Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KPK wrote:
Libertarians are very much focused on individual rights.

Are there any other kind of rights?

KPK wrote:
They view government as a threat to those rights.

Yes and no. If governments would restrict themselves to the legitimate activities for which they are intended, there would be no threat. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened yet.

KPK wrote:
They are opposed to banning restrictions on free speech, they believe taxation is perverse and they believe in minimalist government.

How can it be called free speech if it's restricted? How can taxation be anything but perverse? How can anyone in good conscience not believe in minimalistic government?

KPK wrote:
I'm not sure how they differ from anarchists other than anarchists believe in no government.

Anarchists are guided by whim and fancy. Their only "principle" (if you can call it that) is to wipe out government.

Libertarians recognize government serves an essential role in our daily lives but oppose governments entering into jurisdictions other than their few legitimate roles. Most libertarians are very principled in how they conduct their daily lives because they believe strongly in taking responsibility for their own actions.

-Mac
Kriger





Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 16
Reputation: 3.4Reputation: 3.4Reputation: 3.4
votes: 1

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:

As for myself, I find myself very sympathetic with true libertarianism, but I'm not sure I can call myself Libertarian. For instance, I believe that individuals have an obligation to assist cohorts in need, but that this assistance should not be coerced by the government.


Charity is in no way inconsistent with libertarianism.

Quote:
Yet in regards to foreign policy, I also believe free nations have an obligation to 'export freedom', for lack of better phrasing.


A libertarian would argue that nurturing freedom abroad is fine, but that it should be done primarily through charitable and volunteer efforts, not taxation and conscription.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kriger wrote:
Charity is in no way inconsistent with libertarianism.

Indeed, charity is very much a libertarian trait as has been proved throughout history.

Kriger wrote:
A libertarian would argue that nurturing freedom abroad is fine, but that it should be done primarily through charitable and volunteer efforts, not taxation and conscription.

It is far better to lead by example, especially when it comes to liberty.

Authoritarian governments which try to impose their form of governance on foreign nations are doomed to failure. Replacing one form of dictator with another achieves the same result.

-Mac
Kriger





Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 16
Reputation: 3.4Reputation: 3.4Reputation: 3.4
votes: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

Authoritarian governments which try to impose their form of governance on foreign nations are doomed to failure. Replacing one form of dictator with another achieves the same result.

-Mac


I typically oppose colonial and imperial adventures. However I wouldn't say that imposing government is always doomed to failure. The United States, for example, successfully imposed constitutional government on Japan and Germany and, in many respects, the results have been good.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The prerequisite to impose constitutional government must therefore be absolute unconditional surrender, not just of the former government but also of the people so the terms are completely dictated by the victors.

-Mac
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
...absolute unconditional surrender, not just of the former government but also of the people...


I'm not sure what you mean, Mac... do you mean to imply that government should not be imposed until any and all insurgencies are quelled? That any level of rebellion, no matter how small, requires an occupational government?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean, Mac... do you mean to imply that government should not be imposed until any and all insurgencies are quelled? That any level of rebellion, no matter how small, requires an occupational government?

Was that not the case with Japan and Germany or very close to it? Sure, there were a few exceptions; no-one ever kills all the cockroaches, but any resistance (organized or otherwise) was crushed, not negotiated with.

Mind you, the Russians didn't cover themselves with glory in their attempts to bring their form of order to Afghanistan and I don't see Mother Russia as being particularly tolerant of resistance.

-Mac
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

With that clarification, I think I agree. It is more or less the antithesis of the Layton school.

And I think application of the principle in Iraq would have mitigated some of the instability between 2005 and 2007... if the current trend holds or even levels off, Iraq will arguably be at the cockroach stage soon.
IcemanA





Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 17
Reputation: 10.7

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KPK wrote:
They are opposed to banning restrictions on free speech


I'm not sure I understood this... opposed to banning restrictions.... triple negative?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IcemanA wrote:
KPK wrote:
They are opposed to banning restrictions on free speech


I'm not sure I understood this... opposed to banning restrictions.... triple negative?

It is a bit awkward, isn't it?

I think what he's trying to point out is that Libertarians are opposed to any restrictions to freedom of speech... like Canada's so-called "hate speech" legislation. When governments put legislation like this into place, their intentions are nice but what they end up doing is providing a 'government sanctioned' means for groups like the Canadian Islamic Congress to suppress criticism.

-Mac
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Libertarianism

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB