libertarianism vs. communal living

Discussion in 'Random Thoughts' started by sheeprooter, Jan 19, 2005.

  1. sheeprooter

    sheeprooter Member

    What do you all think of these two? on the surface, they both seem appealing to me. with libertarianism you basically are free to do whatever as long as you harm no one but yourself (so drugs would be legal). the government would be real small and not encroach on your rights. seems to make sense

    then there is the practical polar opposite-living on a commune. here, the "government" owns everything, and everyone is equal because of this. you work outdoors and live in a closely knit community. sounds cool
     
  2. Soulless||Chaos

    Soulless||Chaos SelfInducedExistence

    Libertarianism > (Communism || Communal living). :D
     
  3. in a commune the government does not own everything but i can see what you are saying. it could go too far in the small scale and it represents the big scale.

    libertarianism... well, i support their views of freedom in the sense of drugs and the way you live your life but i dont support how they wont help people that are out and down (socialisum)
     
  4. Soulless||Chaos

    Soulless||Chaos SelfInducedExistence

    Whatever do you mean? :confused:
     
  5. lynsey

    lynsey Banned

    I used to be a registered libertarian but I realized that in general people wouldn't be generous enough to sustain non-profit companies and childrens service. I do think that the majority of the goverment services should be privatized and minimal.
     
  6. whispers

    whispers sweet and sour

    this is random thoughts......we try not to think in here......please move this thread to one of the other forums


    thank you
     
  7. liberartians dont believe in helping others. they believe every person for themselves. they are way worse then republicans in that way.

    but in ways of being about to do what socially, they rock.

    so, im mixed.
     
  8. Soulless||Chaos

    Soulless||Chaos SelfInducedExistence

    It's not that they don't believe in helping others, it's that they don't believe in putting others in a state where they don't feel the need to help themselves. :D
     
  9. they are believing that people will just HELP others. i dont believe they will.

    socially, librertariansum is great. but i dont expect people to donante enough to help us all when we need it.
     
  10. Soulless||Chaos

    Soulless||Chaos SelfInducedExistence

    You'd be surprised, people can be quite generous, but perhaps knowing the fact that there is not indefinite help for them, people would go out and help themselves, thus needing less help?
     
  11. not everyone can help them selves.

    think about it.

    if we lives in a small-scale hunting and gathering society or even a namadic or pastoral society, it would be different...

    but you gotta think about all the people. we cannt be substantail in any way with these numbers. can you give me any good explanations how we can?
     
  12. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    That's not true at all. Libertarians simply believe the government should play a limited role in people's lives. Libertarians favor private charities as opposed to overbloated government programs. The more people that are dependent on government to survive, the more powerful the government becomes.

    If anyone doesn't believe that Socialism is a tool of fascists, just look at Hitler and Stalin.
     
  13. lace_and_feet

    lace_and_feet Super Member

    Old teacher of mine (libertarian) helps out at homeless shelters for the holidays--but before he plops down a scoop of mashed potatoes onto someone's plate, he asks them "What did you do to deserve this?" The end.
     
  14. sheeprooter

    sheeprooter Member

    wrong. hitler's national socialism was not socialism at all. the socialism in the name is just so it would sound legitimate, when it in fact was nothing but pure fascism.
    and the USSR was not socialist-they were communists, which is very different
     
  15. OSF

    OSF SeƱor ******

    Very funny sheepman. Hitler not a socialist, ha ha!!
     
  16. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    It might have been socialism in the beginning, but it's the socialism that Hitler used to bring about the fascism. That is the point I am trying to make!

    Hitler promised his people a utopian world in which the government would provide everything they could ever need and want, as long as they went along with whatever he, their Fuhrer, dictated to them. The German people fell for it and walked right into the trap of a monster.
     
  17. sheeprooter

    sheeprooter Member

    the only high ranking official who took the socialism part seriously was Rohm, commander of the SA. what did he get for his beliefs? hanged
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice