Libertarianism on the rise in the last three years

Also if someone wants to kill themself, why should government tell them they can't? Why do we prefer a system that makes those who attempt suicide into criminals?
 
Libertarianism can appear appear to endorse strong individuals ignoring the needs of the sick and the weak.

This gets to the heart of most misconceptions regarding libertarians. Apart from the occasional asshole (yes, there are asshole libertarians, just like there are asshole liberals and asshole conservatives), libertarians don't endorse ignoring the needs of the sick and the weak. We simply question that the government is the proper tool for the job.

This is where communication usually breaks down, and it is, in large part, our fault for not making our views clear. What libertarians need to understand is that most people don't see a clear distinction between government and society. To them, if "we should" do something - then "government should" do something. Likewise when we say "government should not" do something, they hear "we should not" do something. As much as it may seem obvious to libertarians that government and society aren't the same thing, it's not obvious to the rest of our current culture, and if we're to communicate our message clearly, we have to make this point clear - over and over again if necessary.
 
Libertarianism, (which actually doesn't have a clear platform) sounds appealing.

??? I usually see libertarians getting criticized for being too consistent and ideological rather than lacking clarity. But here you're saying libertarianism doesn't have 'clear platform'? Compared to what? The Democrats and Republicans? :confused:

They don't have a clear platform in that they don't have plans for the downside of their "ism". People don't want to be told, "well, you can sue, if you get injured". They don't want to get injured in the first place. People get told our government is bad because, if you don't pay your taxes, "men with guns" will be at your door. The problem is that even a minarchist government needs taxes. What would they do? Send you a strongly worded note?!?! Like Marxism, it's a "feel good" philosophy that doesn't work in the end, because it would require a basic shift in human nature.
 
Usually when people talk about the strong preying on the weak it's codetalk for "I hate capitalism."

This 'codetalk' tactic is a rather interested development. It kind of like the ultimate, general purpose strawman. For instance, I might say 'social justice' is codetalk for beating baby seals over the head with a club. Is that how it works?

I'm talking about the person who told you libertarianism would allow the strong to prey on the weak.

Which is just a bland talking point, that's happened throughout humanity, happens now, and will happen forever.

If anyone wants to see a group of people taking advantage of those of less means, take a look at what our status quo reps and dems have been doing to the middle class for decades.

It's as bland a talking point as those who complain that government is taking our freedoms. What makes you think the strong wouldn't do the same? It's actually a scarier proposition to be faced with the libertarian dream because, unlike the government, you can't vote THOSE rascals out.
 
Usually when people talk about the strong preying on the weak it's codetalk for "I hate capitalism."

Libertarianism can appear appear to endorse strong individuals ignoring the needs of the sick and the weak. To quote from the Libertarian Party literature:

"The words "health care" and "medicine" are not found anywhere in the Constitution. Accordingly, the Libertarian Party asserts that Congress has no authority to regulate or appropriate money for health care."
See Libertarian Party opposes health care plan

So what are sick people with no heath insurance supposed to do? Simply kill themselves?
I've read that Libertarians consider euthanasia to be morally acceptable:

Libertarian argument
This is a variation of the individual rights argument.
* If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights then that action is morally acceptable
* In some cases, euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone involved and violates no one's rights
* It is therefore morally acceptable
See the section titled "Libertarian argument" in Overview of pro-euthanasia arguments

Ahhh, the old "if you don't support Obamacare you don't care about the sick or weak" line.

Ron Paul is the face of modern libertarianism, this is a man who worked for charitable hospitals for decades and saw first hand Americas ability to help those in need when they have expendable income (i.e. when taxes and spending are low).

Retired people don't have an expendable income, they have a FIXED income, with little or no physical ability or time on earth to launch a new career.

We had charity before Medicare was created...it DIDN'T work. Medicare saved the lives of MILLIONS of Americans...it is the BEST of what America has done for We, the People.

In 1965, the elderly were the group most likely to be living in poverty--nearly one in three were poor. Today, the poverty rate for the elderly is similar to that of the age group 18-64--about 1 in 10 are poor.

About one-half of America's seniors did not have hospital insurance prior to Medicare. By contrast, 75 percent of adults under age 65 had hospital insurance, primarily through their employer. For the uninsured, needing hospital services could mean going without health care or turning to family, friends, and/or charity to cover medical bills. More than one in four elderly were estimated to go without medical care due to cost concerns.

Medicare, along with other programs, notably Social Security, and a strong economy, have greatly improved the ability of the elderly and the disabled to live without these worries. Medicare covers nearly all of the elderly (about 97 percent), making them the population group most likely to have health insurance coverage.
 
They don't have a clear platform in that they don't have plans for the downside of their "ism". People don't want to be told, "well, you can sue, if you get injured". They don't want to get injured in the first place.

