[Fangrim]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready 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?

Not necessarily. If they feel themselves to be that antagonistic for the direction or ideas of the majority, they may bind with other people who share more similar ideals and form their own societies.

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?

Each individuals' will comes together to form a collective will, yes.

Individuals are only "forced under the treads" of the general people's will if they disagree with that will.
It is no fault of the majority if the minority dislike those policies.

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

Whatever role the people wish it to play. Government is simply an extension of humanity. It is a tool that should be used as the people wish it to be used; not limited based on arbitrary systems of rights set down by the intelligentsia, by those who think themselves more fit to decide what each individual wants than those individuals themselves.

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

The collective derives its power from the will of each individual, correct. But in participating in government, the individual concedes that his own will is equal to the will of any other individual, and that if the majority of the people contradict his own wishes, the majority rules.
It is the exchange he pays for participating in society and gaining all of its benefits. The individual gains political power in a more direct voting process, and all the benefits of social interaction.

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.

No one can decide the people's will except the people themselves. Why decide for them what only they should decide?
If they decide they want government to provide only a minimal amount of protection for ensure their survival and happiness, then that's fine.
If, however, they want a strong, bigger, and more active government, all the better. Government is an extension of the people's will: if the people will it to do something, it should.
Under libertarian style government, the government is restricted in what it does in ways that can contradict the people's will.

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

Correct.

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. 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.

Why is there such ease in the environment of localism for such laws?

It then merely becomes a more localized tyranny of the majority. You STILL have the situation of the majority deciding for even the dissenting individual. "Best fit those affected"?
Are you a national libertarian, but a local populist? Sounds like it.

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

And even if that's true? You're already assuming what each individual has a right to take! That itself would be decided by popular vote.

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.

Then this is an inherent contradiction. You are a national libertarian but a local populist.