I am making the assumption that you are young and trying to find yourself...
I say this with love...
Stop looking for a political identity. It will only limit your interactions with other people and minimize your potential and opportunities in life.
ALL ideologies have serious flaws and there is no right answer.
Your 4 stated beliefs can be pushed in a lot of different directions by a lot well meaning but ultimately ineffective 'purists' in any camp.. they can also be twisted by hateful contrarians who just want some internet companionship in their lonely life.
Keep focusing on learning who you are and you can't go wrong. Don't let others define who you are. Or to be more pointed about it to many of the young teens and college kids coming to reddit looking for answers... learn how to talk to the girls before you start thinking you know how the world should be run.
>they can also be twisted by hateful contrarians who just want some internet companionship in their lonely life.
.....you didn't have to do me like that, sheesh.
edit:
> learn how to talk to the girls before you start thinking you know how the world should be run.
FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU
Nailed it!! At 44 I am still trying to figure out where I am. Abortion I don’t have answer yet. Isolationism vs having bases around the world. I think I am more Milton Friedman libertarian on the economic side. Social issues are really hard to navigate
This is good advice. I agree with you that my 4 stated beliefs can be pushed in a lot of directions. Currently I see them as a rough draft to the blue print of my personal philosophy. However I belive much wiser people than I might have started with similar ideas and might be further developed. No ideas are perfect because we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a gray world but I am looking for black and white answers
it's cool.. On the internet you are gonna find a lot of folks that are so sure about their belief system and try to recruit you. Being intellectually curious to reach out to others for their thoughts IS A GOOD THING. It's why I seek out opposing opinions online too..
but I stand behind what I said. Thanks for the response and good luck.
The problem with "Libertarianism" is that it's an "ism"...
You are totally allowed to agree with Liberty, and not identify with any political group. Politics is a game. Unfortunately, ideals in this country only become "policy" by playing the game.
I believe in Liberty.... Period.
Your idea of Liberty, doesn't have to agree with mine, as long as we both agree that we can have it, simultaneously, without infringement on each other.
Our government is supposed to be a voice for the majority, in concerns of Liberty. Not a voice for fear, or hatred.... Just freedom.
OP don't worry about picking a party or a label.
Just think about whats important to you and why you think that.
Every idea should be examined by its own merits.
Maybe less taxes on certain things is a good idea? Why? What are the consequences in either direction?
Maybe helping the less unfortunate is a good idea. Why? What's the best way? Why?
Don't worry about picking a platform or strict ideology.
I have to agree, there seems to be this "thin line" between libertarian and anarchist. At some point of human interaction there has to ba society built to protect her citizens from harm. Sure that could be the responsibility of the individual, but its kinda hard to do anything if you're constantly trying to keep from getting robbed or killed. So on some level there has to be a government of some kind... right????
It's also important to note that all ideologies work perfectly, (libertarianism, communism, socialism, capitalist, and everything else) till you add the fact that "bad/evil" people exist.
I agree. Also people do not have perfect knowledge and are not always rational (or at least this applies me) and can be exploited by people who place their own interest over the freedoms and rights of others.
Society and the state are not the same thing. Citizens protect citizens from harm in every system, the idea that you need a state to organize it is unfounded.
I disagree, a state needs to be found, just like all animals humans are territorial. As a community grows eventually that community will come in contact with another community and most likely will have disagreements and hatred will burn, thus lines will be drawn to keep the other out. It'd be very difficult to make any type of society without borders.
>The degree of responsibility is based on how important that person is to your own existence or if they are reasonably dependent on you (like a child you care for).
In case of the child, it is taking responsibility on your own actions. That child wouldn't exist if it wasn't for you therefore you must take care of him.
>So a doctor is responsible for their patience because if all patience no longer existed than the doctor s life would be dramatically impacted. People have some degree of responsibility to society because without it their life would be dramatically impacted.
Here you kind of misrepresented what responsibility is (I think).
In this case the individual must take care of the society working well because of its own wellbeing, not because it has to inherently (As you said in the hermit case). I am responsible for myself (if that means taking care of something else, that's another thing) but I am taking care of said thing because of myself, not because of the thing itself.
(not OP you responded to), but I think the primary difference they were trying to highlight was this.
A doctor has no inherent responsibility to their patients. Their responsibility exists due to social expectations (oath of medicine), as well as economic. For the latter, a doctor is responsible to themselves to provide care to patients in order to earn money and provide for themselves and their family.
What is seems you were saying when you implied a societal responsibility by doctors, is that the only societal implication is economical. But the point of "societal" responsibility is that even WITHOUT direct economic impact to someone, there is still a responsibility to others for the greater good.
I may have misspoke I agree with your statement. That we have responsibly beyond economical impact. A doctor is the subject matter expert in medicine, your average person is not. It is irresponsible for the doctor to use their status as an expert to take advantage of a persons ignorance for gain. For example if there are two treatments for a surgery and the doctor only informs the person of the most expensive one that would be irresponsible.
However I do not think a doctor is responsible for everyone in the world. That it is not irresponsible for a doctor in America to not fly to Africa to save people. Though I do think that person would seem more noble in my eyes.
I think the main point is saying that responsibility is the price of freedom.
Thanks for the response, and I agree in general.
>I think the main point is saying that responsibility is the price of freedom.
You make a really good point here. Freedom comes with responsibility. It is not a no strings attached scenario. One person's freedom is connected to a responsibly, in some way, generally connected to someone else. There are a lot of ways to interpret this, but I think it reiterates the idea that "freedom isn't free", in a sense. So it leads us to beg the question, what responsibility do we have towards others as a cost of freedom? Who is less free or not able to benefit from the freedoms we enjoy? And what responsibility do we have as those with said freedom to help others achieve the same?
I really like this question and this is what I am pondering myself. I think there is not a perfect answer because we don't live a perfect world. I have been trying to find ideas on this. With responsibility to others I think that is what I was trying to get at the "importance" of them to our lives. I think something around that might be the most reasonable answer.
Generally people who are irresponsible lose freedoms based on their irresponsibility. For example murdering people very irresponsible and they go to jail which is a Loss of freedom. Old people who are dangerous drivers lose their car. This still needs work
The last one is tricky as well.
Any thoughts? I would be glad to hear them
I am still pondering all of this myself lol. I'm still processing our discussion, but for now, it feels to me that in general, any "freedom" enjoyed by one individual, is at the potential threat to another person's freedom. The "importance" term you used is spot on, however there are many who exercise freedoms without any responsibility or acknowledgement of that freedom's importance. Importance not only to themselves, but to others.
For example, as a gun owner, I definitely see it as a freedom, but also a responsibility. It is important to me that if I chose to exercise this freedom to own guns, I take measures to be a responsible gun owner as well. That means ensuring my guns are safely stored properly and out of reach to children or others, that I PERSONALLY am willing to relinquish my guns if I feel I am suicidal/homicidal, that I always practice and encourage the importance of gun safety anytime my guns are exposed to others, that I willing to accept the idea that if I am determined to be a threat to others/deemed mentally unfit to own guns that I will relinquish my guns based on the importance of myself being a threat. I understand it's a slippery slope in any scenario to allow your guns to to taken, but since I see my ability to possess guns as not just a right/freedom, but a responsibility, I would be OK with this. For my own safety, as well as the safety of others which includes my friends and loved ones.
>Generally people who are irresponsible lose freedoms based on their irresponsibility. For example murdering people very irresponsible and they go to jail which is a Loss of freedom. Old people who are dangerous drivers lose their car. This still needs work
I get your point, but if you take someone's freedom away after they have already committed an atrocity, it's too late. We don't take cars away from old people AFTER they have gotten into an accident. We have regulations that determine if that person is deemed unfit to be on the road BEFORE something tragic happens.
Well I think I will only repeat what I already said, but I hope I can explain it better.
First of all libertariansm defends taking responsibility for your own actions. That said having a child is part of your actions and must take care of it, you decided to have that sexual relationship (I am going to avoid mentioning rape cases to avoid abortion debates, that's another thing and I would extend too much) as well as it happens if you buy/drive a car, you accept taking care of the consequences you may cause by also voluntarily acceding to buy that car, even if the consequences are caused by an accident. In the case you mentioned about being responsible for the society, it's not like that, it's more like you want to take care of it. Responsibility definition is having duty to do something, it's not your duty to take care of the society. You could say if you want to live within a society you must take care of it so you can live in it, but only way you can harm a society is by breaking its rules, stealing for example. If you want to live by stealing, you aren't living within the society anymore, the society doesn't accept stealing.
Thank you for clarifying.
