Debate Now Is Libertarianism UnAmerican?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It seems I am not alone in my doubts about the level of sincerity in your attempt at serious, honest debate.

Anyone who uses the term "un-American" is simply engaging in trolling, and obviously has no intentions of serious, honest debate. That's why it's laughable that this thread is in this forum.

 

[Correll]

It seems I am not alone in my doubts about the level of sincerity in your attempt at serious, honest debate.

Anyone who uses the term "un-American" is simply engaging in trolling, and obviously has no intentions of serious, honest debate. That's why it's laughable that this thread is in this forum.

It would be possible to have a serious discussion on Anti-Americanism, or even if the beliefs of Libertarianism is un-American.

But nothing I have seen in this thread indicates that the OP was serious about that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It seems I am not alone in my doubts about the level of sincerity in your attempt at serious, honest debate.

Anyone who uses the term "un-American" is simply engaging in trolling, and obviously has no intentions of serious, honest debate. That's why it's laughable that this thread is in this forum.

It would be possible to have a serious discussion on Anti-Americanism, or even if the beliefs of Libertarianism is un-American.

But nothing I have seen in this thread indicates that the OP was serious about that.

How? There's no objective definition of un-American. I suppose you could say "This is why I think libertarianism is un-American," but you could never say that it is objectively un-American like our troll OP did. There is no such thing as an un-American idea, because the only objective definition of "American" is whether or not somebody is factually a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with ideas, unless you realize you're speaking entirely subjectively.

 

[dblack]

The whole 'unamerican' thing is just a trollish dig at conservatives. The OP is, apparently, under the misconception (among several) that libertarians are conservatives.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Once again we see the Libertarians whining because they cannot defend Libertarianism on it's dubious merits.

Easy enough to make the case for and against Socialism, Conservatism, etc without breaking a sweat.

But when it comes to Libertarianism all they have are personal attacks on the OP because they cannot come up with any aspect of Libertarianism that can stand on it's own merits.

Then again they can't show a single successful society that has ever worked using Libertarian principles.


MOD EDIT - No Ad homs

 

[dblack]

Once again we see the Libertarians whining because they cannot defend Libertarianism on it's dubious merits.

Easy enough to make the case for and against Socialism, Conservatism, etc without breaking a sweat.

But when it comes to Libertarianism all they have are personal attacks on the OP because they cannot come up with any aspect of Libertarianism that can stand on it's own merits.

Then again they can't show a single successful society that has ever worked using Libertarian principles.

So the whining persists because they have nothing else.

"We" seem to see something else. The OP is called out as a strawman, and the response is childish grandstanding.
The argument fails. Indeed, was never made.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Once again we see the Libertarians whining because they cannot defend Libertarianism on it's dubious merits.

Easy enough to make the case for and against Socialism, Conservatism, etc without breaking a sweat.

But when it comes to Libertarianism all they have are personal attacks on the OP because they cannot come up with any aspect of Libertarianism that can stand on it's own merits.

Then again they can't show a single successful society that has ever worked using Libertarian principles.

So the whining persists because they have nothing else.

MOD EDIT - No Ad homs

 

[evince]

There was an article written on the Thom Hartmann website in 2011 called "Libertarianism - the Un-American Pipe Dream that Backfires".

It exposed the fundamental paradox of Libertarianism which can be summarized as having the ideal of absolute individual rights will always result in a complete loss of all of those rights.

None of the Libertarian ideals actually work in practice.

Remove all regulations on corporations and the subsequent pollution alone will end up destroying other corporations. For example if one state has a corporation that spews toxins into a river that runs downstream to a state where corporations depend upon fishing and tourism from that same river there is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents that from happening. The rights of the corporate owners to pump toxins into the river is absolute in a Libertarian Utopia. That it kills fish and destroys the livelihoods of others cannot be used to challenge those rights. There is not government regulation allowed to prevent that from happening. Those harmed, if still alive, might try to sue but since they don't have standing in the other state they probably won't even get a hearing from a judge.

Taxation is another Libertarian pipe dream. The refuse to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them. So when they refuse to pay taxes to repair roads there are accidents that not only cost lives but impact the efficiency of corporations to receive raw materials and deliver finished goods. There are countless examples along these lines.

Worst of all Libertarians hate democracy. They don't want to have to obey laws passed by a democratically elected majority and signed into law if they don't agree with them. Libertarians don't want any laws that would infringe upon their individual rights, period. (Just read their manifesto, er, platform on the Libertarian Party website.)

