The Kochs are scared, and they've bought the web domains to prove it

I'm confused then... You expouse Libertarian thought but fight against it in other comments and your support of the Democratic party...

How do you merge the two concepts?

Your rights end where mine begin.

Live and let live worked great when the human population was far less dense and we were in pre-industrial times.

Every action has some sort of a consequence to someone else in regards to how we live our lives now, both postive and negative. No one should have the right to make someone else suffer the consequences of their actions if those consequenses are negative or harmful.

I live in Colorado at the head waters of many rivers, should I be able to dump toxins in the water to reduce my expenses and increase profits at the expense of everyone down stream? Or, should I be forced to deal with my toxins in a way that protects others, but costs me more money?

As far as beliefs go, I think we a learning that once again the more of us there are, and the closer we have to live together the more we have to be concerned with your rights end where mine begin.

The belief that you can do what ever the hell you want, where ever and when ever in this day and age seems pretty juvenal, inconsiderate and selfish to me. Any specific religious symbols, practices, principals and dogma no matter how strong one believes in them or how many people believe in them simply have no place in a free society like we claim to have and support. This is part of our American heritage and many have died to protect that principle, it would be tragic if there was ever blood shed within our own boarders to maintain not only freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion.

Aho

Live and let live worked great when the human population was far less dense and we were in pre-industrial times.

I've never understood this ridiculousness. 'live and let live' isn't what we are talking about, first of all. Second, only sections of our country are 'more densly populated', can the rest of the country have some of that freedom and liberty thing we were promised?

But the real issue is that a libertarian mindset is 'default' when no one is around to get in your way, but it is NEEDED when there are others doing their best to continue robbing you of your freedom.

Every action has some sort of a consequence to someone else in regards to how we live our lives now, both postive and negative.

So, by your 'logic' everything is subject to the whims of the majority through the use of politics and the employment of force by the government. How you dress, what you eat, what kind of car you buy, what kind of toothpaste you use, etc. How simply authoritarian of you and the exact reason I can't abide by progressive authoritarian policies.

I live in Colorado at the head waters of many rivers, should I be able to dump toxins in the water to reduce my expenses and increase profits at the expense of everyone down stream

Of course not, but no one I know is suggesting you should be able to. Straw men do not an argument make.

But since you seem to misunderstand the libertarian philosophy, let me repeat it.

"You should be free to live your life as you choose as long as you don't violate another's rights to the same".

Any specific religious symbols, practices, principals and dogma no matter how strong one believes in them or how many people believe in them simply have no place in a free society like we claim to have and support. This is part of our American heritage and many have died to protect that principle, it would be tragic if there was ever blood shed within our own boarders to maintain this...

On that we agree.

So, by your 'logic' everything is subject to the whims of the majority through the use of politics and the employment of force by the government. How you dress, what you eat, what kind of car you buy, what kind of toothpaste you use, etc. How simply authoritarian of you and the exact reason I can't abide by progressive authoritarian policies.

To use your own words and logic;

Straw men do not an argument make.

Irrational, illogical and self destructive behavoir is fine on a personal level in the privacy of your own home, as long as you have the title free and clear. But to have expectations that anyone should have those rights beyond the consequences to ones self is absurd.

How you dress, what you eat, what kind of car you buy, what kind of toothpaste you use, etc.

Oh bunk, you should have the right to wear clothing made by slaves with toxic materials?

You should be able to eat food that can kill you because it's more profitable to someone else, and they hope you die?

You should be able to drive a vehicle that spews toxins others have to breath and wastes natural resources that belong to future generations, not us?

"You should be free to live your life as you choose as long as you don't violate another's rights to the same".

Oh boy... you say one thing, but truly believe in something totally different. There's just too many inconsistencies in the libertarian ideology for my liking.

Authoritarianism is when people are forced to do things that are against their best interests or their will. Environmental protection, consumer protection, cival and commercial laws and common sense are not authoritarian, they are they foundations of our modern civilization.

Rhinehold.... why do I get the impression that you belong to a "sovereign citizen" group? It is just very strong.

you should have the right to wear clothing made by slaves with toxic materials?

I would have thought you would get that slavery would be against that 'violates the rights of others' part of the philosophy, but apparently you are still missing that part...

You should be able to eat food that can kill you because it's more profitable to someone else, and they hope you die?

Yes, I would think that I should be free to put whatever I want into my own body, including unpasteurized milk (currently 'illegal' in many areas), pot, bleach, whatever. Last I checked it was my body...

You should be able to drive a vehicle that spews toxins others have to breath and wastes natural resources that belong to future generations, not us?

Yes and no. You put in a lot of different things in here... 'spewing toxins' is something humans do every day when they breathe... Perhaps you want to limit how much we breathe? Resources are being used every day as well, but you mention waste, define waste...

