Libertarianism is DANGEROUS

[Mr.Nick]

Total Personal Freedom = Libertarianism?

No...

Libertarians believe in the Bill of Rights - Anarchists believe in anarchy...

There is a difference between believing in the basic law of the land and believing in no law at all...

The federal government is here to protect the people not legislate over 300,000,000 US citizens and 50 states...

Its none of the federal governments fucking business what these states legislate just as long as they're not legislating laws that violate the Bill of Rights...

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?

There is no "utopian" society - I'm quite sure the founding fathers understood that, however a libertarian society is as close as you can get..

Our founding fathers were more genius' and scholars than politicians, and that is one of the main reasons they embraced individual freedom rather that collectivism..

Our nation became the pinnacle of the world because of our freedoms and our individual freedom...

Now progressives want to take all that away and create an Orwellian obedient society where if you say the wrong thing, think the wrong thing or do the wrong thing you should be persecuted..

Modern progressives are no different than the Medieval Church...

Anyone who understands that period (Medieval period) would certainly know the founding fathers intent when writing and ratifying the Bill of Rights..

They weren't going to make the same mistake their forefathers did...

Why you think freedom of religion and the ban of a national religion is Amendment I???

 

[Mr.Nick]

Why else do you think the world is in such a big mess?

It's a big mess because people believe they have the authority to tell other people what to do, how to think, how to act, whats acceptable, whats not...

Anyone that is NOT a libertarian is guilty of this..

You all want laws that enforce your ethics...

 

[Mr.Nick]

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

You attempt to assert libertarians are children???

You're the ones begging the government to provide for you, to tell you how to live and tell you what to do...

You're the child and the government is your fucking mommy....

Real libertarians can take care of themselves - like fucking adults - unlike you dummy..

We're not the ones begging mommy and daddy for free shit you know.... unlike you dummy.

 

[Flopper]

Total Personal Freedom = Libertarianism?

Total Personal Freedom = Libertarianism = Anarchism.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

Your opinion is noted...

 

[JWBooth]

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
<snip>

 

[Jebril]

Total Personal Freedom = Libertarianism?

Total Personal Freedom = Libertarianism = Anarchism.

The difference between a Libertarian stance and an Anarchistic stance is simple. You have rights as a Libertarian, a right to do as you please as long as you aren't infringing on another's rights.

So if someone tries to rape a women or kill a person in a Libertarian society that is illegal of course, in Anarchy...there is no law.

That is the biggest difference. Please stop trying to make yourself look stupider than you really are to make a point. No one's buying it anyway.

 

[Flopper]

Total Personal Freedom = Libertarianism?

Total Personal Freedom = Libertarianism = Anarchism.

The difference between a Libertarian stance and an Anarchistic stance is simple. You have rights as a Libertarian, a right to do as you please as long as you aren't infringing on another's rights.

So if someone tries to rape a women or kill a person in a Libertarian society that is illegal of course, in Anarchy...there is no law.

That is the biggest difference. Please stop trying to make yourself look stupider than you really are to make a point. No one's buying it anyway.

From a theoretical standpoint, you may be correct. From a practical standpoint, libertarianism will lead to anarchy because today most people believe their rights go well beyond a literal interpretation of the constitution. Most people believe they have the right to clean air, clean water, safe drugs, untainted food, a safe work environment, equal opportunity in the workplace, medical care if they can't afford it and other social services. This requires a strong government with laws and regulation that some may consider intrusive but without it the country would be in a constant state of protest and violence.

 

[MikeK]

I believe a significant percentage of Libertarian supporters are influenced by one (or both) of the Libertarian ideology's most popular components, which are the elimination of taxes and the legalization of marijuana, but have little or no concern about the remainder of this extremely radical political posture.

 

[dblack]

I believe a significant percentage of Libertarian supporters are influenced by one (or both) of the Libertarian ideology's most popular components, which are the elimination of taxes and the legalization of marijuana, but have little or no concern about the remainder of this extremely radical political posture.

Probably. But I'd wager the typical Democrat or Republican voter has an even more superficial understanding of their party's overall philosophy. If, indeed, you can identify any kind of consistent political philosophy amongst them.

 

[midcan5]

"Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." Karl Popper

I believe a significant percentage of Libertarian supporters are influenced by one (or both) of the Libertarian ideology's most popular components, which are the elimination of taxes and the legalization of marijuana, but have little or no concern about the remainder of this extremely radical political posture.

