Libertarianism is DANGEROUS

[Oddball]

Don't you think it's possible that the Founding fathers - as smart as they were - didn't have it all figured it out? As society changes, so should government. Take the 2nd amendment, example. If automatic and semi-automatic weapons existed in the 1700's, don't you think they would have limited the amendment to owning handguns and rifles?

Bullshit.

If semi-auto and automatic weapons are good enough for gubmint troops, they're good enough for the citizenry...That's part of the point of the 2nd Amendment.

Can I have my nuke now please...

I get it....You're being stupid on purpose.

Funny stuff.

 

[lizzie]

Libertarianism is only dangerous if you're either too stupid or lazy to direct your own life successfully, or too morally bankrupt or lack the self-control to behave yourself in a civil manner.

 

[Billy000]

Needing foodstamps = government moocher?

I can't say for sure, but if I had to guess, your paycheck comes from the government? Who on one hand take tax payer dollars to feed yourself, and on the other hand use your position to put down others who would like to eat as well...but they don't have your job.

Your proactive sentence structure clearly shows the bias in your statement. You trying to manipulate your readers to agree and disagree with you at the same time without taking a stand on any side of the argument. This circular position is a waste of time.

No, I do not have a government job, actually. That kind of bias would make this issue a lot simpler for you to figure out, wouldn't it?

My "proactive sentence structure" is what's called critical thinking. In order to fully understand an issue in politics, you must be able to acknowledge and analyze the positions of both sides of the debate. This is how you come to objective conclusions. My objective conclusion (obviously) is that libertarianism is harmful.

Except that you've come to your "objective" conclusions by using reasoning that is as flawed as it comes.

Just because libertarians want to privatize or outright abolish a number of bureaucracies that you believe to be indispensable, that doesn't make them harmful.

Get a grip.

Umm, okay, if my logic is flawed, then why haven't you explained why it's flawed? And I never said that individual libertarians are harmful; I said the idea of libertarianism is harmful.

 

[Billy000]

Libertarianism is only dangerous if you're either too stupid or lazy to direct your own life successfully, or too morally bankrupt or lack the self-control to behave yourself in a civil manner.

That's just it, Lizzie. It is dangerous because there enough people in this country that are morally bankrupt and lack self-control. I'm sure there are plenty of individual libertarians that do have integrity, but that's not the bigger issue. Putting the ideology into practice as national system is what would make it harmful.

 

[Max CR]

Many things need to be changed and reformed. Liberal is good.

 

[Max CR]

Science technology engineering and math are fields that must be entered and explored.

 

[Max CR]

All of these bring economic benefits to the world.

 

[Max CR]

We must reform US FP towards the Middle East as well.

 

[Max CR]

We must also find new forms of energy.

 

[Max CR]

Solar power will change the world.

 

[Max CR]

Hyrdrogen powered products are limited.

 

[Max CR]

The explortaion of physics and the collider in Europe is critical to changing the world as technology has done for us before.

 

[lizzie]

Libertarianism is only dangerous if you're either too stupid or lazy to direct your own life successfully, or too morally bankrupt or lack the self-control to behave yourself in a civil manner.

That's just it, Lizzie. It is dangerous because there enough people in this country that are morally bankrupt and lack self-control. I'm sure there are plenty of individual libertarians that do have integrity, but that's not the bigger issue. Putting the ideology into practice as national system is what would make it harmful.

Only temporarily, while those who can't figure out how to survive weed themselves out. All you have to do is stop rewarding poor choices and people will stop making those choices.

 

[Dr Grump]

Bullshit.

If semi-auto and automatic weapons are good enough for gubmint troops, they're good enough for the citizenry...That's part of the point of the 2nd Amendment.

Can I have my nuke now please...

I get it....You're being stupid on purpose.

Funny stuff.

No, I'm just following your flawed logic. And if that makes me stupid, I wonder what it makes you?

 

[Oddball]

No, you're being stupid on purpose.

Nukes are useless in the kinds of domestic military/police abuses that the 2nd Amendment was meant to help protect against, fool.

 

[charlie327gross]

I would rather have the problems that come from too much freedon than those that come with too little.....
Less regulation in government does not mean that there are no rules. just that the rules are ones that deal with harm ,fraud ,and criminal behaviors. those are the ones you are concerned about. the rest are just there to favor one person over another and provide payola to the Congressmen who pave the way for them. the poor will always be with us and the USA does more to take care of them than any other country in the world. Before welfre there were not large numbers of homless and starving people. there were places and groups and individuals that provided for them.. Those people and groups are still in existence and will answer the call Get the government and the paperwork out of the way between people and their neighbors.