Oh boy... you say one thing, but truly believe in something totally different.

No, I mean what I say, nothing more, nothing less.

There's just too many inconsistencies in the libertarian ideology for my liking.

Considering what you think libertarianism is (including allowing slavery) I am not surprised.

Authoritarianism is when people are forced to do things that are against their best interests or their will.

And that is exactly what both Progressive and Conservative ideologies are pushing. Let's just take the ability to purchase and inject unpasteurized milk as an example. Progressives say no because they think they are 'protecting' someone by making that choice for them. Conservatives say no because it affects the milk industry. However, both result in 'forcing me to do something against my will'. I can give you hundreds of examples, if you like...

The fact is, both major parties are authoritarians, using the force of the government to dictate what actions that individuals can and can't do in their own home with their own bodies. The inconsistencies are theirs, not libertarians...

why do I get the impression that you belong to a "sovereign citizen" group?

Not sure, do the ACLU and HRC count?

Rhinehold, you are a master of rationalizations. I'm sure you can convince yourself of all most anything when you put your mind to it... but most of us are not impressed with rationalizing and it certainly does little to change or convert people when they realize that's what they are being given.

In psychology and logic, rationalization (or making excuses^[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation. It often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).

People rationalize for various reasons. Often it is to differentiate from the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.^[2][3] Sometimes this occurs when we think we know ourselves better than we do. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.

Sorry, but I call it as I see it.

Aho

Deflect much? You misrepresent a philosophy and then when called out upon it you attempt an ad hominem attack? Either get back to the discussion or just admit you really don't know what libertarianism is. Maybe accept that and stop attacking what you don't know.

Libertarianism as you have explained it, sounds more like anarchy and non-conformity to common sense principals.

If you are representative of this ideology, it is aloof and noninclusive and sounds like more of the every man for himself crap the right wing evangelizes.

And then to say stop attacking what you don't know and just accept it, has got to be one of the most condescending comments I have yet to see on the Vine...

I don't and never will represent your philosophy, what ever that is.

By the way, this was a discussion about the consolidation of wealth and power by few at the expense of the many, in context to the Koch brothers.

It was you, not me that side tracked to libertarianism...

Libertarianism as you have explained it, sounds more like anarchy and non-conformity to common sense principals.

I would like to hear you explain that, considering it has nothing at all to do with anarchy... I'll try again, "Be free to live your life as you choose unless it prevent another from the same". Tell me how that is different exactly from "Your rights end where mine begin." Those sound the same to me, yet you seem to suggest they are different somehow, that one is right and good and the other is 'anarchy'? If so, I would like you to explain the difference, if you can.

And then to say stop attacking what you don't know and just accept it, has got to be one of the most condescending comments I have yet to see on the Vine...

Again with the straw man, I never suggested any such thing. Yes, stop attacking what you don't know. If you want to get to actually understand it, then do so. Once you do then fine. But to do otherwise is simply egotistical, thinking you can know something is bad when you don't even know what it is...

By the way, this was a discussion about the consolidation of wealth and power by few at the expense of the many, in context to the Koch brothers. It was you, not me that side tracked to libertarianism...

Yes, because the seeder seemed to represent libertarianism yet calls himself a progressive, which are opposites of each other. I am trying to figure out how he resolves that dichotomy.

Again, no where did I say I can't more than '1' point of view, as I am an athiest as well, blah blah blah. What I was asking was how you resolve the polar opposite views that the government has the power to force individuals to do what it says in regards to their own individual lives and your expression that it shouldn't. If your answer is that you decide on the merits of each individual issue and don't use principles in that decision, I can accept that (though not agree).

BTW, your example is flawed, being an athiest and believing in 'do not murder' are not polar opposite views. My curiousity is when an issue arises and you have to decide which way to go on that issue politically, what is your deciding factor if one side says we should be free to to x and the other is that the government has the right to tell you you can't?

That sort of thing leads to hypocrisy, sort of trying to say you think people should be able to do what they want with their bodies (smoke pot, abortion, etc) but they shouldn't be allowed to do other things that they want with their bodies (kill themselves, gamble, etc).

When those opposing views come against each other, how do you decide which way to go? I'm seriously genuinely curious...

Sorry, didn't realize I was intruding on your thread and getting in the way of all of the other comments and traffic, I'll detrack and leave you to it then.

And the best way for that to happen is to take that power away from the government so there is no ability for anyone, good or bad, to use that power...

But that's the problem, isn't it? Some want all that power centrally located but only have 'angels' running the show. However, as Madison pointed out, we are humans, not angels. So he and the other founding fathers were right to not want to centralized that power for just that reason. It's our fault, not the Koch's...