Ah.. ok. I see what you mean. This is sort of related to my previous point about our poor communications. And I've seen it before. Libertarians say "government shouldn't be doing X", and then people worried about "X" ask "But how is X going to get done" - and all too often the libertarian response is "by anyone but government.".

While that may make sense to us, for various reasons, we have to understand that people worried about "X" haven't worked through those reasons, and in their minds if the government isn't doing "X", "X" simply won't get done. As painful and tedious as it might be, we have to work through likely scenarios that counter their fears.
 
Last edited:
The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny.

HUH?

WTF?

Ohhhhhhhh, you be using Orwellian doublespeak........"unaccountable private tyranny".

I gather that you prefer ."unaccountable public tyranny"....right?

.

In a Democratic Society, there is always Accountability in the Public Sector... it's called an election.

Really?

Like when Obama was elected to get the fuck out Iraq and the AfPak region....yeah, that worked well.

In a capitalist society accountability is acquired through boycotts.

.

.
 
Libertarianism can appear appear to endorse strong individuals ignoring the needs of the sick and the weak.

This gets to the heart of most misconceptions regarding libertarians. Apart from the occasional asshole (yes, there are asshole libertarians, just like there are asshole liberals and asshole conservatives), libertarians don't endorse ignoring the needs of the sick and the weak. We simply question that the government is the proper tool for the job.

This is where communication usually breaks down, and it is, in large part, our fault for not making our views clear. What libertarians need to understand is that most people don't see a clear distinction between government and society. To them, if "we should" do something - then "government should" do something. Likewise when we say "government should not" do something, they hear "we should not" do something. As much as it may seem obvious to libertarians that government and society aren't the same thing, it's not obvious to the rest of our current culture, and if we're to communicate our message clearly, we have to make this point clear - over and over again if necessary.

Repped! Damn fine post!
 
One label does not fit all, or even many, it seems only those on the fringe advocate a pure ideology. Most elected officials are phonies, they preach to a choir, candor is rare and rarely do they stray from political corectness.

Some aspects of Libertarianism appeal to me, Ron Paul offers some very common sense examples but his brand of libertarianism seems very extreme and impractical. A pragmatic libertarianism would have greater appeal, an ideological orthodoxy where decisions are made by a litmus test and not 'boots on the ground' does not.

The current crop of Republicans have no appeal. Though I support and practice living within one's means Republicans tout but have never practiced this principle. There is not a hint of pragmatism withihn the Republican Party at this time; in seeking an identity the 'leadership' seem to believe the past is the way to the future. While I'm not an iconoclast I understand doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is foolish. I also see an ingrained intolerance within the GOP and a fear by their leaders and those who aspire to lead to engage in real debate on important issues.

The Democratic Party seems to represent the vast majority of our citizens, yet seems unable to form a coherent plan or a common message. The concept of herding cats provides and excellent image of their problem. In effect it is the opposite of lock-step Republcanism, Democrats cannot seem to reduce their ideas into a short, concise and easy to understnd phrases. Every idea or policy is vetted intenally and no nuince is ignored. Yes, but ... is the most common response to any opinon offered (Obama was successful with "Hope and Change" which is the proof that the exception proves the rule). Yet when they did get power they overreached, something not uncommon by both major parties.

I support:

Universal preventative healthcare for all American citizens.

Reducing Defense spending and our practice of policing the world

Taking responsible action to reduce the deficit and control spending, based on pragmatic considerations and rejecting ideological extremes.

Recognizing we live in a global economy and international corporations intersts are not always in the interest of the United States.

Protecting our borders and other portals (sea and airports).

Ending the war on drugs; decriminalizing many and allowing the states to determine the status of Marijuana.

Reevaluating the 'war' on terror. Ten years in Afghanistqn, two billion dollars a week (or month, I've heard both), 1,500 of our troops killed - seems there must be a better way to combat what is essentially criminal behavior.

Recognizing alternative energy is the future.

Reducing air and water pollution.

Reducing STD, unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions, with age appropriate sex educartion and free contraceptive information and pills, condoms, etc. through health centers, public schools or other sources as determined by each state.
 
They don't have a clear platform in that they don't have plans for the downside of their "ism". People don't want to be told, "well, you can sue, if you get injured". They don't want to get injured in the first place.

Ah.. ok. I see what you mean. This is sort of related to my previous point about our poor communications. And I've seen it before. Libertarians say "government shouldn't be doing X", and then people worried about "X" ask "But how is X going to get done" - and all too often the libertarian response is "by anyone but government.".

While that may make sense to us, for various reasons, we have to understand that people worried about "X" haven't worked through those reasons, and in their minds if the government isn't doing "X", "X" simply won't get done. As painful and tedious as it might be, we have to work through likely scenarios that counter their fears.

Don't be afraid to give examples here Dblack...

Ask environmentalists whether they rather see land managed by the BLM or the Nature Conservancy.

Ask consumers whether all those GPO "pamphlets" from the "Consumer Product Safety Commission" are more valuable than a subscribtion to Consumer Reports.