There is something fundamentally wrong with Libertarianism to the point of being unAmerican. Personal individual rights only exist because others are willing to stand up for those rights just as it is the duty of every American to stand up for the rights of others. Libertarians don't want to stand up for the right of gays to have wedding cakes baked for them by businesses that bake wedding cakes if it goes against their religious beliefs about gays.

Unfortunately Libertarians just don't understand how the Constitution and their rights actually work. Instead they want to tear it all down in a "constitutional convention" and throw out all of the rules and regulations and start from scratch.

That is why Libertarians are, to all intents and purposes, unAmerican.

The Question to be Debated in this Discussion:

Is Libertarianism unAmerican? ​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

they are historically failed ideas





MOD EDIT - No Ad homs

 

[Correll]

It seems I am not alone in my doubts about the level of sincerity in your attempt at serious, honest debate.

Anyone who uses the term "un-American" is simply engaging in trolling, and obviously has no intentions of serious, honest debate. That's why it's laughable that this thread is in this forum.

It would be possible to have a serious discussion on Anti-Americanism, or even if the beliefs of Libertarianism is un-American.

But nothing I have seen in this thread indicates that the OP was serious about that.

How? There's no objective definition of un-American. I suppose you could say "This is why I think libertarianism is un-American," but you could never say that it is objectively un-American like our troll OP did. There is no such thing as an un-American idea, because the only objective definition of "American" is whether or not somebody is factually a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with ideas, unless you realize you're speaking entirely subjectively.

One could ask if the Libertarian focus on individual effort is "un-American" in that it ignores the traditional American strength of working together, such as the iconic "Barn Raising".

That type of working together is part of the historical record and NOT subjectively so.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It seems I am not alone in my doubts about the level of sincerity in your attempt at serious, honest debate.

Anyone who uses the term "un-American" is simply engaging in trolling, and obviously has no intentions of serious, honest debate. That's why it's laughable that this thread is in this forum.

It would be possible to have a serious discussion on Anti-Americanism, or even if the beliefs of Libertarianism is un-American.

But nothing I have seen in this thread indicates that the OP was serious about that.

How? There's no objective definition of un-American. I suppose you could say "This is why I think libertarianism is un-American," but you could never say that it is objectively un-American like our troll OP did. There is no such thing as an un-American idea, because the only objective definition of "American" is whether or not somebody is factually a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with ideas, unless you realize you're speaking entirely subjectively.

One could ask if the Libertarian focus on individual effort is "un-American" in that it ignores the traditional American strength of working together, such as the iconic "Barn Raising".

That type of working together is part of the historical record and NOT subjectively so.

Great point!

Let's explore that a little.

The original US motto of e Pluribus Unum is the concept of combined we are stronger than we are as individuals. (Yes, that is not a literal translation but it is the idea behind it.)

Individual states could not have defeated the might of the British Empire but combined they succeeded. That became an American principle that together We the People could form a more perfect union and achieve great things.

So far it has worked out pretty well and We the People can be proud of our accomplishments.

Now let's compare that to the "rugged individualism" that is at the core of Libertarianism.

Would a Libertarian regime have put a man on the moon?

Would a Libertarian regime even have come up with the Interstate system?

Would there even be our great national parks under a Libertarian regime?

 

[Correll]

It seems I am not alone in my doubts about the level of sincerity in your attempt at serious, honest debate.

Anyone who uses the term "un-American" is simply engaging in trolling, and obviously has no intentions of serious, honest debate. That's why it's laughable that this thread is in this forum.

It would be possible to have a serious discussion on Anti-Americanism, or even if the beliefs of Libertarianism is un-American.

But nothing I have seen in this thread indicates that the OP was serious about that.

How? There's no objective definition of un-American. I suppose you could say "This is why I think libertarianism is un-American," but you could never say that it is objectively un-American like our troll OP did. There is no such thing as an un-American idea, because the only objective definition of "American" is whether or not somebody is factually a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with ideas, unless you realize you're speaking entirely subjectively.

One could ask if the Libertarian focus on individual effort is "un-American" in that it ignores the traditional American strength of working together, such as the iconic "Barn Raising".

That type of working together is part of the historical record and NOT subjectively so.

Great point!

Let's explore that a little.

The original US motto of e Pluribus Unum is the concept of combined we are stronger than we are as individuals. (Yes, that is not a literal translation but it is the idea behind it.)

Individual states could not have defeated the might of the British Empire but combined they succeeded. That became an American principle that together We the People could form a more perfect union and achieve great things.

So far it has worked out pretty well and We the People can be proud of our accomplishments.

Now let's compare that to the "rugged individualism" that is at the core of Libertarianism.

