What are the faults of libertarianism?

@soadnot (1606)
Canada
September 22, 2007 8:49pm CST
libertarianism is an extreme that seems to be logical... whats wrong with it?
3 people like this
6 responses
@huntbird (277)
• China
23 Sep 07
Libertarianism should be limited. it must have bound,for example,goverment give your rights,but have a premise,you can do hame to the country,or other citizen.We should set the interests of our country before that of our own. Maybe our values are different.
1 person likes this
@NeoComp (1320)
• United States
23 Sep 07
NO government on earth grants me my damm rights! I was given these rights from birth from God. He made and created me free and with free will.
@soadnot (1606)
• Canada
26 Sep 07
neocomp, are you a religious libertarian?
@huntbird (277)
• China
26 Sep 07
I am not a religious.But i trust that all citizens have a duty to the country.Thousands of years traditional values teach us,individual is insignificant compare to country,if country at stake,everybody should give out all they own,even life.for the country,everybody must put down their private things,such as family,lover..etc
• United States
5 Oct 07
There are no faults in libertarianism. It is logical, 100%. The only real arguments I see against Libertarianism claim that a Libertarian society does not solve all the problems of the society but that argument is flawed because Libertarianism doesn't claim to solve them. A major part of being a Libertarian is acknowledging that we can't change our neighbors faults. The world is not perfect and no amount of legislation will make it so. Libertarianism causes the least amount of blowback and offers the most amount of security and liberty.
@soadnot (1606)
• Canada
6 Oct 07
yea, i dont know how you would deal with neighbors in a lib society..
• United States
7 Oct 07
You would deal with your neighbors the same way that you deal with them now. Most people already deal with their neighbors on a Libertarian basis. For some reason, people seem to have a gap in their logic and don't realize that the same way we deal with people in our every day lives is the same way that we should want our government to deal with us. Check out the book Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression. It might just change your life. I'd like to see anyone make a case against Libertarianism after reading that book. I doubt anyone could.
@soadnot (1606)
• Canada
15 Oct 07
yea thanks alot for the recomendation, I will check it out.. right now im just reading the republic, communist manifesto and STM's Utopia lol.. but, what i ment was, if a country decides to attack this libertarian society, i dont think "voluntary taxes" would really cover the cost of the war.. and what about policing? everything else, like roads and transportation etc i understand, its the idea of "whos going to take care of national security" that gets me questioning this form of gov. and what about capitalism, isnt that all about "making more money"? how are they going to help the environment if everyone is competing for the gold? sorry for the questions but, yea, i guess these 2 things boggle my mind about this system. thanks
@NeoComp (1320)
• United States
23 Sep 07
I think there is nothing wrong with libertarianism. For it was once quoted: He who sacrifices liberty.. for security ends up with NEITHER. This country was built on Liberty and Freedom. And the Constitution. We must follow it .... and also vote for Ron Paul.
@ESKARENA1 (18299)
23 Sep 07
i agree and would go further by arguing Bush baby has erroded the freedom of the world to such an extent in the name of security? that we can niether have freedom nor security ever again. From one with such controling ideas isd it too much to ask, if 9/11 had not happened, would bush have had to invent it?
1 person likes this
23 Sep 07
Well he did always have the plan to attack Saddam Hussein's Iraq. So I wonder how he would have spun it into a 'legitimate' war if it 9/11 hadn't happened.
• United States
6 Jan 08
I can't vote for someone who prefers religious dogma to established scientific fact (evolution), so no Ron Paul vote from me. By the way, the quote is closer to "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" and it was written by Ben Franklin.
