Libertarianism Is A Joke

[Harpy Eagle]

My biggest issue with the Libertarian platform is the eschewing of borders.

As far as individual liberties are concerned I find no fault.

It's not the government's or anyone else's business what I choose to do in my personal life as long as I don't violate the rights of others in the process

I do agree totally, a country is not a country without borders.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Libertarianism is doomed to failure
.

"Doomed to failure" at what exactly?

Existing as a way of life or a form of government.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere? If so, where?

Here's a conversation featuring a Libertarian that shows why it's such a failure...



Once you've seen this, let's discuss.

Libertarianism is doomed to failure because people do not want to think for themselves or be held accountable for their own actions. They want the government to tell them what to eat, what to think and what to do.

But I will continue to vote for them and support them, as I will always support smaller government and more personal freedoms...two things neither major party supports.

Nonsense.

People want to think for themselves and be held accountable for their own actions. They don't want the government to tell them what to eat, what to think, or what to do.

Libertarianism fails because it's reactionary, naive, and sophomoric; it's an inane anachronism whose dogma has no place in the 21st Century.

The proof that people do not want to think for themselves is all around us. Seat belt laws, smoking bans, marijuana being illegal, prostitution laws, and the tax code being used to reward "good" behavior and punish "bad" behavior are but a few examples.

But you are right, in the 21st century mindset there is no room for smaller governments or more personal freedoms.

 

[NightFox]

Libertarianism is doomed to failure
.

"Doomed to failure" at what exactly?

Existing as a way of life or a form of government.

It already exists as a "way of life", in fact most people act as libertarians in their everyday lives, they just don't apply the same moral standard of non-aggression and respect for property rights that they utilize in their every day dealings with others to those in power and what makes you think that the goal of libertarianism is "a form of government"? Libertarianism doesn't define any specific form of government.

Was Socrates a "failure" because he never held political power? Or was he a success because he influenced people to question the existing order and think about the moral and ethical implications of their belief systems?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Libertarianism is doomed to failure
.

"Doomed to failure" at what exactly?

Existing as a way of life or a form of government.

It already exists as a "way of life", in fact most people act as libertarians in their everyday lives, they just don't apply the same moral standard of non-aggression and respect for property rights that they utilize in their every day dealings with others to those in power and what makes you think that the goal of libertarianism is "a form of government"? Libertarianism doesn't define any specific form of government.

Was Socrates a "failure" because he never held political power? Or was he a success because he influenced people to question the existing order and think about the moral and ethical implications of their belief systems?

These same people you claim act as "libertarians in their everyday lives" are the ones voting for very non-libertarian laws and regulations.

 

[NightFox]

Libertarianism is doomed to failure
.

"Doomed to failure" at what exactly?

Existing as a way of life or a form of government.

It already exists as a "way of life", in fact most people act as libertarians in their everyday lives, they just don't apply the same moral standard of non-aggression and respect for property rights that they utilize in their every day dealings with others to those in power and what makes you think that the goal of libertarianism is "a form of government"? Libertarianism doesn't define any specific form of government.

Was Socrates a "failure" because he never held political power? Or was he a success because he influenced people to question the existing order and think about the moral and ethical implications of their belief systems?

These same people you claim act as "libertarians in their everyday lives" are the ones voting for very non-libertarian laws and regulations.

Yeah and?

Didn't you read the part about not applying the same moral standard of non-aggression and respect for property rights to those in power? That's where the disconnect is, they accept aggression from those in power in violation of the life, liberty and property of peaceful people even though they believe that an individual doing the exact same thing is immoral.

They vote for such things because nobody has come along and convinced them through a well reasoned and evidence based argument to question the morality and ethics of what they're voting for, that's the goal of libertarianism, it's not to force people to do this or that, or to accept this or that form of government; it's to make them question and think for themselves.

 

[kaz]

Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere?

LOL, libertarianism isn't a form a government, it's a philosophy based on the non-aggression principle.

No, that's anarchy

Er..ummm anarchy is the absence of authority, eschewing the initiation of force against other peaceful people (aka the non-aggression principle) is just generally accepted moral behavior; they're two completely independent concepts.

Non-aggression doesn't obviate self defense or the defense of others; which is the whole point of having government, i.e. to protect you from aggressive a-holes that want to violate your life, liberty and/or property, unfortunately what we have invariably ended up with is government that routinely initiates force against the life, liberty and property of peaceful people because as Lord Acton said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and people somehow getting convinced that government doesn't have to abide by the same standards of morality that individual citizens do.

OK. So during the day while you're at work, I kill your family. I leave you my picture, a notarized admission of my guilt, my phone number, e-mail, address. And I say I'm not cooperating with any criminal or civilian court.

So what cha gonna do about it, Sport, without violating NAP?

