Why is there so much liberal hate?

Post Reply New Topic

If you consider Hong Kong your idea of libertarianism, I don't thing you would be willing to live in that environment to sacrifice this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Hong_Kong



Economic and govt/taxing freedoms don't mean as much without personal freedoms for those that are accustomed to the type of liberties provided in the US, and this is only a small part of the personal restrictions of freedoms in Hong Kong as opposed to the US.

I think I've encountered an adequate sample size to conclude that the majority of vocal libertarians support a rather radical policy agenda, one that doesn't exist anywhere the modern developed world, at least not in any nation comparable to the US in terms of population size, level of natural resources, and GDP.



That would only follow if you considered the majority of people you've dealt with over the years to be as*holes. I was only talking about the majority of libertarians who made their views known to me, not all extremists. A generalization based on a selected sample is not automatically a fallacy, provided the sample size is large enough. I always thought it was a PC liberal fallacy to shoot down generalizations and stereotypes in a knee-jerk fashion just because one finds them offensive.

Who's offended? I was just pointing out that your "reasoning" was flawed.

I'm making the allowance that this is an Aspie board and things get taken a bit too literally, so allow me to clarify. I point out Hong Kong as an example of a place where minimal regulation on businesses has led to increased opportunity and class mobility, and to shoot down the asinine and mendacious straw-man that Somalia represents some sort of libertarian ideal, not as a perfect example of libertarianism in action. Perhaps I should have phrased it "More Hong Kong than Somalia", but I occasionally forget my audience. Obviously, a libertarian state would combine personal and economic freedom, not just the one as in Hong Kong or Singapore.

In that case Estonia and many other countries would have been the better examples to use, since neither Hong Kong or Singapore are good examples of Libertarianism, per individual freedoms.

Interestingly though, I have heard folks point to Hong Kong and Singapore as examples of libertarianism that works, until they find out the details of what it's like to live there, per limits of personal freedom.

As far as Somalia goes, it's an excellent example of what life is like with no government provided safety net and little provided government infrastructure. I think I am the only one that referred to it in this thread, at least in the last 10 pages. I spoke to it in relationship to living in third world countries without a social safety net, not in a comparison to libertarianism, as it doesn't even make the evidenced list I provided of the top 159 countries for economic and personal freedoms. The last country one wants to go for Liberty or anything else associated with living conditions

If you actually here someone suggest that Somalia is a libertarian leaning country, I suggest you provide that handy link.

There are differently defined ideologies associated with Libertarianism; the one without the social welfare element, is the fringe, as it limits potential for personal freedom, in developed countries. Somalia is a jolt of reality of what life is like in a country with no social safety net.

If an example without social welfare that worked in a large developed country could be provided, it might be better accepted as an ideology. The fact that only 200 to 300K register that way, is pretty good evidence that it is restricted to ideology, rather than practical purpose.

Countries like Canada and Estonia get it right with a more practical definition, even the US as far as general comparison goes with countries like Hong Kong and Singapore.

The US is still got plenty of practical room to tax, beyond lobbying efforts, to retain and expand the personal freedoms that currently exist in the US. Health care reform was an ingenious way to do it. A mixed economy of market freedoms and government/taxpayer supported social welfare is what is evidenced to work across the globe.

We already have a mix of libertarianism that is evidenced to work, but could stand improvement. There is more room for hidden excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol, and other ways around political offense, to make those improvements.

One can't take a hatchet to freedom and expect to retain it. There aren't likely many serious politicians democrat or republican, that don't understand that underlying reality, regardless of rhetoric.

[img][800:626]http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapredbluer1024.png[/img]

I suggest the reason the liberal hate seems more vocal, is that it provides a common enemy that makes for a good topic of conversation in rural areas, where there isn't quite as much going on, as opposed to the heavier populated liberal areas. There is also a correlation of religious activity in these rural areas, that is often almost inseparable from party line politics.

Not much difference in preachers and politicians. Preachers have a huge influence in rural areas, in the ideology of their loyal congregations.

It's part of why we get these strange combinations of people against abortion and health care in the same breath. The core voice of it is intertwined with religious ideology.

That isn't changing in rural areas, nearly at the pace it is in urban areas, moving away from organized religion.

The slow demise of organized religion likely means the continued rise of social welfare, as well as increasing taxes.

But we likely will continue to hear shouts louder shouts of opposition well into the future.

The atheist tilt with libertarianism inclusive of cutting social welfare and taxes on the internet seems to be a rare, and interesting mix. It's the only place I've ever seen it communicated. It is a cerebral exercise of ideology, with what appears to be little application in the real world, as long as humans are dependent on each other to survive.

You did no such thing.

In any case Hong Kong must not be economically "free" according to biz boy if it has progressive taxation, subsidized housing, and a social safety net.

I'd take libertarians on the internet more seriously if they actually talked about specific areas of government inefficiency where people on all sides of the isle can find common ground (and I'm sure there's plenty). Instead all I ever hear about is the need to get rid of regulations that were obviously put in place for real valid reasons that internet libertarians prefer to dismiss as unimportant. If so many libertarians simply don't accept that protecting the environment, guaranteeing certain worker's rights, and providing the economically disadvantaged access to basic subsistence and healthcare, are valid roles of government, there just isn't anything to argue and we might as well not even bother having a discussion.