[Osborn F Enready]

Fangrim said: Exactly. Under libertarianism, the people are restricted in their power over the individual by an arbitrary system of "human" or "universal" rights. Under populism, however, the people's will is channeled into government and steeled with ultimate authority, allowing them to shape their society.

Ok, what good is society for all people, if it doesn't provide some benefit to all people? Do you think that those who oppose these "goals" of society should "surrender themselves" to the tank treads of societies goals?

Is it that you think "the collective" should set the goals, since "the collective" in your view determines reality as opposed to the individual? This rings of Kantian logic?

What good is society, if it forces its own under the treads for progress by democratic "dictation", as opposed to letting man naturally find his way of progress individually and through mutual conscent agreements?

I have to ask you the basic question..... regarding all societies. What role do you think government plays to society?

Fangrim said: This beauty is not incompatible with populism, as long as the people willed such beauty to exist and flourish. If the people do NOT will such an existence, this beauty is unwanted.

So you deny the individual, in an attempt to legitimize collective intrests?
Where does any collective derive its intrests from, if not individuals?

Fangrim said: You see the protection of the individuals' rights as paramount. I see the extension of the people's will as paramount.

The peoples will is everchanging, always foggy, and never clear. The individuals all share some common will, which is survival, happiness and an ability to use labor as intended, to pleasure and provide for ones self.
Protecting the rights of individuals allows all people, no matter how diverse, to find a measure of satisfaction within the limited bounds of the system. The value of Libertarian style of government is that it places government force behind an objectively quantifiable measure of justice, revealing plainly to the best of individual ability the objective facts of every individual case where justice is called in to question, or rights are infringed.

Populism, much like pure democracy, is mob rule, no protections from the majorities whims, fetishes or perversions.

Fangrim said: We both seek the good of humanity, but on different levels and in different ways.

Well, I will limit my reply to simply saying we can agree to disagree.

Fangrim said: Tell, me, Osborn, what do you think about laws that prevent people from being nude in public?

I think as a local law, that may be acceptable, but not a federal law, or state law. I see no reason to outlaw nudist colonies, or private collectives that prefer nudity as opposed to clothing.

Fangrim said: Libertarianism would prevent such a law because it interferes with the individual.

That is not true. Libertarianism would REQUIRE that law to be at the most local level, perhaps, neighborhood level, since it directly affects the community, and the community has the RIGHT to vote on that which directly affects their liberty. By keeping laws local, locals can directly affect the passage, repeal, or modification of the law to best fit those most affected.

You are attempting to "cage" libertarianism as an extreme, when it is not.

Fangrim said: It's the majority interfering in the individuals' actions.

There is a lot more to it then that, and I would think you know that summing it up in that fashion is not really honest to the real situation.

Fangrim said: Populism grants the people the power to make that law. It gives the people that extension of power to make such legislation.

The people have no right to take collectively, that which they cannot take individually.

You are seeming to make out libertarianism as a system of government that wouldn't allow voting, or representative democracy, which is not the case. It in fact, does just that, at the most local level, giving people the most power to directly affect how law interferes with their life on a daily basis, as well as defining certain areas (individual rights) that are sacredly uninfringeable, as inherantly necessary to a healthy society.