Also ask consumers whether Underwriters Laboratory (UL) isn't more valuable than 1000s of pages of safety regulation.

Ask the tofu eating dirt people whether they trust the "ORGANIC" definition from the Ag Dept or PRIVATE certifications.

Ask taxpayers whether they trust advice from the IRS hotline -- or H.R. Block..

Ask who usually is aware of vehicle safety problems 1st -- State Farm or the NTSB.

Ask WHY we need all those enviromental watchdog agencies loaded with lawyers when we have both EPA and state agencies. Do we really need to pay 3 times to protect the enviroment? 1 -- to the EPA, 2 --- to the non-profits who lobby the Govt, 3 -- to clean up the mess that didn't get fixed by 1 or 2?

Overall the ability of government to keep pace with science, technology, and cultural shifts is weak and insufficient. And the inefficiency is legendary. Medicare declared my Dad dead because of a "data entry" error. It took me 3 months and a CONGRESSMAN to fix it.

The very expectation that all these govt agencies are there SOLELY to balance corporate abuse is wrong. (Q? - what does the COMMERCE dept do??) The Ag Dept is there to PROMOTE consumption, distribution, and sale of those products. It's a conflict of interest with it's regulatory side. Same with the FAA. Same with most agencies.

Bad expectations for what govt can actually effectually accomplish is behind MOST of the demand for more central economic policing..
 
Here is a very interesting presentation given by George Mason University Professor Bryan Caplan. Basically, the gist is that in broad terms, people call themselves libertarian, and say they support spending cuts and reductions in the size and scope of government. However, data shows that when you ask most of these self-styled small government advocates about cutting specific programs or specific regulations, a very small amount actually support getting rid of such things. The only libertarian plank a large plurality and a soon to be majority support is Marijuana legalization, and a smaller amount(still not close to a majority or large plurality) support defense spending cuts. But Defense spending cuts and Marijuana legalization are probably the most popular libertarian planks. I say this as an anarcho-libertarian btw.
Public Opinion for Libertarians | Foundation for Economic Education
but in all fairness there is contradition (or focus on special interest agendas ) in both the other parties
examples
the democrats rage on about large monopolies yet support the unions
the republicans are against killing the fetus (as in abortion ) yet support vitro fertalization
there are inconsistances in all parties
 
WryCatcher:
I support:

Universal preventative healthcare for all American citizens.

Reducing Defense spending and our practice of policing the world

Taking responsible action to reduce the deficit and control spending, based on pragmatic considerations and rejecting ideological extremes.

Recognizing we live in a global economy and international corporations intersts are not always in the interest of the United States.

Protecting our borders and other portals (sea and airports).

Ending the war on drugs; decriminalizing many and allowing the states to determine the status of Marijuana.

Reevaluating the 'war' on terror. Ten years in Afghanistqn, two billion dollars a week (or month, I've heard both), 1,500 of our troops killed - seems there must be a better way to combat what is essentially criminal behavior.

Recognizing alternative energy is the future.

Reducing air and water pollution.

Reducing STD, unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions, with age appropriate sex educartion and free contraceptive information and pills, condoms, etc. through health centers, public schools or other sources as determined by each state.

Why would you trust UNIVERSAL ANYTHING in the hands of a govt who has raided and emptied every TRUST fund in their keeping? It's only been 70 yrs and we arguing about the mismanagement, theft and actuarial malfeasance of Soc Sec and Medicare. Unless THOSE UNIVERSAL programs get fixed, the American public isn't stupid enough to fall for another UNIVERSAL anything. ESPECIALLY -- when the govt can turn around and start MEANS TESTING and age qualifying programs that were SUPPOSED to be everyone..

And as for Alternatives being the clear wave of future -- that's not a statement that the govt is needed there is it? AND - I highly disagree with that engineering/science conclusion. We can debate that one at

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3778834-post31.html
 
Libertarianism, (which actually doesn't have a clear platform) sounds appealing.

??? I usually see libertarians getting criticized for being too consistent and ideological rather than lacking clarity. But here you're saying libertarianism doesn't have 'clear platform'? Compared to what? The Democrats and Republicans? :confused:

They don't have a clear platform in that they don't have plans for the downside of their "ism". People don't want to be told, "well, you can sue, if you get injured".

Well, if Paternalism is your cup of tea then re-elect Obama.

Unfortunately, the fascist state includes everyone freemen and parasites alike.

.
 
Usually when people talk about the strong preying on the weak it's codetalk for "I hate capitalism."

This 'codetalk' tactic is a rather interested development. It kind of like the ultimate, general purpose strawman. For instance, I might say 'social justice' is codetalk for beating baby seals over the head with a club. Is that how it works?

'Social Justice' is code talk for republican medical bankruptcy.

Code talk for smacking baby seals is 'Red, White & Bop'
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top