Probably. But I'd wager the typical Democrat or Republican voter has an even more superficial understanding of their party's overall philosophy. If, indeed, you can identify any kind of consistent political philosophy amongst them.

I tend to agree with Karl Popper and extend the idea that all things are conjecture and we need to see what works and then see what works after we see what works.

"Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle — the principle that the fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim of public policy, while the increase of happiness should be left, in the main, to private initiative." Karl Popper

 

[dblack]

"Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle &#8212; the principle that the fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim of public policy, while the increase of happiness should be left, in the main, to private initiative." Karl Popper

Is this meant to justify our parties not having a clear political philosophy? If so, it fails in my view. The thing is, we all have a political philosophy. It's just that most of us make no diligent effort to explicate it. That's fine for individuals - probably even preferable. We all change over time and it's naive to assume the things we value now will be the things we value in the future.

But it's unacceptable in our political leaders. Without a clear picture of a candidate's values and worldview, democracy becomes a crap shoot. In order to vote meaningfully, we need a solid understanding of how a leader will govern beyond an ad hoc list of 'issues'. Things can, and will, happen once they are elected that aren't discussed in the campaign, and it's important to have some idea how a leader will respond.

Membership in a given party should give us a convenient way to understand some of the basics of a candidate's mindset. It should give some idea how they will vote or at least a sense of the values that will guide them when they do. But when the values and philosophy of a political party are vague and ever-changing, it becomes a less useful, perhaps even deceptive, institution.

That's what we face with the Democrats and Republicans. They swap positions and policies with every election cycle - usually right after they gain power. It's not just individual candidates that 'flip-flop' on certain issues. Both major parties radically change their agenda with the winds of expediency. The Republicans are for mandated insurance, then they're against it. The Democrats are opposed to a belligerent foreign policy, then once elected start new wars. It becomes virtually impossible to know what you're supporting when voting for one party or the other.

The only consistent value I see in the Dems and Reps is a driving lust for power - and they both share this in equal measure.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are 100% correct, there are a bunch of idiots that prefer to be in prison to being free, and those people look at people who are putside of prison as dangerous.

 

[lizzie]

I believe a significant percentage of Libertarian supporters are influenced by one (or both) of the Libertarian ideology's most popular components, which are the elimination of taxes and the legalization of marijuana, but have little or no concern about the remainder of this extremely radical political posture.

So, what do you find so radical about the concept of human freedom? It is, afterall, one of the strongest basic urges that humans have. Just because most humans can't handle freedom doesn't make it radical- it just reflects on the inability of humankind to handle it intelligently.

 

[Oddball]

I believe a significant percentage of Libertarian supporters are influenced by one (or both) of the Libertarian ideology's most popular components, which are the elimination of taxes and the legalization of marijuana, but have little or no concern about the remainder of this extremely radical political posture.

Then you're a bloody bigoted fool, who knows absolutely nothing about libertarians.

 

[Oddball]

Total Personal Freedom = Libertarianism?

Total Personal Freedom = Libertarianism = Anarchism.

Total misreprentation and bigotry = Total asshattery.

 

[Billy000]

I think I've made it clear why Libertarianism is a joke.

 

[JWBooth]

I think I've made it clear why Libertarianism is a joke.

Nah, just still full of shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think I've made it clear why Libertarianism is a joke.

All you have made clear is that you are a joke.

 

[midcan5]

"Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle &#8212; the principle that the fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim of public policy, while the increase of happiness should be left, in the main, to private initiative." Karl Popper

Is this meant to justify our parties not having a clear political philosophy? If so, it fails in my view. The thing is, we all have a political philosophy. It's just that most of us make no diligent effort to explicate it. That's fine for individuals - probably even preferable. We all change over time and it's naive to assume the things we value now will be the things we value in the future.

[...]

The only consistent value I see in the Dems and Reps is a driving lust for power - and they both share this in equal measure.

It means there are no clear, written in stone, political philosophies as there isn't a chance we'd all agree. Take taxes as an example, we all agree taxes are necessary, now formulate how much, why, what for, for whom, when, etc and the clarity disappears. But we all agree right?

I agree with you on most dems and most repubs, but if you consider the fundamental tenet of libertarian thought, they would head the list.