RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Fellow -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 2:41:25 AM)

Both the US (www.lp.org) and Canada have Libertarian parties with quite reasonable and realistic goals. Why to build argument against libertarians based on some abstract "straw man" anarchist?



tweakabelle -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 2:48:26 AM)

Thanks for the links. I appreciate the effort.

I was familiar with the traditional (socialist) libertarian philosophy and its relationship to anarcho-syndicalism. I liked the way it worked in Spain in the 1930s. It's a shame that this movement has become so marginalised after the Civil War there and the fascist victory. It would have been so interesting to see how it panned out as opposed to Soviet style 'socialism' IMHO

The term as it is used currently in the US seems a million miles from that - with what are to me weird obsessions like 'socialised medicine' and guns and its generally right wing affiliations. But then there's so much about US politics that makes no sense to outsiders ....... [:D]



Charles6682 -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 3:44:33 AM)

Dont try to understand American politics,its too depressing.Something alot of people from outside America need to realize,not all of America is full of white trash rednecks.Although,there is a good number.However,there is some states and regions that are more intelligent than other.The most progressive region in the USA has always been the states in the Northeastern states.I am talking states like New York and east throughout New England.American history will always show that this region in America has always been more morally progressive.The Northeast was the states that first ended slavery in America.The Northeast has always been progressive on social issues.Even in present time,most of the Northeastern states have legalized Gay Marriage,while the moajority of the country is still behind on this issue,even California.

I believe the Northeastern part of the USA is so progressive,for a few reasons.The fact that Canada is basically right there has certainly helped to shape progressive ideas.Those who live near the Canadian border on the American side know this to be true.Eventually,Canadas influence would trickle down into local communitys through the Northeastern states.I just think those "out of America" should realize that their is a progressive,humane,rational region in the USA.Certainly,The Northeast has its own white trash redneck too,just like anywhere really.However,Northerns put a huge price on education.Northeasterns value education.That helps to make even the Northeastern Trailor Park trash more intelligent than even the White Trash rednecks of the South.The majority of descent colleges are in the Northeast.

So,as a native Northeastern American myself,quit comapring all Americans as one in the same.There actually is a rational,intelligent,compassionate group of Americans.The Northeastern region is by far the most humane region as well.Many states in the Northeast have banned the Death Penalty too.There is a reason greedy,corporate facists dont like the Northeast so much.Because alot of human rights laws are passed in the Northeast to prevent worker rights abuse.In Flordia,there is less rights for the workers.Flordia is very anti-union.Still,Flordia is the last stop for greedy,rich businessmen as they pack their bags and send jobs to China anyways.



Charles6682 -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 3:53:57 AM)

I should probaly note there are some other descent states and regions as well.The Northwestern states on the Pacific coast are fairly progressive.Washington,Oregon and California are ususally descent.I use to live in Colorado,that is a nice state as well.



Moonhead -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 4:24:45 AM)

Why's it a strawman argument? I was just pointiong out that the "right wing anarchist" description doesn't work.
The US Libertarian party is actually a pretty fair example of the sectarian thing that's the only point any libertarians I've heard of have in common with anarchists: loads of people refuse to accept that they're libertarian in any way shape or form because they're trying to achieve stuff within the federal government. To some, that just isn't libertarian enough.



Charles6682 -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 5:14:35 AM)

I only of aware of the "American" form of "Libertarianism" myself.I am sure there is a much different meaning of the term in other parts of the World.The American Libertarianism is how it has been defined through out this thread.I will agree,that some who on the "fringe" of the American "Libertarianism" are probaly so close to believing in Anarchy as anyone can get.This too me is far too extreme.There is a role for government.Just beyond the normal "National" Defense,the Government does have a place in promoting good will and social justice.The American South advocated Slavery and then "Jim Crow" laws to promote a White supremacy society.Clearly,the Federal government played a huge role in ending slavery in the South.Then after that,it took the Federal Government to finally pass the Civil Rights Act,to force the South to end the old "Jim Crow" laws.So see,there is a real geniune need to have a Federal government that promotes Social justice.Clearly,some state governments can not fuction without Federal intervention.We dont need states rights that advocated Slavery and Jim Crow.Those states need Federal government to enforce social justice,when clearly some state government have proven to promote hate and intolerance.