@xParanoiax (6997)
• United States
15 Oct 07
I don't think there's anything wrong with libertarianism. Mostly because if you sacrifice freedom for safety, then sooner or later, you'll find how steep the price was. Sometimes you can pay it. Sometimes you can't. Usually you can't. As for some of the things others have said... We're not "permitted" our rights by the government. They do NOT give us those. They're basic human rights, meaning..we automatically have them the moment we were born. Who cares why or by who...or what? The fact is we were given them. Sure, we can function without one or two of them...but I've not met a single person who was truly happy without any rights at all. Ignorance CAN be bliss. I've seen that for a fact. But everyone has to ask themselves...do you want to be ignornace..and never truly live, but still be happy? Or do you want to know, be miserable, but above all LIVE? Functioning is just existing. It's not living. Few of us, even here in America truly live. Maybe it's because ever so slowly we've been losing our rights...or maybe it's because slowly people have been forgetting what they are. Whatever the case is...it's said. Liberty should never be limited. We should always have our rights, and never ask the government permission to travel, to live. Never. People too often mistake love of country for eternal servitude. I love my parents. But I am not their servant. Liberty means...doing what you want to do, being free to do it. With no overlords hanging over you, feeding off of your life. I think people also sometimes mistakenly think that...if everyone had it, that no one would get anything done. That no one would be a soldier, that no one would choose to serve as the government was meant to do originally. Aaanyway. I went on a bit, I know.
@soadnot (1606)
• Canada
15 Oct 07
hey, thanks alot for your input.. i also asked these questions to slapithigh and i want to see both your responses to it.. "but, what i ment was, if a country decides to attack this libertarian society, i dont think "voluntary taxes" would really cover the cost of the war.. and what about policing? everything else, like roads and transportation etc i understand, its the idea of "whos going to take care of national security" that gets me questioning this form of gov. and what about capitalism, isnt that all about "making more money"? how are they going to help the environment if everyone is competing for the gold? sorry for the questions but, yea, i guess these 2 things boggle my mind about this system." so yea, if you could help me understand these things, it would clear my views on libertarianism, thanks
• United States
16 Oct 07
That's always the problem people come across. "What about money" I hate money, myself. Humanity's dependance on something which is truly worthless...it's pathetic in my mind. But I can't choose how the world is so... Well, income tax doesn't pay for anything. There are other taxes which we do pay, and are alot easier to pay...which cover plenty. The problem is, our money in this country's being mismanaged. If we could manage that money, then we'd be in alot better shape. We do not need to pay for a million dollar toilet seat in the white house, okay? Secondly, this current war conflicts with lots of technicalities a few of which could send our current president to jail. Technically, it's illegal. More and more people believe its immoral. With the funds and resources our government already has, they should be able to easily defend this country without even being over there. They've dozens of even more less pleasant ast resorts they have. Our government's got both firepower and manpower. They can always bring up rather flattering campaigns to get more of both. There isn't a major problem here, other than them mismanaging their money. Oh..and the problem with our money's value slowly shrinking. We need to fix that too. But there is no reason that freedom should conflict with the subject of money. None at all. And personally, I don't think money's more important than freedom. Sure, right now it's necessary for our society to function...but unless I can have all my rights intact, and I'm a free girl..I don't care. Screw it. Maybe that's selfish, but that used to be how almost everyone used to think. It's part of why the world gave America respect. Because we were the most powerful, yet we cared more about freedom than anything else. It's sad, that some people want to lose that for good, that the country has lost that. Money's one of the simplest problems on our government's plate. If they focused less on their greed, and more on a solution they'd probably have solved it already. That's the only explanation to why things aren't fixed already. If they're as mighty as they claim..it should be no problem. But if that isn't the case, then why do they get angry when we claim otherwise? I don't get it.
@ESKARENA1 (18299)
23 Sep 07
tHE BIG PROBLEMS ARE THE ULTIMATE CONTRADICTIONS inherent within the construct of freedom of speech. Libertarianism can only go so far before it becomes destructive. In reality it is an illusion, but is used by some conservatives to justify doing nothing but stand back and watch as society crumbles around their ears. blessed be
@soadnot (1606)
• Canada
26 Sep 07
like what? can you give an example?
@sigma77 (5385)
• United States
23 Sep 07
I am not a libertarian, but from what I have read, much of it does make sense to me. But there are some wackos that go to far and I would term as radical extremists. But I guess you can find those kind in any political party.