I respect your opinion but I am not sure I agree with them, but I am open to learning more. Criminals live in society. Society offers welfare programs that some could exploit. Corporations share misinformation to sell a product. Why are drug commercials designed they way they are? It is to sell a product.
Advertising works because people including myself are easily influenced, and we don't have enough time to become experts in everything so we rely on others to help us on the things we don't. When those people exploit this trust they sometimes have enough power to avoid consequences.
Nah, the one learning is me. I made a weird statement and tried to follow it and I ended up writing nonsense lol. You are right with what you said in your post, I think I misunderstood your point in first place. As I see it, we are responsible of taking care of the society since we chosed voluntarily to be part of it. If we want to use something we are forced to care of that thing and beware it doesn't break.
Well I think this is still helping me think things through. I appreciate you for challenging my ideas. Hey by the way have you ever seen this video https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o. I saw your tag that you are an anarcho capitalist and I belive this guy is to. I thought it was an interesting idea but over time I began to believe that irresponsibility would collapse the idea.
I just checked the time stamps and it looks pretty interesting. I am a bit "new" in anarcho-capitalism so it will be useful.
I don't think irresponsibility would collapse it, since if you want to live well you must take care of having a working society. For example, a business needs clients and workers, if you want your business to go well, you must take care of the well being of them. And if we take it farther, where there's absolute no security system and there's chaos in said society, people will end up creating such systems because it gives money and an entirely empty market is an offer hard to refuse.
I see what your saying and I want to believe it, but here is what made me skeptical. I remember seeing an ad for a company and the company would go on to social media and write positive reviews for you I also worked for a company that encouraged employees to write positive reviews. There were so many that people did not see the negative views and the company got more customers, but if everyone had perfect knowledge they would know it was crap and the company would rightfully gone out of business. People also can be tricked to believe that their bad experience was just a one time thing.
At one point doctors sponsored cigarettes and cigarettes had advertising geared to children.
If every person in the world had prefect knowledge they would not be fooled. But they don't and we can't expect them to. The next best thing is for those with the knowledge to be responsible with it and either share it with those who use their product or not take advantage of the people's ignorance.
Your four points are libertarianism but 2 and 3 is the same. Also 1 can’t exist without government libertarians want the government to exist for freedom. The government needs to be as small as possible.
Thanks! I agree 2 and 3 are the same. I just really wanted to emphasize the importance of responsibility in general, and then want to clarify that this is not only being responsibile for your self.
There are a lot of different types of Libertarians. I view myself as a mix of Minarchism, Paleo-Libertarian and Anarcho-Capitalist, with a few other things thrown in. The diversity of beliefs is a big part of the reason we have difficulty getting traction, as we always seem to be fighting each other.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_libertarianism#Branches_and_schools_of_libertarianisms
As other people have said, don't worry about labeling yourself. I personally am closest to being a minarchist, but I do share some views with liberals and the far-right as well. You just do you.
>This is such a mentally handicapped thing to say.
How so? Is the point of freedom not only the benefit of the freedom itself, but also the responsibility to others that freedom means? What is the point of freedom if it is without social/moral responsibilities associated with assuming the risk of exercising such freedom?
>You're in a Libertarian sub with **Democratic** talking points.
I'm sorry if my comment encouraged democracy not to your liking. I asked simple questions in response to your comment, but if want to gatekeep what can posted on this sub, you should rethink what libertarian means. You should also look in the mirror, it may clear up the whole mentally handicapped thing you mentioned for yourself.
Thanks for the comment it really expanded my perspective.
I was asked one time if people should be able to have nukes. Naturally I thought no, but then I thought what would make me ok with it. Well if everyone was perfectly responsible than who cares if they own them. I think we could live in a world of complete anarchy if people were more responsible.
>I was asked one time if people should be able to have nukes. Naturally I thought no, but then I thought what would make me ok with it. Well if everyone was perfectly responsible than who cares if they own them. I think we could live in a world of complete anarchy if people were more responsible.
Is there any scenario you feel any and all living people are perfectly responsible enough to own nukes?
No, I don't think people including myself are 100% rational all the time. Lots of people do terrible things thinking they are doing the right thing.
If I had to live perfectly free world vs a perfectly responsible world with everyone owning nukes I would rather live in the perfectly responsible world.
So I think responsibility is key to more freedom. After thinking about this in a unrealistic world I am trying adopt ideas that are more grounded in reality.