Moonhead -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 5:21:34 AM)

In fact, the spread of American Libertarianism (if only as a bedrock for a variety of ideological conceits) since it started getting seriously bigged by SF writers in the '50s and '60s has led to the majority of left leaning Europeans abandoning the term. It no longer gets used as a victorian synonym for more or less any flavour of lefty social reformer, for instance. The term has been very thoroughly co-opted.



tweakabelle -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 6:11:30 AM)

Charles,

I'm sorry if you got the impression that I was trying to stereotype Americans, or convey the idea that all Americans are of a type. That wasn't my purpose at all.

I'm sure what you say is correct and that Americans like the rest of us come in all varieties. I really enjoyed my visit there. [:D]



tazzygirl -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 9:43:04 AM)

quote:

The majority of descent colleges are in the Northeast.


Duke isnt in the North.

Stanford isnt.

California Institute isnt.

University of Chicago isnt.

Then there is Emory, Vanderbuilt, Rice, Washington in St Louis, Northwestern.

My, 9 out of the top 20 Universities in the US arent located in the Northeastern part of the US. Simply amazing.

quote:


So,as a native Northeastern American myself,quit comapring all Americans as one in the same.There actually is a rational,intelligent,compassionate group of Americans.The Northeastern region is by far the most humane region as well.Many states in the Northeast have banned the Death Penalty too.There is a reason greedy,corporate facists dont like the Northeast so much.Because alot of human rights laws are passed in the Northeast to prevent worker rights abuse.In Flordia,there is less rights for the workers.Flordia is very anti-union.Still,Flordia is the last stop for greedy,rich businessmen as they pack their bags and send jobs to China anyways.


A new form of bigotry... My section of the US is better than yours. [8|]

quote:

The Northeastern region is by far the most humane region as well.


Are you truly sure you want to make that comparison?



tazzygirl -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 9:58:42 AM)

quote:

Then after that,it took the Federal Government to finally pass the Civil Rights Act,to force the South to end the old "Jim Crow" laws.


You actually believe that was just a "Southern" issue?

With the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, race relations seemed to be headed in the right direction. However, states acted to circumvent the new federal law, including California that created Proposition 14, which moved to block the fair housing section of the Act. This created anger and a feeling of injustice within the inner cities.

http://www.pbs.org/hueypnewton/times/times_watts.html

To say that the Jim Crow laws of the south were the only ones... means you need to brush up on your history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_laws_by_State



TexasRogue -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 11:51:43 AM)

Let him rant about how the northern states are more progressive, tazzy. That's not actually a positive thing to be. I love how he makes the claim that northern states value education highly, but his posts show about an eighth grade level of education (grammar, spelling, knowledge of history). Hilarious!

I consider myself a Libertarian and vote as one. My central issue is redistribution of wealth. I don't want to be taxed to bail out corporations. They should succeed or fail on their own merits. I also don't want to be taxed to bail out individuals. They, too, should succeed or fail on their own merits. That argument about "what happens when the charities aren't enough" is a liberal idea that I reject. If they fail so completely that they can't even feed themselves, too bad. Starve. I've been homeless and have missed many meals in my time. Pull yourself up and move on. It can be done without relying on someone else to carry you. The humane thing isn't to give someone a fish. It's to teach them how to fish. If no one is there to teach them how to fish or to hand out a fish, they should teach themselves.



tweakabelle -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 1:58:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue

Let him rant about how the northern states are more progressive, tazzy. That's not actually a positive thing to be. I love how he makes the claim that northern states value education highly, but his posts show about an eighth grade level of education (grammar, spelling, knowledge of history). Hilarious!

I consider myself a Libertarian and vote as one. My central issue is redistribution of wealth. I don't want to be taxed to bail out corporations. They should succeed or fail on their own merits. I also don't want to be taxed to bail out individuals. They, too, should succeed or fail on their own merits. That argument about "what happens when the charities aren't enough" is a liberal idea that I reject. If they fail so completely that they can't even feed themselves, too bad. Starve. I've been homeless and have missed many meals in my time. Pull yourself up and move on. It can be done without relying on someone else to carry you. The humane thing isn't to give someone a fish. It's to teach them how to fish. If no one is there to teach them how to fish or to hand out a fish, they should teach themselves.

