarians cannot recognized a public good because they think individuals are the ultimate political reality.

Right. It's the ideology of psychopathy. Most Libertarians aren't psychopaths so they make exceptions for what they personally feel 'worthy'. But ideologically it's at best facile, and an inherently antisocial position to start from.

Come on Gertie, don't go ad hominem. All you will make me do is defend the defenceless that way.