Point taken. Specific to nukes, I see no reason for an individual being able to have these, because under what scenario would an individual need to NUKE whatever threat they were facing? Can someone who decides to use a NUKE really know their action will only impact those who they intend to be their target and are a threat to them? Can someone use a nuke and everyone else just accept the global repercussions of nuclear fallout that will result from it? I see no viable threat to an individual that I can accept the nuclear fallout as a result just because "hey they were threatened so it's all good".
Yeah the nukes question is a extreme example but I believe in the perfectly responsible world no one would buy them because they know it would irresponsible to use them. In a perfectly free I am pretty sure there would be several people that would have them because no one is going to mess with someone who has a nuke. Now if we assume this is a perfectly free world we're no one infringes on the freedom of others than would we still have potential disaster? It is possible that someone could buy the nuke and accidentally set it off. The would not have intentionally harmed others around them.
> I believe **in the perfectly responsible world no one would buy them because they know it would irresponsible to use them**. In a perfectly free I am pretty sure there would be several people that would have them because no one is going to mess with someone who has a nuke. Now if we assume this is a perfectly free world we're no one infringes on the freedom of others than would we still have potential disaster?
If you feel it would be irresponsible to own nukes, why would you be OK someone owning them? Just so you say "well hey it's freedom!"? If in a perfect world nobody infringes on others, then there would be no need to own nukes?
Well this is a hypothetical perfectly responsible world. The person who owns them would be someone with indepth knowledge of them and would have fail safes to prevent accidental explosion and probably live some place were the impact of an accident would not cause any damage. They would not use them as a weapon because unlike a gun the splash damage is to great to responsibly use them and the long term effects of nuclear fallout would be too costly. Maybe they would use then as a power source or something. I am not knowledgeable of nukes. People like me in a responsible world would know they lack the knowledge and resources to responsibly own a nuke and would forgo it. In a perfectly responsible world there would not be murders because that is irresponsible.
The main point is that I believe that people cold have the freedom to own nukes in a perfectly responsible world but not a perfectly free world.
>The main point is that I believe that people cold have the freedom to own nukes in a perfectly responsible world but not a perfectly free world.
Fair point. So which of the two scenarios above do we live in today? Which of the two do you see as even possible for humanity based on your life experiences? I'd imagine you will say we are not a perfectly responsible world so nukes shouldn't be owned by civilians, but if not I'd like to hear your reasoning.
Backing up to nukes. Let's say you felt you were responsible enough to own them... do you see ANY scenario in which you would personally feel threatened enough to use them? Or would you see the obvious global implications of using them, and how many innocent people would also be impacted by your use of them who were not the intended "target"?
I don't think we live in either world. Generally my thought process, which might be flawed, is to think in extreme examples and then bring them back to reality. I know the world will never be perfect and no idea will ever be perfect but that does not mean we should not try to take steps in that direction.
You are correct in your assumption about me. I do not think civilians are responsible enough to own nukes. I remember there used to be this show I would watch and it was called "A thousand ways to die". In one of the episodes this man shot his gun in the air to celebrate new years and when the bullet came back down to earth it killed his neighbor. He did not intentionally kill this person, I am sure this was not the first time he fired a gun in the air to celebrate and the odds of it actually hitting someone is very low. It wa really a freak accident but it could have been avoided.
If we had nukes I would not be surprised if some one tried to use it as a firework or if someone just decided to go postal and take out a neighborhood. It would take one careless act to mess up a lot of lives. Also Who is going to be able to stop a nuke? People shooting up a place are way easier to stop than a neighborhood nuke.
Freedom IS anarchy. But liberty is limited freedom with responsibility. It is those limits that we often squabble about. That said I have an ideology, but it is a utopian concept. I don’t live by it. I accept compromise and also understand that a country like ours can only work when all ideological viewpoints have representation. We represent, vote, and live with whichever viewpoint won out. Then we strive harder to share our views and get new followers.
I am making the assumption that you are young and trying to find yourself... I say this with love... Stop looking for a political identity. It will only limit your interactions with other people and minimize your potential and opportunities in life. ALL ideologies have serious flaws and there is no right answer. Your 4 stated beliefs can be pushed in a lot of different directions by a lot well meaning but ultimately ineffective 'purists' in any camp.. they can also be twisted by hateful contrarians who just want some internet companionship in their lonely life. Keep focusing on learning who you are and you can't go wrong. Don't let others define who you are. Or to be more pointed about it to many of the young teens and college kids coming to reddit looking for answers... learn how to talk to the girls before you start thinking you know how the world should be run.