 

[Billy000]

Libertarianism is only dangerous if you're either too stupid or lazy to direct your own life successfully, or too morally bankrupt or lack the self-control to behave yourself in a civil manner.

That's just it, Lizzie. It is dangerous because there enough people in this country that are morally bankrupt and lack self-control. I'm sure there are plenty of individual libertarians that do have integrity, but that's not the bigger issue. Putting the ideology into practice as national system is what would make it harmful.

Only temporarily, while those who can't figure out how to survive weed themselves out. All you have to do is stop rewarding poor choices and people will stop making those choices.

What makes you think all of the people who would take advantage of the freedom for selfish reasons would be weeded out? Are you saying that there are no corrupt individuals in power? I think you have too much faith in people in general. It's more of an issue of temptation: If people can be selfish and corrupt without consequence, what is stopping them from giving into their desires?

 

[BOBO]

...government as OUTLINED IN OUR CONSTITUTION. Libertarian's are minarchists like Tom Jefferson, NOT anarchists. Below is our L/P platform...

Platform | Libertarian Party

...please read it so you know what you are talking about!

It is my sincerest belief that while personal freedom and a free market are important American ideals, they needs limitations. Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that sounds good on paper, but its actual application as a national system would be crazy.

I'll be the first to admit that the government doesn't always get it right. However, in the interest of public well-being, sometimes even economic growth does need to be limited by government regulation.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION

Can you imagine the implications if we did not have government agencies, like the FDA or FAA? The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, would become dangerous. If drug companies were under no authoritative review, what is to stop them from releasing potentially harmful products? Without the FDA, there would be no legal mandate for these food and drug companies to test the safety and effectiveness of their products.
Self-regulation is a slow process and only works to an extent. There are plenty of things that would slip through the cracks that consumers would not know about. Take the tobacco companies, for instance. There are already additives in cigarettes that make them more addicting. Is it really worth it to have these industries left unchecked? Take a minute and imagine what they could get away with. Imagine what they could do to their products for the sake of more profit.... it's a scary thought.

TAXATION

It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.
If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.
This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth. And don't get it twisted -I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.
It isn't just the rich that need to pay taxes, of course. EVERYONE needs to put in their fair share for the sake of the greater good. I have no problem with paying higher taxes, so long as I know that the revenue is intended to make this country better (it doesn't always, I know).

WELFARE/UNEMPLOYMENT/FOOD STAMPS

I do understand that there are a lot of government moochers in this country, but that doesn't mean that these programs are unnecesssary and ineffective. Some people do need help when they are unable to stand on their own two feet. Also, it's not like it's easy to get into these programs. Have you ever seen the applications? They are huge, and leave little room for falsification.
Hell, I support the Republican proposal that people entering these programs should be drug-tested first. I think that it is a great compromise, and more of this government funding will ultimately go to the right people.


Like I said, the government isn't perfect; it certainly does over-reach from time to time. However, I think people have become so black-and-white when it comes to personal freedom. The idea has become over-romanticized in today's politics. The truth of the matter is that it is human nature for people to be selfish. People cannot handle TOTAL personal freedom. They just can't. For the sake of the greater good, people need limitations.

Please, please, please don't accuse me of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.

 

[lizzie]

That's just it, Lizzie. It is dangerous because there enough people in this country that are morally bankrupt and lack self-control. I'm sure there are plenty of individual libertarians that do have integrity, but that's not the bigger issue. Putting the ideology into practice as national system is what would make it harmful.

Only temporarily, while those who can't figure out how to survive weed themselves out. All you have to do is stop rewarding poor choices and people will stop making those choices.

What makes you think all of the people who would take advantage of the freedom for selfish reasons would be weeded out? Are you saying that there are no corrupt individuals in power? I think you have too much faith in people in general. It's more of an issue of temptation: If people can be selfish and corrupt without consequence, what is stopping them from giving into their desires?

They would weed themselves out by the fact that they can't live in a civil society without being self-destructive or destructive to others. People who make stupid choices would have to live with them, and they would either nut up and get with the program, or they wouldn't be able to survive. You are mistaking this for faith in people. I have very little faith in the ability of most people to live in a truly free society.

 

[midcan5]

Libertarianism is modern fantasy-land for the children who still believe in the tooth fairy.

Why I Am Not a Libertarian
Why is libertarianism wrong?
Critiques Of Libertarianism: So You Want To Discuss Libertarianism....
The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right
http://robertlindsay.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/types_of_libertarian1.jpg