Kevin Kennedy, who is actually an anarchist like you claim to be, said he'd shun me. Oooohhhhhhhh

 

[kaz]

Nothing, it's a silly talk show call in video with a bunch of hamsters trying to create an infotainment piece to feed the confirmation bias of a target audience and given your reaction, it worked.

If you want to learn about libertarianism, read the works of serious libertarians, if you want to be an ignorant sheeple keep letting videos like this one formulate your opinions for you.

Address my entire OP.

Where has libertarianism worked in the world?

Point me to a country where it has.

Been there, done that... you still don't get the fact that libertarianism isn't a form of government nor has it dawned on you that most people in the world already operate by the non-aggression principle in their dealings with other individuals, which means they share foundational principles with libertarians, even if they don't realize it.

Apparently the matchbook cover you received your political science and philosophy education from didn't include that part.

Do yourself a favor stop relying on YouTube to expand your horizons and pick up a book, preferably one that isn't designed to reinforce your strongly held opinions about the world.

"Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal" -- Murray N. Rothbard

While libertarians support minimal government, we don't support optional taxes, we don't support voluntary police or military. We support criminal and civil courts and they aren't voluntary.

There is no "we", you can speak for yourself with respect to what scope, span and level of decentralization of government you prefer or what your opinion is on any given public policy question is but you don't speak for all/most of libertarians, there is no approved gospel or priesthood that dictates what the specific positions are (and that includes the LP).

NAP is an anarchist principle

LOL, say what? What do you think the foundational principle(s) of libertarianism are?

Do you even know what anarchism is? Perhaps the fact that some libertarians self identify as anarchists is what is confusing you?

"The immoral use of force is the source of man’s political problems. It is rather strange, that unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for other people and their property, no one claims it’s permissible to go into one’s neighbor’s house and tell them how to behave, what they can eat, smoke and drink or how to spend their money.

Yet, rarely is it asked why it is morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order. Any resistance is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. This is done more frequently every day without a proper search warrant." -- Ron Paul

What the fuck is wrong with you? You don't know what a small government libertarian is? I never noticed you advocating anarchy other than you don't seem to know what NAP is. Yes, life should be mostly NAP. But optional taxes? The police? Civil and Criminal courts? Those aren't optional.

As for don't speak for anyone as you keep doing, shove it up your ass. All I did was talk about what small government libertarians are. I'd be glad to debate you, but don't be a dick

 

[g5000]

The last big economic crash is an example of the failures of both Libertarianism and socialism.

 

[flacaltenn]

My biggest issue with the Libertarian platform is the eschewing of borders.

As far as individual liberties are concerned I find no fault.

It's not the government's or anyone else's business what I choose to do in my personal life as long as I don't violate the rights of others in the process

That's the one thing I mentioned where we were wrong in the past in the 1st post. Before about 1992, the party had a very noisy contingent of anarchists and minimalists who had no interest in actually governing. The party grew and debated the BASIS for enforcing immigration and borders. And it's been much more pragmatic since. One of the FUNDAMENTAL tasks of the Feds in the Constitution is immigration and naturalization. So there is no "open borders" stance.

However, as Gary Johnson and Ron Paul and others have stated, IF our Fed govt worked efficiently and with diligence on border control -- we could AFFORD a much more liberal immigration quota and system. The problem is -- it's mayhem and reckless at the moment. Does not HAVE to be. It's one of the many things the Feds are screwed up on.

If technology was employed for border control and VISA tracking and applications for entry/asylum etc -- we COULD afford to make generous allotments of resident/work/permanent VISAs that we cant' afford to do today.

There's a lot of things that people could be "more liberal" on --- if the Federal govt wasn't inept and callously unresponsive to failing. Part of it is that they attempt to do TOO MUCH and fundamental jobs like immigration and assuring fair elections just get short-changed.

 

[flacaltenn]

LOL, another joker that doesn't understand that there's no such thing as "libertarian government" anymore than there's such a concept as "Socratic government". Libertarianism by it's very nature doesn't seek power over others, our sense of morality and justice is developed enough to know that we're not wise enough to make the best choices for other individuals, only the individual can do that.

Not sure about that. The Founders DESIGNED a govt that "doesn't seek power over others". It's what we're SUPPOSED to be. It's been hijacked.

You need HUMBLE SERVANTS to take it back from the arrogant duopoly now in charge. And the LP IS ready to govern. Offered the country 2 very experienced 2 term governors in the last election. Humble folks who ASK for your support -- not EXPECT your vote.

A little bit of humility and INDEPENDENT voice in D.C. would go a LONG way. Doesn't even have to be more than 8 or 12 people in Congress.

 

[flacaltenn]

People want to think for themselves and be held accountable for their own actions. They don't want the government to tell them what to eat, what to think, or what to do.