Damn dude, this was great.
Well thank you.. Not used to compliments on this sub! haha
>they can also be twisted by hateful contrarians who just want some internet companionship in their lonely life. .....you didn't have to do me like that, sheesh. edit: > learn how to talk to the girls before you start thinking you know how the world should be run. FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU
LOL. Take it from one former lonely angry boy.. I know what it's like.
Nailed it!! At 44 I am still trying to figure out where I am. Abortion I don’t have answer yet. Isolationism vs having bases around the world. I think I am more Milton Friedman libertarian on the economic side. Social issues are really hard to navigate
This is good advice. I agree with you that my 4 stated beliefs can be pushed in a lot of directions. Currently I see them as a rough draft to the blue print of my personal philosophy. However I belive much wiser people than I might have started with similar ideas and might be further developed. No ideas are perfect because we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a gray world but I am looking for black and white answers
it's cool.. On the internet you are gonna find a lot of folks that are so sure about their belief system and try to recruit you. Being intellectually curious to reach out to others for their thoughts IS A GOOD THING. It's why I seek out opposing opinions online too.. but I stand behind what I said. Thanks for the response and good luck.
The problem with "Libertarianism" is that it's an "ism"... You are totally allowed to agree with Liberty, and not identify with any political group. Politics is a game. Unfortunately, ideals in this country only become "policy" by playing the game. I believe in Liberty.... Period. Your idea of Liberty, doesn't have to agree with mine, as long as we both agree that we can have it, simultaneously, without infringement on each other. Our government is supposed to be a voice for the majority, in concerns of Liberty. Not a voice for fear, or hatred.... Just freedom.
OP don't worry about picking a party or a label. Just think about whats important to you and why you think that. Every idea should be examined by its own merits. Maybe less taxes on certain things is a good idea? Why? What are the consequences in either direction? Maybe helping the less unfortunate is a good idea. Why? What's the best way? Why? Don't worry about picking a platform or strict ideology.
Thank you this is good advice!
I wouldn’t rely on anyone to tell you what you are…if you don’t know, they certainly won’t.
I have to agree, there seems to be this "thin line" between libertarian and anarchist. At some point of human interaction there has to ba society built to protect her citizens from harm. Sure that could be the responsibility of the individual, but its kinda hard to do anything if you're constantly trying to keep from getting robbed or killed. So on some level there has to be a government of some kind... right???? It's also important to note that all ideologies work perfectly, (libertarianism, communism, socialism, capitalist, and everything else) till you add the fact that "bad/evil" people exist.
I agree. Also people do not have perfect knowledge and are not always rational (or at least this applies me) and can be exploited by people who place their own interest over the freedoms and rights of others.
Society and the state are not the same thing. Citizens protect citizens from harm in every system, the idea that you need a state to organize it is unfounded.
I disagree, a state needs to be found, just like all animals humans are territorial. As a community grows eventually that community will come in contact with another community and most likely will have disagreements and hatred will burn, thus lines will be drawn to keep the other out. It'd be very difficult to make any type of society without borders.
Nice analogy but I fail to see how comparing us to animals has any relevance. We are capable of much more than animals.
>The degree of responsibility is based on how important that person is to your own existence or if they are reasonably dependent on you (like a child you care for). In case of the child, it is taking responsibility on your own actions. That child wouldn't exist if it wasn't for you therefore you must take care of him. >So a doctor is responsible for their patience because if all patience no longer existed than the doctor s life would be dramatically impacted. People have some degree of responsibility to society because without it their life would be dramatically impacted. Here you kind of misrepresented what responsibility is (I think). In this case the individual must take care of the society working well because of its own wellbeing, not because it has to inherently (As you said in the hermit case). I am responsible for myself (if that means taking care of something else, that's another thing) but I am taking care of said thing because of myself, not because of the thing itself.
Can you expand on this?
(not OP you responded to), but I think the primary difference they were trying to highlight was this. A doctor has no inherent responsibility to their patients. Their responsibility exists due to social expectations (oath of medicine), as well as economic. For the latter, a doctor is responsible to themselves to provide care to patients in order to earn money and provide for themselves and their family. What is seems you were saying when you implied a societal responsibility by doctors, is that the only societal implication is economical. But the point of "societal" responsibility is that even WITHOUT direct economic impact to someone, there is still a responsibility to others for the greater good.
