Four Reasons to Reject Libertarianism

Post Reply New Topic

'Fascism' and 'Progressive-ism' are antonymous.



If you think otherwise, you do not understand what fascism is.

It is like trying to marry 'Socialism' and 'Reaction-ism'.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1fGD_gTxTo[/youtube]
One of the greatest philosophical works of the 20th century... nay, of all time...

What do you mean by "basic standards" ?

Who says contracts are a necessary thing?

Do you really think having some coercive institution imposing a solution (which may not even be the right one) is the best way to solve disputes?

Also, there's no such thing as "rights". Anything that is a "right" can be taken away by the state, which most states tend to do.

People don't need 3rd parties to solve disputes.

That has got to be the most ironic statement I have seen in a long time on WP considering your political views...

I guess you noticed that too, since you edited that out... My reply button was faster, though...

Well I believe violence is only justified when used to prevent the harm of others. So I believe the states function (private property) to be unjust and unnecessary.

Last edited by RushKing on 11 Oct 2013, 1:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Some libertarians support a (small) welfare state, too. Ever heard of classical liberalism?

I'm a libertarian, I see nothing wrong with it. I do not believe I'm evil, and I find the morals of those who feel libertarianism as repellent, to be repellent themselves. It's a matter of perspective, and I can afford to live a libertarian existence so I do..

Some folks here want everyone to walk in lockstep and agree with them. They are changing no minds, only appearing hysterical by harping on the same things endlessly. (I know it's an Aspie trait to harp on the same issues, I do it too with Cthulhu and and my nerdy stuff but it's not a quality I try to foster. Especially with politics, as I tend to anger folks.)

Look at all the posters covering the same issues over and over....it's almost a type of online "improvised performance" of political impotence more than anything intellectually engaging. To address an issue in particular is one thing, but when you paint a group with large brushstrokes renders a unclear picture.

We need all the political variances of thought possible if humanity is going to thrive. Right, left, or logical libertarianism...all are needed.

The state can deny you your rights, but it cannot take them away.

If we are going to go beyond a barter economy, there is a need for agreements, and unless we want to resort to mob rule, there needs to be a way to resolve disputes that is fair.

A non-profit, voluntarily funded arbitration system? Who said an ultraminimalist government had to be funded through coercion?

As for the article, the writer seems to be very, very, lazy. No wonder they don't want a free market, they'd have to actually produce something of value. Maybe learning to use the internet could help them on their way. There are a great many resources for someone to learn about libertarianism - The Mises Institute, Mutualist Blog/Homebrew Industrial Revolution (for a free market non-capitalist viewpoint), A Thousand Nations...

A search in time saves nine... nine commentators each linking you to the same stuff that you really ought to have read.

If you're against libertarianism than you are against freedom. It's as simple as that.

^spoken like a three-year-old.

After reading the article, I can only conclude that the author has had a libertarian described to him, but has never actually met one.

No, it doesn't, even the Ayn Rand school, of which I'm not a member, preaches rational self interest, which is not the same thing as greed or selfishness.



So this guy knows what my internal thoughts and beliefs are, regardless of what I say? I wish I were so gifted...



Ok, f*ck this guy, what an ignorant and repugnant thing to say. Read Reason magazine, check out the CATO website, look at what the Institute for Justice is fighting for; libertarians care a *lot* about people being oppressed by the system, whether they're victims of the drug war, victims of shady eminent domain deals, small businesses being choked by regulations sought by their wealthy competitors, and many, many more causes that don't help the rich and successful one bit. I'm a libertarian, and my most passionate causes are free speech censorship, police militarization and abuse, prosecutors abusing the legal system, the abomination that is the US justice/prison system, and guns, and even the guns enable the weak over the strong. This guy isn't just ignorant, he's an as*hole too, a much bigger offense in my book.



This guy knows even less about the etymology of the expression "the exception proves the rule" than he does about libertarians, and he apparently knows Jack and sh*t about libertarians (and Jack left town).



Again, f*ck this guy, right in the neck. If he'd bothered to meet any actual libertarians, he'd find that concern for the underdog is a very common value in libertarianism, considering how we view people who've come up against the might of the state and it's minions.



What. A. Jackass. This guy literally cannot conceive of someone being motivated by the plight of those who come into conflict with the state, or private enterprise in bed with the state, it's simply beyond his comprehension, so his response is to set up quite possibly the worst straw man I've ever seen, and then make pithy comments about it. I feel bad for the people who thought they got something out of reading this, I mean absent some pretty strong confirmation bias I don't know how any thinking person could fail to notice all the problems.



How many people do you think the author knows who've had their assets stolen from them under civil forfeiture despite having committed no crime? Or been shot by the police under questionable circumstances only to have the shooting ruled justified and the shooter get a promotion for it? How about anyone who's spent decades in jail because a prosecutor lied on the stand or suppressed evidence, but is legally untouchable because of the absolute immunity they carry? Last I checked, Apple wasn't rolling around murdering people, Walmart wasn't stealing people's stuff on a flimsy pretext, and CocaCola wasn't trying to imprison people to further their executives' careers. Now all of those companies have been up to some shady sh*t of their own over the years, but not only do they not reach the level of the government, most of their worst practices wouldn't be possible without the government.

So, to recap, the guy's an idiot, doesn't know a thing about libertarians, and yet is determined to tell us all about the evils of them, when in reality he's tilting at a windmill of his own creation, poorly. And yet, people still listen...

Last edited by Dox47 on 12 Oct 2013, 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I personally think that the Libertarians have an excellent philosophy and a fairly good set of guiding principles. It is more the proposed methods of achieving their goals that I take issue with. Any major changes in political environment at this point would need to be in a structured, well thought out, and above all have an in depth plan for easing the transition. If everything the current Libertarian groups happened overnight, our economy would not be able to bear the strain, nor would the average working stiff who relies on the current system (even if indirectly). What they need is a logical, long term road map, and then they may be able to attract a large enough voter base that isn't composed of a small group of people proposing sweeping reforms that make people nervous.

To be honest, I think most political parties (including most of the smaller ones) have a decent foundation and framework for governing that has the best interests of the people at heart. The difficulty is that what is best and how to get there are drastically different. Another issue is that Americans don't find calm, rational discussion interesting enough to pay attention to anyone who isn't spewing out some sort of emotional exploitation.

If it's a roadmap you're after, check out Agorism. Or, if you're more of the reform school of thought, a citizens income to replace the welfare state, and a repealing of all the regulations that stifle the market, followed by a gradual winding down of the state as people relearn responsibility.

The Agorism branch would be an excellent path, but it does not have enough recognition in the general population to be practical at this point in time. It is actually the closest political school to my own beliefs. I think that its time will come, but not until a big flame-out of some of the current political institutions.