Would a Libertarian regime have put a man on the moon?

Would a Libertarian regime even have come up with the Interstate system?

Would there even be our great national parks under a Libertarian regime?

What was the controlling central authority of the Barn Raising?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Anyone who uses the term "un-American" is simply engaging in trolling, and obviously has no intentions of serious, honest debate. That's why it's laughable that this thread is in this forum.

It would be possible to have a serious discussion on Anti-Americanism, or even if the beliefs of Libertarianism is un-American.

But nothing I have seen in this thread indicates that the OP was serious about that.

How? There's no objective definition of un-American. I suppose you could say "This is why I think libertarianism is un-American," but you could never say that it is objectively un-American like our troll OP did. There is no such thing as an un-American idea, because the only objective definition of "American" is whether or not somebody is factually a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with ideas, unless you realize you're speaking entirely subjectively.

One could ask if the Libertarian focus on individual effort is "un-American" in that it ignores the traditional American strength of working together, such as the iconic "Barn Raising".

That type of working together is part of the historical record and NOT subjectively so.

Great point!

Let's explore that a little.

The original US motto of e Pluribus Unum is the concept of combined we are stronger than we are as individuals. (Yes, that is not a literal translation but it is the idea behind it.)

Individual states could not have defeated the might of the British Empire but combined they succeeded. That became an American principle that together We the People could form a more perfect union and achieve great things.

So far it has worked out pretty well and We the People can be proud of our accomplishments.

Now let's compare that to the "rugged individualism" that is at the core of Libertarianism.

Would a Libertarian regime have put a man on the moon?

Would a Libertarian regime even have come up with the Interstate system?

Would there even be our great national parks under a Libertarian regime?

What was the controlling central authority of the Barn Raising?

Non sequitur response.

 

[Correll]

It would be possible to have a serious discussion on Anti-Americanism, or even if the beliefs of Libertarianism is un-American.

But nothing I have seen in this thread indicates that the OP was serious about that.

How? There's no objective definition of un-American. I suppose you could say "This is why I think libertarianism is un-American," but you could never say that it is objectively un-American like our troll OP did. There is no such thing as an un-American idea, because the only objective definition of "American" is whether or not somebody is factually a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with ideas, unless you realize you're speaking entirely subjectively.

One could ask if the Libertarian focus on individual effort is "un-American" in that it ignores the traditional American strength of working together, such as the iconic "Barn Raising".

That type of working together is part of the historical record and NOT subjectively so.

Great point!

Let's explore that a little.

The original US motto of e Pluribus Unum is the concept of combined we are stronger than we are as individuals. (Yes, that is not a literal translation but it is the idea behind it.)

Individual states could not have defeated the might of the British Empire but combined they succeeded. That became an American principle that together We the People could form a more perfect union and achieve great things.

So far it has worked out pretty well and We the People can be proud of our accomplishments.

Now let's compare that to the "rugged individualism" that is at the core of Libertarianism.

Would a Libertarian regime have put a man on the moon?

Would a Libertarian regime even have come up with the Interstate system?

Would there even be our great national parks under a Libertarian regime?

What was the controlling central authority of the Barn Raising?

Non sequitur response.

It is a leading question designed to reveal a truth about the topic. If you answer it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It seems I am not alone in my doubts about the level of sincerity in your attempt at serious, honest debate.

Anyone who uses the term "un-American" is simply engaging in trolling, and obviously has no intentions of serious, honest debate. That's why it's laughable that this thread is in this forum.

It would be possible to have a serious discussion on Anti-Americanism, or even if the beliefs of Libertarianism is un-American.

But nothing I have seen in this thread indicates that the OP was serious about that.

How? There's no objective definition of un-American. I suppose you could say "This is why I think libertarianism is un-American," but you could never say that it is objectively un-American like our troll OP did. There is no such thing as an un-American idea, because the only objective definition of "American" is whether or not somebody is factually a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with ideas, unless you realize you're speaking entirely subjectively.

One could ask if the Libertarian focus on individual effort is "un-American" in that it ignores the traditional American strength of working together, such as the iconic "Barn Raising".

That type of working together is part of the historical record and NOT subjectively so.

Except what part of libertarianism ignores or derides people working cooperatively together? The market, which libertarians support, is nothing more than society coming together to make everyone better off. The focus on individual rights, as opposed to collective rights, does not imply that libertarians believe every man is an island, merely that every individual has the exact same rights as every other individual with no more and no less.

 

[Correll]

It seems I am not alone in my doubts about the level of sincerity in your attempt at serious, honest debate.