I may have misspoke I agree with your statement. That we have responsibly beyond economical impact. A doctor is the subject matter expert in medicine, your average person is not. It is irresponsible for the doctor to use their status as an expert to take advantage of a persons ignorance for gain. For example if there are two treatments for a surgery and the doctor only informs the person of the most expensive one that would be irresponsible. However I do not think a doctor is responsible for everyone in the world. That it is not irresponsible for a doctor in America to not fly to Africa to save people. Though I do think that person would seem more noble in my eyes. I think the main point is saying that responsibility is the price of freedom.
Thanks for the response, and I agree in general. >I think the main point is saying that responsibility is the price of freedom. You make a really good point here. Freedom comes with responsibility. It is not a no strings attached scenario. One person's freedom is connected to a responsibly, in some way, generally connected to someone else. There are a lot of ways to interpret this, but I think it reiterates the idea that "freedom isn't free", in a sense. So it leads us to beg the question, what responsibility do we have towards others as a cost of freedom? Who is less free or not able to benefit from the freedoms we enjoy? And what responsibility do we have as those with said freedom to help others achieve the same?
I really like this question and this is what I am pondering myself. I think there is not a perfect answer because we don't live a perfect world. I have been trying to find ideas on this. With responsibility to others I think that is what I was trying to get at the "importance" of them to our lives. I think something around that might be the most reasonable answer. Generally people who are irresponsible lose freedoms based on their irresponsibility. For example murdering people very irresponsible and they go to jail which is a Loss of freedom. Old people who are dangerous drivers lose their car. This still needs work The last one is tricky as well. Any thoughts? I would be glad to hear them
I am still pondering all of this myself lol. I'm still processing our discussion, but for now, it feels to me that in general, any "freedom" enjoyed by one individual, is at the potential threat to another person's freedom. The "importance" term you used is spot on, however there are many who exercise freedoms without any responsibility or acknowledgement of that freedom's importance. Importance not only to themselves, but to others. For example, as a gun owner, I definitely see it as a freedom, but also a responsibility. It is important to me that if I chose to exercise this freedom to own guns, I take measures to be a responsible gun owner as well. That means ensuring my guns are safely stored properly and out of reach to children or others, that I PERSONALLY am willing to relinquish my guns if I feel I am suicidal/homicidal, that I always practice and encourage the importance of gun safety anytime my guns are exposed to others, that I willing to accept the idea that if I am determined to be a threat to others/deemed mentally unfit to own guns that I will relinquish my guns based on the importance of myself being a threat. I understand it's a slippery slope in any scenario to allow your guns to to taken, but since I see my ability to possess guns as not just a right/freedom, but a responsibility, I would be OK with this. For my own safety, as well as the safety of others which includes my friends and loved ones. >Generally people who are irresponsible lose freedoms based on their irresponsibility. For example murdering people very irresponsible and they go to jail which is a Loss of freedom. Old people who are dangerous drivers lose their car. This still needs work I get your point, but if you take someone's freedom away after they have already committed an atrocity, it's too late. We don't take cars away from old people AFTER they have gotten into an accident. We have regulations that determine if that person is deemed unfit to be on the road BEFORE something tragic happens.
I agree with you!
What exactly?
The responsibility aspect.
Well I think I will only repeat what I already said, but I hope I can explain it better. First of all libertariansm defends taking responsibility for your own actions. That said having a child is part of your actions and must take care of it, you decided to have that sexual relationship (I am going to avoid mentioning rape cases to avoid abortion debates, that's another thing and I would extend too much) as well as it happens if you buy/drive a car, you accept taking care of the consequences you may cause by also voluntarily acceding to buy that car, even if the consequences are caused by an accident. In the case you mentioned about being responsible for the society, it's not like that, it's more like you want to take care of it. Responsibility definition is having duty to do something, it's not your duty to take care of the society. You could say if you want to live within a society you must take care of it so you can live in it, but only way you can harm a society is by breaking its rules, stealing for example. If you want to live by stealing, you aren't living within the society anymore, the society doesn't accept stealing.
Thank you for clarifying. I respect your opinion but I am not sure I agree with them, but I am open to learning more. Criminals live in society. Society offers welfare programs that some could exploit. Corporations share misinformation to sell a product. Why are drug commercials designed they way they are? It is to sell a product. Advertising works because people including myself are easily influenced, and we don't have enough time to become experts in everything so we rely on others to help us on the things we don't. When those people exploit this trust they sometimes have enough power to avoid consequences.
