Libertarianism is DANGEROUS

[occupied]

Why is it that the left gets freaked out about liberty but they aren't concerned about registered socialists serving in congress?

WHo? Bernie? A threat to liberty? LOL

Worry about libertarians but LOL about socialists. I rest my case.

I have almost nothing against libertarianism in the definitive sense but in it's current twisted American form it is just a regular old RW fascist movement wrapped in hyper-patriotic symbolism.

 

[Oddball]

I guess some people actually see it that way. But Libertarianism isn't anarchy. It's actually based on the notion that we need government to protect our freedom. What it rejects is the idea of government as caretaker and master.

Problem being that they're doing such a shitty job of it -indeed becoming the biggest and most virulent oppressors- that anarchy starts to look like a viable option.

You really think the gov't has become the biggest and most virulent oppressors? Why do you believe that?

What, are you nuts?

How did Obolshevikcare, the stupid banking bill, bailouts, USAPATRIOT, TSA and all the other recent trappings of the welfare/warfare/nanny state get rammed up our asses?...Because we demanded them?

Not hardly, dude.

And anarchy looks like a viable option? Are you out of your fucking mind? Take a look around, the poor in this country live better than 99% of the rest of the world.

Non sequitur.

 

[Wiseacre]

YAre you out of your fucking mind? Take a look around, the poor in this country live better than 99% of the rest of the world.

Are you saying we're ALL 1%'ers??

Pretty damn close.

 

[Wiseacre]

" How did Obolshevikcare, the stupid banking bill, bailouts, USAPATRIOT, TSA and all the other recent trappings of the welfare/warfare/nanny state get rammed up our asses?...Because we demanded them? "


You call this virulent oppression? I didn't like any of that stuff either, but we voted for the bastards that did it. And we can vote the bastards out next november too. We still got rights, still got our liberties and freedoms. Getting narrowed down a little at a time, which libertarians like me oppose. But virulent oppression, I don't think so. Enough to where anarchy becomes an option? That's pretty far out there.

 

[Oddball]

"WE" voted for them?!?!?

Speak for yourself.

 

[Wiseacre]

WHo? Bernie? A threat to liberty? LOL

Worry about libertarians but LOL about socialists. I rest my case.

I have almost nothing against libertarianism in the definitive sense but in it's current twisted American form it is just a regular old RW fascist movement wrapped in hyper-patriotic symbolism.

So tell me a little bit more about this twisted American form of libertarianism that is just right wing fascism. I'm not seeing it, there's nothing close to fascism in the current libertarian view.

 

[JWBooth]

It is my sincerest belief <snip> blather <snip> blah blah blah<snip> <snip>nitwit bullshit<snip>of being a freedom-hating socialist. That is not the case.

Nah, a state loving fascist, but not a socialist.

 

[Wiseacre]

"WE" voted for them?!?!?

Speak for yourself.

I didn't vote for Obama or any of the dems either, but enough other Americans did. And I think you're dodging the issues here. Oppression is all about curtailing civil rights, which I grant has been done to some extent by the TSA and that freakin' mandate to force people to by healthcare or pay a penalty. But is that virulent oppression, enough to make anarchy a possibility? Not hardly.

 

[Oddball]

Read through the long train of abuses again, man.

It's 1776 all over again.

 

[occupied]

Worry about libertarians but LOL about socialists. I rest my case.

I have almost nothing against libertarianism in the definitive sense but in it's current twisted American form it is just a regular old RW fascist movement wrapped in hyper-patriotic symbolism.

So tell me a little bit more about this twisted American form of libertarianism that is just right wing fascism. I'm not seeing it, there's nothing close to fascism in the current libertarian view.

The current anti-government libertarian view switches to authoritarian nationalism the second a republican president gets elected, We've seen it clearly so there is no denying it, add to that the push to cancel or modify all social contracts and gutting worker rights while fortifying corporate socialism and you have Fascism, pure and simple, a corpocracy security state.

 

[FactFinder]

Libertarianism is DANGEROUS

Can't be any more dangerous than the crap we have gotten the last few decades.

 

[Sundial]

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.

Extreme libertarianism is dangerous because it's irrational and immoral. They would say a promise to lift your neighbor out of a pit in exchange for all his worldly possessions is a valid and enforceable contract: it's freely and voluntarily entered into, and both sides are better off. (You get all his stuff, he gets to not die in a pit.)

Moderate libertarianism is dangerous because it selects a particular set of rules, institutions, and relationships and arbitrarily assigns them the status of natural order. Anything that that changes the "natural order" is therefore government meddling; anything that supports it is "protecting liberty".

Taxes, therefore, are "theft"; jailing someone for copyright violation is "protecting liberty".

Basically, it attempts to confuse liberty with property and to obscure the ways in which those with the most property manipulate the rules in order to enrich themselves even further.

 

[dblack]

Basically, it attempts to confuse liberty with property and to obscure the ways in which those with the most property manipulate the rules in order to enrich themselves even further.

That hasn't been my experience at all. I've been involved with libertarianism for some thirty years now, and the libertarians I've known were virulently opposed to anyone manipulating the rules to enrich themselves. In fact, it's at the top of the list of things we are fighting against.

