Is libertarianism too simple?

[Scheavo]

Libertarianism is logical, not "too simple." It values life, liberty, and property above all else, as opposed to the mob rule mentality.

...

Ya know, libertarianism is more of a mob rule than we have now. In fact, one reason you don't like our government is becuase it's authoritarian, and not a mob rule. To say that libertarianism is opposed to mob rule is just.. well.. confusing.

[PraXis]

Libertarianism is logical, not "too simple." It values life, liberty, and property above all else, as opposed to the mob rule mentality.

...

Ya know, libertarianism is more of a mob rule than we have now. In fact, one reason you don't like our government is becuase it's authoritarian, and not a mob rule. To say that libertarianism is opposed to mob rule is just.. well.. confusing.

Incorrect. Mob rule is when you have a group that does something no matter what the opposition thinks. For example the OWS protests. The law says you can't trespass/loiter/whatever on private property, but the mob says otherwise. They ignore it, same with those ports on the west coast.

Libertarians want the gov't to obey its own laws, and not trample on our rights. The only thing we mob is the voting booth. We do not destroy private property, especially someone else's. Our government is not authoritarian, but it is getting there fast with bullshit like the Patriot Act and the fascist NDAA that Obama just signed into law (which beforehand he said he would not sign). Libertarianism has a great motto: "We'll take over the government and leave you alone!"

[rumborak]

We do not destroy private property, especially someone else's.

Pfft, whatever. By trying to impose on people your 19th century definition of property and thus removing their choice of living life as they see fit, you are being as tyrannical as the people trying to legislate morality. Just because it's not worth anything to you, doesn't mean you have the right to tell others.

rumborak

[Scheavo]

Libertarianism is logical, not "too simple." It values life, liberty, and property above all else, as opposed to the mob rule mentality.

...

Ya know, libertarianism is more of a mob rule than we have now. In fact, one reason you don't like our government is becuase it's authoritarian, and not a mob rule. To say that libertarianism is opposed to mob rule is just.. well.. confusing.

Incorrect. Mob rule is when you have a group that does something no matter what the opposition thinks. For example the OWS protests. The law says you can't trespass/loiter/whatever on private property, but the mob says otherwise. They ignore it, same with those ports on the west coast.

Libertarians want the gov't to obey its own laws, and not trample on our rights. The only thing we mob is the voting booth. We do not destroy private property, especially someone else's. Our government is not authoritarian, but it is getting there fast with bullshit like the Patriot Act and the fascist NDAA that Obama just signed into law (which beforehand he said he would not sign). Libertarianism has a great motto: "We'll take over the government and leave you alone!"

Except when you actually get down to the nitty gritty, what do libertarians support? Local rule, local governance, which ends up being mob rule. "Mob rule" is basically a governance system where everone is involved, and that's exactly what libertarianism is. You're description of OWS is extremely off-base as well, as the only time they were on "private property" was when they occupied Zuccoti Park, a privately owned public park, which didn't have strict rules against what OWS was doing before OWS showed up. In other cases, they're not on private land, they're on public land.

[emindead]

I have not made it through the mid-twneties BY MYSELF. I did it by getting a job, working for OTHER PEOPLE, and by buying food OTHER PEOPLE MADE. I also wouldn't be here if it weren't for my family, and my society, which both educated me and took care of me, and still does. It is a ludicrous statement to say that anyone, at any time, has "made it by themselves." It flies in the face of every persons living experience, and is so extremely shallow and self-centered that it's disturbing.

Right, but you made it this by cooperating with other individuals. That doesn't mean we aren't individuals.  And of course, cooperation is a fundamental concept in classical liberalism. That's why it's such an efficient means of social organization.

I spose you can define "individual" in a way which I can accept, but it's not the kind of individual Emin displayed, where I "got here by myself." And liberalism I fully support, libertarianism takes it too far, imo.

I don't see how WW and my views differ. He complemented what I was saying and his right response was the rebutal I would have typed (he still worded it better and more concise than I would have). "By yourself" doesn't mean "without cooperating". Not knowing about this is ignoring Libertarianism and individualism way of working. Cooperation means mutual (individual or more) agreement to reach a goal, not coercive measures to achieve something. A parent solving all of their children's problems in life is called protectionism.

[Scheavo]

I have not made it through the mid-twneties BY MYSELF. I did it by getting a job, working for OTHER PEOPLE, and by buying food OTHER PEOPLE MADE. I also wouldn't be here if it weren't for my family, and my society, which both educated me and took care of me, and still does. It is a ludicrous statement to say that anyone, at any time, has "made it by themselves." It flies in the face of every persons living experience, and is so extremely shallow and self-centered that it's disturbing.

Right, but you made it this by cooperating with other individuals. That doesn't mean we aren't individuals.  And of course, cooperation is a fundamental concept in classical liberalism. That's why it's such an efficient means of social organization.

I spose you can define "individual" in a way which I can accept, but it's not the kind of individual Emin displayed, where I "got here by myself." And liberalism I fully support, libertarianism takes it too far, imo.

I don't see how WW and my views differ. He complemented what I was saying and his right response was the rebutal I would have typed (he still worded it better and more concise than I would have). "By yourself" doesn't mean "without cooperating". Not knowing about this is ignoring Libertarianism and individualism way of working. Cooperation means mutual (individual or more) agreement to reach a goal, not coercive measures to achieve something. A parent solving all of their children's problems in life is called protectionism.

Perhaps it's an issue of translation, but "by yourself" does not imply cooperation, in any way. I mean, the skin cell in my body can be defined as an individual skin cell, an individual cell, etc; but at the same time, it is one of my skin cells. It's a founding thought for sociology.

Classic liberals also set up government, and described the role of the government in ways which moder libertarians fundamentally object to. It wasn't until the late 1860's, and the beginning of "social darwinism" - which is based upon the false conception that evolution is one man for it self, and doesn't involve cooperation - that we begin to really see libertarianism break away from classic liberalism, and become much more rooted in some extreme conception of the individual. There's aspects of Locke and other Founder's that libertarianism simply ignore.

The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fundamental reason there's a disagreement. Classic liberalism occurred before the Industrial Revolution, before electricity was understood, when the level of education our society possess today would seem utopian. The problem isn't that there's an issue with the arguments laid out in classic liberalism, it's their lack of a response to these historical events. For example, should individual be allowed to posses a nuclear weapon? FUCK NO. And it's a horrible idea to even begin to imagine that the "right to bear arms" should somehow translate into the right to own a nuclear weapon (to take an example of classic liberal governance).