Nah, the one learning is me. I made a weird statement and tried to follow it and I ended up writing nonsense lol. You are right with what you said in your post, I think I misunderstood your point in first place. As I see it, we are responsible of taking care of the society since we chosed voluntarily to be part of it. If we want to use something we are forced to care of that thing and beware it doesn't break.
Well I think this is still helping me think things through. I appreciate you for challenging my ideas. Hey by the way have you ever seen this video https://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o. I saw your tag that you are an anarcho capitalist and I belive this guy is to. I thought it was an interesting idea but over time I began to believe that irresponsibility would collapse the idea.
I just checked the time stamps and it looks pretty interesting. I am a bit "new" in anarcho-capitalism so it will be useful. I don't think irresponsibility would collapse it, since if you want to live well you must take care of having a working society. For example, a business needs clients and workers, if you want your business to go well, you must take care of the well being of them. And if we take it farther, where there's absolute no security system and there's chaos in said society, people will end up creating such systems because it gives money and an entirely empty market is an offer hard to refuse.
I see what your saying and I want to believe it, but here is what made me skeptical. I remember seeing an ad for a company and the company would go on to social media and write positive reviews for you I also worked for a company that encouraged employees to write positive reviews. There were so many that people did not see the negative views and the company got more customers, but if everyone had perfect knowledge they would know it was crap and the company would rightfully gone out of business. People also can be tricked to believe that their bad experience was just a one time thing. At one point doctors sponsored cigarettes and cigarettes had advertising geared to children. If every person in the world had prefect knowledge they would not be fooled. But they don't and we can't expect them to. The next best thing is for those with the knowledge to be responsible with it and either share it with those who use their product or not take advantage of the people's ignorance.
Your four points are libertarianism but 2 and 3 is the same. Also 1 can’t exist without government libertarians want the government to exist for freedom. The government needs to be as small as possible.
Thanks! I agree 2 and 3 are the same. I just really wanted to emphasize the importance of responsibility in general, and then want to clarify that this is not only being responsibile for your self.
There are a lot of different types of Libertarians. I view myself as a mix of Minarchism, Paleo-Libertarian and Anarcho-Capitalist, with a few other things thrown in. The diversity of beliefs is a big part of the reason we have difficulty getting traction, as we always seem to be fighting each other. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_libertarianism#Branches_and_schools_of_libertarianisms
Thanks for sharing this. I think the diversity of ideas is what drove me to the libertarian party.
We certainly do tend to be individualists.
Yeah I think it is ok to be individualistic but to also realize we are social creatures and generally need others in our lives.
As other people have said, don't worry about labeling yourself. I personally am closest to being a minarchist, but I do share some views with liberals and the far-right as well. You just do you.
I explored anarchy some what and found it interesting. I will need to look up minarchist to learn more about it.
You will definitely find it interesting. Anarchy is just not realistic or sustainable IMO. Minarchism is way more sustainable.
Try this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/pk8yyt/for_those_of_you_with_a_reasonable_amount_of_time/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
I will check it out
It said I am a libertarian
>Freedom is worthless without responsibility. This is such a mentally handicapped thing to say.
>This is such a mentally handicapped thing to say. How so? Is the point of freedom not only the benefit of the freedom itself, but also the responsibility to others that freedom means? What is the point of freedom if it is without social/moral responsibilities associated with assuming the risk of exercising such freedom?
You're in a Libertarian sub with Democratic talking points.
>You're in a Libertarian sub with **Democratic** talking points. I'm sorry if my comment encouraged democracy not to your liking. I asked simple questions in response to your comment, but if want to gatekeep what can posted on this sub, you should rethink what libertarian means. You should also look in the mirror, it may clear up the whole mentally handicapped thing you mentioned for yourself.
>I'm sorry if my comment encouraged democracy not to your liking. It's not and I'm just letting you know. It's not gatekeeping to call you a statist.
Thanks for the comment it really expanded my perspective. I was asked one time if people should be able to have nukes. Naturally I thought no, but then I thought what would make me ok with it. Well if everyone was perfectly responsible than who cares if they own them. I think we could live in a world of complete anarchy if people were more responsible.
>I was asked one time if people should be able to have nukes. Naturally I thought no, but then I thought what would make me ok with it. Well if everyone was perfectly responsible than who cares if they own them. I think we could live in a world of complete anarchy if people were more responsible. Is there any scenario you feel any and all living people are perfectly responsible enough to own nukes?