If this is the authentic voice of American libertarianism, then I am so delighted libertarianism is completely absent here. Long may it remain so

I find the sentiments articulated cold smug inhumane ugly devoid of compassion so utterly selfish and me me me - all serious flaws I hope I never possess and prefer not to discover in others.

I am unable to see how such disturbing drawbacks might be a positive in any society. Nor can I say I have any desire to understand how they might be seen as such.

Ughhhh! Repulsive. Sick.



TexasRogue -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 2:34:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I find the sentiments articulated cold smug inhumane ugly devoid of compassion so utterly selfish and me me me - all serious flaws I hope I never possess and prefer not to discover in others.



It's easy to fling insults, tweaker. Care to explain how it's devoid of compassion to want someone to be self sufficient? How it's cold and inhumane? Handouts are never the answer to poverty. Education usually is. Did you miss the whole fishing analogy?



mnottertail -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 2:37:08 PM)

educate a sandwich, you're saying?



NorthernGent -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 3:03:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Here in Australia we have no tradition of this ideology, so it's pretty unfamiliar to me.

My first impressions are that it's a kind of right wing anarchism, a extreme articulation of the principle of self sufficiency. In fact, the closest we have to this idea would be those greenies who 'go back to nature and try to live self sufficient lives'. (We call them ferals, thought I suspect both our ferals and your libertarians would hate each other on sight!).

There doesn't seem to be any appreciation of the perspective that humans are cultural animals in this ideology. Is this impression incorrect?




'Libertarianism' was coined in Europe, and was a term used to describe the extreme left, or what today is termed 'social anarchism'.

The underlying priniple is that humans function best via voluntary involvement as opposed to through state 'coercion'.

When human beings are left to their own devices, however, e.g. unfettered markets, it tends to result in corruption and division (stark) in society. Bizarrely, the Hayek supporters, who propose the sort of zero regulation that caused the banking chaos, believe the solution to such problems is yet further scale back of any sort of regulation. Sort of like a car that crashes because it has no brakes - instead of fitting breaks to the car to prevent another crash, they want to remove the steering wheel, too.

And underpinning all of this is the idea that humans are essentially rational human beings, which is an idea blown out of the water by Hume when establishing that we operate, at least in part, on habit and custom - there's no real reason to believe your house won't fall down (unless you've undertaken your own structural survey), except that you probably haven't experienced it in the past - doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow. Habit and custom play a role in dictating choice, in the same way a dog goes to the door when his owner brings out the lead because it has experience that that means walking time. We're not that advanced or special, certainly not enough to afford everyone free reign.



Elisabella -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 4:16:38 PM)

quote:

LIBERTARIANISM CAN BE ESPECIALLY ATTRACTIVE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE. “WHEN I WAS 19, LIBERTARIANISM WAS AN ARGUMENT FOR BEING AWESOME,” SAYS WILL WILKINSON, A FORMER CATO SCHOLAR WHO NOW BLOGS AT THE ECONOMIST. IT’S ABOUT FLOUTING CONVENTION AND REJECTING AUTHORITY - THE POLITICAL EQUIVALENT OF GETTING AN EYEBROW RING. IT’S ALSO AN EXCUSE TO INDULGE YOUR MOST SELFISH INSTINCTS. BUT YOU DON’T HAVE TO CALL IT “SELFISHNESS.”


Haha sounds like me when I was 19



tweakabelle -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 6:23:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I find the sentiments articulated cold smug inhumane ugly devoid of compassion so utterly selfish and me me me - all serious flaws I hope I never possess and prefer not to discover in others.



It's easy to fling insults, tweaker. Care to explain how it's devoid of compassion to want someone to be self sufficient? How it's cold and inhumane? Handouts are never the answer to poverty. Education usually is. Did you miss the whole fishing analogy?


They aren't insults TR, they are descriptions of my reaction to the "sentiments articulated" in your post. To be an insult, it has to be directed at you personally, which is clearly wasn't. I don't like the philosophy you outlined. That says nothing about you as a person. Please note the difference.

quote:

TexasRogue
That argument about "what happens when the charities aren't enough" is a liberal idea that I reject. If they fail so completely that they can't even feed themselves, too bad. Starve.


Please point out the humane aspects or compassion in the quote above lifted directly from your post. Because I can't see any.