Anyone who uses the term "un-American" is simply engaging in trolling, and obviously has no intentions of serious, honest debate. That's why it's laughable that this thread is in this forum.

It would be possible to have a serious discussion on Anti-Americanism, or even if the beliefs of Libertarianism is un-American.

But nothing I have seen in this thread indicates that the OP was serious about that.

How? There's no objective definition of un-American. I suppose you could say "This is why I think libertarianism is un-American," but you could never say that it is objectively un-American like our troll OP did. There is no such thing as an un-American idea, because the only objective definition of "American" is whether or not somebody is factually a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with ideas, unless you realize you're speaking entirely subjectively.

One could ask if the Libertarian focus on individual effort is "un-American" in that it ignores the traditional American strength of working together, such as the iconic "Barn Raising".

That type of working together is part of the historical record and NOT subjectively so.

Except what part of libertarianism ignores or derides people working cooperatively together? The market, which libertarians support, is nothing more than society coming together to make everyone better off. The focus on individual rights, as opposed to collective rights, does not imply that libertarians believe every man is an island, merely that every individual has the exact same rights as every other individual with no more and no less.

A market does NOT require a number of people to work together. The interaction can be predatory and selfish and still work.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Anyone who uses the term "un-American" is simply engaging in trolling, and obviously has no intentions of serious, honest debate. That's why it's laughable that this thread is in this forum.

It would be possible to have a serious discussion on Anti-Americanism, or even if the beliefs of Libertarianism is un-American.

But nothing I have seen in this thread indicates that the OP was serious about that.

How? There's no objective definition of un-American. I suppose you could say "This is why I think libertarianism is un-American," but you could never say that it is objectively un-American like our troll OP did. There is no such thing as an un-American idea, because the only objective definition of "American" is whether or not somebody is factually a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with ideas, unless you realize you're speaking entirely subjectively.

One could ask if the Libertarian focus on individual effort is "un-American" in that it ignores the traditional American strength of working together, such as the iconic "Barn Raising".

That type of working together is part of the historical record and NOT subjectively so.

Except what part of libertarianism ignores or derides people working cooperatively together? The market, which libertarians support, is nothing more than society coming together to make everyone better off. The focus on individual rights, as opposed to collective rights, does not imply that libertarians believe every man is an island, merely that every individual has the exact same rights as every other individual with no more and no less.

A market does NOT require a number of people to work together. The interaction can be predatory and selfish and still work.

What is a selfish interaction in terms of the market? Every transaction is based on the idea that I'm giving away something I value less for something I value more, so it could be argued that every transaction is selfish. What is a predatory interaction? Implying some form of fraud or other violation of property rights? If so then certainly nobody supports that. Criminality aside, yes the market is nothing more than people coming together. The service that Netflix provides is valuable to me, so I pay them $9.99 or whatever it is a month because I value that service they provide more than I value the $10. They work to make me better off, and my payment makes them better off. We're both doing it for "selfish" reasons if that's what you want to say, but we're still working cooperatively together.

 

[Correll]

It would be possible to have a serious discussion on Anti-Americanism, or even if the beliefs of Libertarianism is un-American.

But nothing I have seen in this thread indicates that the OP was serious about that.

How? There's no objective definition of un-American. I suppose you could say "This is why I think libertarianism is un-American," but you could never say that it is objectively un-American like our troll OP did. There is no such thing as an un-American idea, because the only objective definition of "American" is whether or not somebody is factually a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with ideas, unless you realize you're speaking entirely subjectively.

One could ask if the Libertarian focus on individual effort is "un-American" in that it ignores the traditional American strength of working together, such as the iconic "Barn Raising".

That type of working together is part of the historical record and NOT subjectively so.

Except what part of libertarianism ignores or derides people working cooperatively together? The market, which libertarians support, is nothing more than society coming together to make everyone better off. The focus on individual rights, as opposed to collective rights, does not imply that libertarians believe every man is an island, merely that every individual has the exact same rights as every other individual with no more and no less.

A market does NOT require a number of people to work together. The interaction can be predatory and selfish and still work.

What is a selfish interaction in terms of the market? Every transaction is based on the idea that I'm giving away something I value less for something I value more, so it could be argued that every transaction is selfish. What is a predatory interaction? Implying some form of fraud or other violation of property rights? If so then certainly nobody supports that. Criminality aside, yes the market is nothing more than people coming together. The service that Netflix provides is valuable to me, so I pay them $9.99 or whatever it is a month because I value that service they provide more than I value the $10. They work to make me better off, and my payment makes them better off. We're both doing it for "selfish" reasons if that's what you want to say, but we're still working cooperatively together.