If you want to call bullshit on neo-cons-turned-tea-partyiers who co-opt libertarian slogans when they're not in power (and then drop them as soon as they're back in), I'm right there with you. But you're trying to pin things on libertarianism that have nothing to do with the philosophy.

Libertarianism isn't that complicated. It takes tolerance seriously, and suggests that that live-and-let-live be our status quo. We should only violate that ethic when the alternative is truly not workable.

 

[Sactowndog]

Why is it that the left gets freaked out about liberty but they aren't concerned about registered socialists serving in congress?

Why do you assume those on the left are not libertarians? Many are just as concerned about lack of liberty as those on the right.

 

[Photonic]

Well, of course Libertarianism is dangerous. At least in its purest form.


Which is Anarchy.

Thankfully there are very few Libertarians of the purer variety.

 

[Sactowndog]

YES!!! Libertarianism means NO GOVERNMENT!!!!!!

I guess some people actually see it that way. But Libertarianism isn't anarchy. It's actually based on the notion that we need government to protect our freedom. What it rejects is the idea of government as caretaker and master.

Dblack, I agree with that point. What troubles me about libertarianism however is that those with money and power will use it to tip the scale in favor of their off-spring even if their off-spring are less talented or less well qualified.

What I think made America great is it balanced a fundamental Libertarianism with a determination to provide as much as possible equal opportunity for all. To do that requires government intervention to a greater degree than Libertarians will tolerate.

Now granted since Roosevelt it has slid from equal opportunity to trying to guarantee equal results. However, many on the right in reacting against equal results have also thrown out any attempt at equal opportunity.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

Learn the Bill of Rights Billy boy..... Especially the Tenth Amendment...

If you want state welfare then move to a state that has state welfare, If you want to be a lazy punk then move to a state that will grant you such a right, I you want to fuck your brother then move to a state that allows that...

It's not about our fucking federal government - the Federal government works for the people who makeup the states..

You make your own communities....

Just don't come crying when your societies fail and come asking for bailouts because the intelligent states and their citizens are living fat while you're living poor...

I have the right to live how I want and do what I want as long as I'm not hurting my community...

It has been that way throughout history...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Besides most alphabet agencies aren't looking to regulate on the basis of health, need or safety - they regulate to generate revenue and restrict er "cap" capitalism.

Waste is being dumped anyways - you just need to pay the government 7 figures to dump it.... Who determines whats toxic to individuals and at what level??? oh yeah the same assholes that are charging 7 figures to dump the alleged waste???

Meanwhile the government buries toxic waste and bombs in your backyard....

 

[Jebril]

A lot of what Mr. Right is spot on.

To add to that, Libertarianism strongly advocates making informed choices and personal responsibility, I know a scary prospect. But this is what means to be free, to me if someone wants to shoot heroin as in their house, then it's their thing and their family and friend's problem or party.

If two people wanna butt fuck, that's their choice. If someone wants to try out a new product on the market that's their risk. Everything comes with risk, you act as if the FDA is a perfect agency that has protected us from every bad drug on the market. It hasn't, it's done a terrible job, these agencies could easily be done at a state level and be much more efficient.

Same thing with welfare states, but in fact in a Libertarian society people would hold most of the wealth not the govt. so people are likely to be more fortunate who are willing to work, people who are lazy or have had problems will still have answers in the form of charities and churches. I lived as a bum for about 2 months (chose to as a vacation of some kind), it's not hard whatsoever, in fact it's very rewarding. They will not starve, I can almost guarantee that, humanity by nature is kind unless manipulated by propaganda and govts. like ours or the Nazis for example.

They are tools who feel they must answer to authority as if authority is a moral figure. No, authority is not a moral figure, authority is the figure in control, people confuse this too often.

The moral figure I'd like to think comes from a divine entity and resides within all of us similar to an instinct. Even as babies or children we do not like seeing violence and others in misery, this is not learned behavior, this is our moral figure kicking in. As we grow, we learn greed, violence, corruption. Our minds are manipulated to focus sex in the media and shun new thinking and different lifestyles.

To keep it simple, a Libertarian society depends on just that, the society. If the society displays immoral behavior and allows people to die cuz they don't have money it will become that type of society. If the society has a good heart and takes care of those less fortunate on their OWN whim (not by force mind you), it will become a great society people can look to.

Another thing I should explain before I finish this up, in a Libertarian society the society not a group of elites is the strongest form. This is currently almost impossible in this current society, too big to fail and other regulations protecting big corporations come to mind. In a Libertarian society corporations are on their own, as long as monopoly laws exist to prevent complete buy outs of certain goods and services I do not see a problem in this.

Ultimately a Libertarian society is risky if people are fucking retarded, it will suck yea that's why people are afraid of it. I understand this, but if people are smart and are able to take care of themselves and help those less fortunate it will work very wonderfully. Now ask yourself, are you someone who can take care of yourself or are you someone who is not willing to accept personal responsibility?

 

[editec]

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

Bill, what the hell do you care if obviously stupid people don't get you?