You've obviously haven't lived in the Socialist Repub of California lately. Aint nothing they don't dictate. From your trash can to your speech. Folks who PREFER that kind of "life coaching" from an institution that can arrest and jail you for sucking on a straw --- are not BIG on original thinking or the concept of freedom and Liberty.

 

[Natural Citizen]

And the LP IS ready to govern.

I disagree with this sentiment. The LP is a poor representative for Individual liberty.

 

[flacaltenn]

And the LP IS ready to govern.

I disagree with this sentiment. The LP is a poor representative for Individual liberty.

Great -- start your own solutions party. Lemme Guess. It's all based on "Natural Law". Sure... THAT's ready to govern the USA. It helps if you start with the Constitution. Saves a lot of arguing and work..

 

[kaz]

The last big economic crash is an example of the failures of both Libertarianism and socialism.

What the hell are you talking about? I'll assume you were government educated and don't know how to capitalize and you're not referring to the party. But libertarians have no say at all. We opposed spending, we opposed regulating the companies that caused the bubble, we opposed bailing them out, so this is our fault? Are you really that stupid?

I know you were government educated, so I'll wait ten minutes or so for you to finish reading this

 

[Natural Citizen]

Great -- start your own solutions party. Lemme Guess. It's all based on "Natural Law". Sure... THAT's ready to govern the USA. It helps if you start with the Constitution. Saves a lot of arguing and work..

My friend, I'm likely the very last person on this board you want to say something like that to. Really.

 

[SmokeALib]

I never understood their anti abortion stance . I thought they were ANYTHING GOES !

It's unfortunate your parents weren't anti-abortion.
Walk upstairs and ask them what the hell were they thinking....

 

[MarcATL]

Another discussion where a self-proclaimed libertarian shows how libertarianism totally fails...

 

[NightFox]

Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere?

LOL, libertarianism isn't a form a government, it's a philosophy based on the non-aggression principle.

No, that's anarchy

Er..ummm anarchy is the absence of authority, eschewing the initiation of force against other peaceful people (aka the non-aggression principle) is just generally accepted moral behavior; they're two completely independent concepts.

Non-aggression doesn't obviate self defense or the defense of others; which is the whole point of having government, i.e. to protect you from aggressive a-holes that want to violate your life, liberty and/or property, unfortunately what we have invariably ended up with is government that routinely initiates force against the life, liberty and property of peaceful people because as Lord Acton said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and people somehow getting convinced that government doesn't have to abide by the same standards of morality that individual citizens do.

OK. So during the day while you're at work, I kill your family. I leave you my picture, a notarized admission of my guilt, my phone number, e-mail, address. And I say I'm not cooperating with any criminal or civilian court.

So what cha gonna do about it, Sport, without violating NAP?

Er...um....call the police and have them arrest you since your actions have made it clear that you are a danger to the life, liberty and property of others, if there is no police force I'd take matters into my own hands for the same reason. You don't appear to understand the non-aggression principle, once again it DOESN'T preclude self defense or the defense of others.

Kevin Kennedy, who is actually an anarchist like you claim to be, said he'd shun me. Oooohhhhhhhh

LOL, I never claimed to be an anarchist but I do know what anarchism is and why it's an independent concept from the non-aggression principle, nice attempt at straw man construction though.

 

[kaz]

Has this form of government been successfully practiced anywhere?

LOL, libertarianism isn't a form a government, it's a philosophy based on the non-aggression principle.

No, that's anarchy

Er..ummm anarchy is the absence of authority, eschewing the initiation of force against other peaceful people (aka the non-aggression principle) is just generally accepted moral behavior; they're two completely independent concepts.

Non-aggression doesn't obviate self defense or the defense of others; which is the whole point of having government, i.e. to protect you from aggressive a-holes that want to violate your life, liberty and/or property, unfortunately what we have invariably ended up with is government that routinely initiates force against the life, liberty and property of peaceful people because as Lord Acton said "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" and people somehow getting convinced that government doesn't have to abide by the same standards of morality that individual citizens do.

OK. So during the day while you're at work, I kill your family. I leave you my picture, a notarized admission of my guilt, my phone number, e-mail, address. And I say I'm not cooperating with any criminal or civilian court.

So what cha gonna do about it, Sport, without violating NAP?

Er...um....call the police and have them arrest you since your actions have made it clear that you are a danger to the life, liberty and property of others, if there is no police force I'd take matters into my own hands for the same reason. You don't appear to understand the non-aggression principle, once again it DOESN'T preclude self defense or the defense of others.

Kevin Kennedy, who is actually an anarchist like you claim to be, said he'd shun me. Oooohhhhhhhh

LOL, I never claimed to be an anarchist but I do know what anarchism is and why it's an independent concept from the non-aggression principle, nice attempt at straw man construction though.

Exactly, youd ignore NAP