You are Netflix are not working together. YOu are paying them for their product.

That is not an analogy for a "barn raising".

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How? There's no objective definition of un-American. I suppose you could say "This is why I think libertarianism is un-American," but you could never say that it is objectively un-American like our troll OP did. There is no such thing as an un-American idea, because the only objective definition of "American" is whether or not somebody is factually a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with ideas, unless you realize you're speaking entirely subjectively.

One could ask if the Libertarian focus on individual effort is "un-American" in that it ignores the traditional American strength of working together, such as the iconic "Barn Raising".

That type of working together is part of the historical record and NOT subjectively so.

Except what part of libertarianism ignores or derides people working cooperatively together? The market, which libertarians support, is nothing more than society coming together to make everyone better off. The focus on individual rights, as opposed to collective rights, does not imply that libertarians believe every man is an island, merely that every individual has the exact same rights as every other individual with no more and no less.

A market does NOT require a number of people to work together. The interaction can be predatory and selfish and still work.

What is a selfish interaction in terms of the market? Every transaction is based on the idea that I'm giving away something I value less for something I value more, so it could be argued that every transaction is selfish. What is a predatory interaction? Implying some form of fraud or other violation of property rights? If so then certainly nobody supports that. Criminality aside, yes the market is nothing more than people coming together. The service that Netflix provides is valuable to me, so I pay them $9.99 or whatever it is a month because I value that service they provide more than I value the $10. They work to make me better off, and my payment makes them better off. We're both doing it for "selfish" reasons if that's what you want to say, but we're still working cooperatively together.

You are Netflix are not working together. YOu are paying them for their product.

That is not an analogy for a "barn raising".

I never said it was an analogy for "barn raising." I said it was an example of the market at work, and yes we are working together. They provide me a service that I value, and I provide them with money that they value; money that I earned from my employer who values the work that I do for them providing a service to other people that they value enough to pay my employer who values their money. Nobody is being coerced, and everybody is better off. Me, Netflix, my employer, the customers of my employer, and on and on it goes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How? There's no objective definition of un-American. I suppose you could say "This is why I think libertarianism is un-American," but you could never say that it is objectively un-American like our troll OP did. There is no such thing as an un-American idea, because the only objective definition of "American" is whether or not somebody is factually a citizen of the United States. It has nothing to do with ideas, unless you realize you're speaking entirely subjectively.

One could ask if the Libertarian focus on individual effort is "un-American" in that it ignores the traditional American strength of working together, such as the iconic "Barn Raising".

That type of working together is part of the historical record and NOT subjectively so.

Great point!

Let's explore that a little.

The original US motto of e Pluribus Unum is the concept of combined we are stronger than we are as individuals. (Yes, that is not a literal translation but it is the idea behind it.)

Individual states could not have defeated the might of the British Empire but combined they succeeded. That became an American principle that together We the People could form a more perfect union and achieve great things.

So far it has worked out pretty well and We the People can be proud of our accomplishments.

Now let's compare that to the "rugged individualism" that is at the core of Libertarianism.

Would a Libertarian regime have put a man on the moon?

Would a Libertarian regime even have come up with the Interstate system?

Would there even be our great national parks under a Libertarian regime?

What was the controlling central authority of the Barn Raising?

Non sequitur response.

It is a leading question designed to reveal a truth about the topic. If you answer it.

If you want an answer to your question you will need to answer the questions that I asked first.

 

[dblack]

One could ask if the Libertarian focus on individual effort is "un-American" in that it ignores the traditional American strength of working together, such as the iconic "Barn Raising".

That type of working together is part of the historical record and NOT subjectively so.

Great point!

Let's explore that a little.

The original US motto of e Pluribus Unum is the concept of combined we are stronger than we are as individuals. (Yes, that is not a literal translation but it is the idea behind it.)

Individual states could not have defeated the might of the British Empire but combined they succeeded. That became an American principle that together We the People could form a more perfect union and achieve great things.

So far it has worked out pretty well and We the People can be proud of our accomplishments.

Now let's compare that to the "rugged individualism" that is at the core of Libertarianism.

Would a Libertarian regime have put a man on the moon?

Would a Libertarian regime even have come up with the Interstate system?

Would there even be our great national parks under a Libertarian regime?

What was the controlling central authority of the Barn Raising?

Non sequitur response.

It is a leading question designed to reveal a truth about the topic. If you answer it.

If you want an answer to your question you will need to answer the questions that I asked first.

Those questions have nothing to do with the OP. The supposed "Libertarian Paradox" is premised on ridiculous misconceptions about libertarianism.