DomKen -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 6:46:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I find the sentiments articulated cold smug inhumane ugly devoid of compassion so utterly selfish and me me me - all serious flaws I hope I never possess and prefer not to discover in others.



It's easy to fling insults, tweaker. Care to explain how it's devoid of compassion to want someone to be self sufficient? How it's cold and inhumane? Handouts are never the answer to poverty. Education usually is. Did you miss the whole fishing analogy?

Let's say for instance that you aren't poor but something happens. Say for insatnce you're 43 with an $85k salary and nearly $100k in the bank and invested. Now ponder getting a serious kidney infection that forces you onto dialysis (3 times a week at $1500 per session or $234k per year). Should you simply die when your savings are exhausted? Or is it possible that society acting through its government should provide assistance?



TexasRogue -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 6:50:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: TexasRogue


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I find the sentiments articulated cold smug inhumane ugly devoid of compassion so utterly selfish and me me me - all serious flaws I hope I never possess and prefer not to discover in others.



It's easy to fling insults, tweaker. Care to explain how it's devoid of compassion to want someone to be self sufficient? How it's cold and inhumane? Handouts are never the answer to poverty. Education usually is. Did you miss the whole fishing analogy?


They aren't insults TR, they are descriptions of my reaction to the "sentiments articulated" in your post. To be an insult, it has to be directed at you personally, which is clearly wasn't. I don't like the philosophy you outlined. That says nothing about you as a person. Please note the difference.

quote:

TexasRogue
That argument about "what happens when the charities aren't enough" is a liberal idea that I reject. If they fail so completely that they can't even feed themselves, too bad. Starve.


Please point out the humane aspects or compassion in the quote above lifted directly from your post. Because I can't see any.


You took that out of context. It was immediately followed by "I've been homeless and have missed many meals in my time. Pull yourself up and move on. It can be done without relying on someone else to carry you." I was only faced with the shame of taking handouts if I hadn't pulled myself out of my situation. Others, apparently, need the threat of starvation to do the same. I believe you liberals call it "tough love".

You were insulting because of the latter half of your statement - "...all serious flaws I hope I never possess and prefer not to discover in others" - in which you implied heavily that I possess "serious flaws". Nice try with the semantics, though.

None of that actually answers the questions asked of you. I'll restate them for you. Care to explain how it's devoid of compassion to want someone to be self sufficient? How it's cold and inhumane? Did you miss the whole fishing analogy?



Cato84 -> RE: Why Libertarianism Wouldn't Work (1/24/2011 7:59:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster


Posted where?

If you don't want to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of Minarchist political philosophy, you are welcome to stick with Captain Fluoride's insightful and penetrating topics. They're hard to miss. At any given time, he has at least 20 flooding the forums.


Sorry I wasn't specific. It was not posted on this site, that article is a month old. Like I said, the Cato institute had a rebuttal up but I checked and couldn't find it just now. If you are actually interested I will look again in a few days. The beginning of the week is always a busy time for me with work all day and class all night.

If you would like to discuss Minarchism I would be more than happy to. I asked what he wanted to talk about because I was not just going to respond to a copy past of portions of an article.

We could talk about government taxing so that they can buy goods. Government spending on public goods incurs what economists call the “excess burden” of taxation, or the reduction in economic output that results from increasing taxes. The excess burden imposes real costs on society. Some economists estimate that due to the excess burden, it may cost society more than two dollars to raise just one additional dollar of government revenue.

Or we could start with something small like, is it right to fund the National Endowment for the Arts. In a society that constitutionally limits the powers of government and maximizes individual liberty, there is no justification for the forcible transfer of money from taxpayers to artists, scholars, and broadcasters. If
the proper role of government is to safeguard the security of the nation’s residents, by what rationale are they made to support exhibits of paintings, symphony orchestras, documentaries, scholarly research, and radio and television programs they might never freely choose to support?

To others in this thread who have questions about, or stereotypes directed at the Libertarian movement. Advocates of limited government are not anti-government per se, as some people would charge. Rather, they are hostile to concentrations of coercive power and to the arbitrary use of power against right.With a deep appreciation for the lessons of history and the dangers of unconstrained government, they are for constitutionally limited government, with the delegated authority and means to protect our rights, but not so powerful as to destroy or negate them.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875