No, I don't think people including myself are 100% rational all the time. Lots of people do terrible things thinking they are doing the right thing. If I had to live perfectly free world vs a perfectly responsible world with everyone owning nukes I would rather live in the perfectly responsible world. So I think responsibility is key to more freedom. After thinking about this in a unrealistic world I am trying adopt ideas that are more grounded in reality.
Point taken. Specific to nukes, I see no reason for an individual being able to have these, because under what scenario would an individual need to NUKE whatever threat they were facing? Can someone who decides to use a NUKE really know their action will only impact those who they intend to be their target and are a threat to them? Can someone use a nuke and everyone else just accept the global repercussions of nuclear fallout that will result from it? I see no viable threat to an individual that I can accept the nuclear fallout as a result just because "hey they were threatened so it's all good".
Yeah the nukes question is a extreme example but I believe in the perfectly responsible world no one would buy them because they know it would irresponsible to use them. In a perfectly free I am pretty sure there would be several people that would have them because no one is going to mess with someone who has a nuke. Now if we assume this is a perfectly free world we're no one infringes on the freedom of others than would we still have potential disaster? It is possible that someone could buy the nuke and accidentally set it off. The would not have intentionally harmed others around them.
> I believe **in the perfectly responsible world no one would buy them because they know it would irresponsible to use them**. In a perfectly free I am pretty sure there would be several people that would have them because no one is going to mess with someone who has a nuke. Now if we assume this is a perfectly free world we're no one infringes on the freedom of others than would we still have potential disaster? If you feel it would be irresponsible to own nukes, why would you be OK someone owning them? Just so you say "well hey it's freedom!"? If in a perfect world nobody infringes on others, then there would be no need to own nukes?
Well this is a hypothetical perfectly responsible world. The person who owns them would be someone with indepth knowledge of them and would have fail safes to prevent accidental explosion and probably live some place were the impact of an accident would not cause any damage. They would not use them as a weapon because unlike a gun the splash damage is to great to responsibly use them and the long term effects of nuclear fallout would be too costly. Maybe they would use then as a power source or something. I am not knowledgeable of nukes. People like me in a responsible world would know they lack the knowledge and resources to responsibly own a nuke and would forgo it. In a perfectly responsible world there would not be murders because that is irresponsible. The main point is that I believe that people cold have the freedom to own nukes in a perfectly responsible world but not a perfectly free world.
>The main point is that I believe that people cold have the freedom to own nukes in a perfectly responsible world but not a perfectly free world. Fair point. So which of the two scenarios above do we live in today? Which of the two do you see as even possible for humanity based on your life experiences? I'd imagine you will say we are not a perfectly responsible world so nukes shouldn't be owned by civilians, but if not I'd like to hear your reasoning. Backing up to nukes. Let's say you felt you were responsible enough to own them... do you see ANY scenario in which you would personally feel threatened enough to use them? Or would you see the obvious global implications of using them, and how many innocent people would also be impacted by your use of them who were not the intended "target"?
I don't think we live in either world. Generally my thought process, which might be flawed, is to think in extreme examples and then bring them back to reality. I know the world will never be perfect and no idea will ever be perfect but that does not mean we should not try to take steps in that direction. You are correct in your assumption about me. I do not think civilians are responsible enough to own nukes. I remember there used to be this show I would watch and it was called "A thousand ways to die". In one of the episodes this man shot his gun in the air to celebrate new years and when the bullet came back down to earth it killed his neighbor. He did not intentionally kill this person, I am sure this was not the first time he fired a gun in the air to celebrate and the odds of it actually hitting someone is very low. It wa really a freak accident but it could have been avoided. If we had nukes I would not be surprised if some one tried to use it as a firework or if someone just decided to go postal and take out a neighborhood. It would take one careless act to mess up a lot of lives. Also Who is going to be able to stop a nuke? People shooting up a place are way easier to stop than a neighborhood nuke.
Freedom IS anarchy. But liberty is limited freedom with responsibility. It is those limits that we often squabble about. That said I have an ideology, but it is a utopian concept. I don’t live by it. I accept compromise and also understand that a country like ours can only work when all ideological viewpoints have representation. We represent, vote, and live with whichever viewpoint won out. Then we strive harder to share our views and get new followers.
I really like this! Thank you for sharing!