Five myths about Libertarianism

[TakeAStepBack]

So you believe the government is the social structure and without it, we'd all be wandering around in the woods eating berries and wearing pelt attire. We get that. You just again, blathered on about nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

So you believe the government is the social structure and without it, we'd all be wandering around in the woods eating berries and wearing pelt attire. We get that. You just again, blathered on about nothing.

The Government represents our social structure, and yes without a government you would still be gathering berries

 

[NYcarbineer]

The idiot speaketh, all bow down.

Can you point out what, exactly, in the portion of the platform you just quoted, proves that they don't care about minorities? .

I said:

it is not a myth to say that Libertarians don't care about the poor,

unless you believe that providing an education to the poor regardless of their ability to pay is of no benefit.


You're claiming it's a myth to say that Libertarians don't care about the poor.

Is not caring whether or not the poor can afford to educate their children an example of not caring about poor?

I say it's a perfect example of not caring about the poor.

You think it benefits poor people to give them the ability to earn degrees in underwater basket weaving and then demand that they pay back the $100,000 free ride?

Speaking of weaving, bobbing and weaving in response to questions specific to your positions on the issues is a good indication you either can't defend your position,

or, you don't really hold that position.

Libertarians are in principle and in party platform opposed to the redistribution of wealth.

Public education is a redistribution of wealth. It benefits the poor.

Libertarians, if they kept to their professed principles, would end public education as we know it because it redistributes wealth,

and as said, they oppose that.

So it is fair to say that Libertarians don't care about the ability of the poor to obtain an education,

so at the very least, on that specific issue within the issue of 'caring about the poor',

the Libertarians DO NOT.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you believe the government is the social structure and without it, we'd all be wandering around in the woods eating berries and wearing pelt attire. We get that. You just again, blathered on about nothing.

The Government represents our social structure

No, the government attempts to centrally plan society. it represents its own interests. But i understand it's a very scary world out there without an authority telling you how to live at every given moment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Libertarianisms fatal flaw is that it fails to recognize the importance of the social structure. Man has flourished because of his ability to form strong societies. Cultures with small, clan centered or tribe centered cultures failed, those able to form large, powerful societies were able to dominate. We are all stronger as part of a society than we are as individuals

Libertarians look at each person being only responsible for themselves. If others fail, that is none of their concern. They are willing to reap the benefits of a society, but claim all of those benefits as being the result of their own personal initiative

Which part of libertarianism has a problem with social structure? the only problem they have is with the idiots that think the government is the social structure.

The Libertarian Party platform denies government the right to tax without an individual's consent:

"...within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.


We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation..."

"We", the Libertarians, according to the above, deny the right of any government to seize the fruits of any individuals' labor without their consent.

What that means in English is that Libertarians believe that the government cannot force you, as an individual, to pay taxes, unless you, the individual, has given consent, individually.

Or is that supposed to mean something else? If so, what, specifically?

\FYI, taxes is not social structure.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Liberts find it a private issue where government has no opinion on it
Anything else and you are not a libert.

And btw liberts talk about this because they can. Just like liberals talk about liberals and cons talk about cons....there is no special reason beyond nothing.

What in the blue sky is a "libert?" Regardless, you are incorrect. Pro-life libertarians likely see it as a state issue, and state governments are still governments. That you think there is a libertarian consensus on abortion shows how little you know about libertarianism.

As for the bolded portion, I have no idea what you're saying.

i was being lazy and didnt feel like spelling out libertarian......

And all i am saying is people like to talk about themselves.

state issue? that doesnt change anything. That doesnt make you a libertarian. That makes you a social conservative.

No, federalism doesn't make you a libertarian. It also doesn't make you a social conservative. One can be a federalist and a libertarian, however.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you believe the government is the social structure and without it, we'd all be wandering around in the woods eating berries and wearing pelt attire. We get that. You just again, blathered on about nothing.

Government is the social structure, because man is a social animal. Even primitive man at his most basic level of existence far more often than not lived in organized groups,

bands, extended families, tribes, clans, etc.,

all of which whose basic operation represented a form of government, with laws, rules, restrictions, privileges, divisions of labor, ranks of power and authority,

even if many were not written down.

The Libertarian fantasy of every man as some sort of individual government unto himself is nonsensical.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you believe the government is the social structure and without it, we'd all be wandering around in the woods eating berries and wearing pelt attire. We get that. You just again, blathered on about nothing.

The Government represents our social structure, and yes without a government you would still be gathering berries

The government does not represent the social structure in countries that do not believe in theoretic governments.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

it is to the mentally weak like NYcarbin or RRer. They believe that without other humnans telling them how to live, they'd be wandering around in the woods grunting and wearing pelt attire. They are probably correct judging by how much they value individual volition and liberty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which part of libertarianism has a problem with social structure? the only problem they have is with the idiots that think the government is the social structure.

The Libertarian Party platform denies government the right to tax without an individual's consent:

"...within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.


We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation..."

"We", the Libertarians, according to the above, deny the right of any government to seize the fruits of any individuals' labor without their consent.

What that means in English is that Libertarians believe that the government cannot force you, as an individual, to pay taxes, unless you, the individual, has given consent, individually.

Or is that supposed to mean something else? If so, what, specifically?

\FYI, taxes is not social structure.

Wrong and irrelevant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I said:

it is not a myth to say that Libertarians don't care about the poor,

unless you believe that providing an education to the poor regardless of their ability to pay is of no benefit.


You're claiming it's a myth to say that Libertarians don't care about the poor.

Is not caring whether or not the poor can afford to educate their children an example of not caring about poor?

I say it's a perfect example of not caring about the poor.

You think it benefits poor people to give them the ability to earn degrees in underwater basket weaving and then demand that they pay back the $100,000 free ride?

Speaking of weaving, bobbing and weaving in response to questions specific to your positions on the issues is a good indication you either can't defend your position,

or, you don't really hold that position.

Libertarians are in principle and in party platform opposed to the redistribution of wealth.

Public education is a redistribution of wealth. It benefits the poor.

Libertarians, if they kept to their professed principles, would end public education as we know it because it redistributes wealth,

and as said, they oppose that.

So it is fair to say that Libertarians don't care about the ability of the poor to obtain an education,

so at the very least, on that specific issue within the issue of 'caring about the poor',

the Libertarians DO NOT.

Public education does not take wealth from one person and give it to another, it shares knowledge. Knowledge is not wealth, giving some to another person does not mean you have less.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you believe the government is the social structure and without it, we'd all be wandering around in the woods eating berries and wearing pelt attire. We get that. You just again, blathered on about nothing.

Government is the social structure, because man is a social animal. Even primitive man at his most basic level of existence far more often than not lived in organized groups,

bands, extended families, tribes, clans, etc.,

all of which whose basic operation represented a form of government, with laws, rules, restrictions, privileges, divisions of labor, ranks of power and authority,

even if many were not written down.

The Libertarian fantasy of every man as some sort of individual government unto himself is nonsensical.

That doesn't even make sense if I think like a statist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Libertarian Party platform denies government the right to tax without an individual's consent:

"...within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.


We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation..."

"We", the Libertarians, according to the above, deny the right of any government to seize the fruits of any individuals' labor without their consent.

What that means in English is that Libertarians believe that the government cannot force you, as an individual, to pay taxes, unless you, the individual, has given consent, individually.

Or is that supposed to mean something else? If so, what, specifically?

\FYI, taxes is not social structure.

Wrong and irrelevant.

How is it wrong, or irrelevant?

 

[rightwinger]

So you believe the government is the social structure and without it, we'd all be wandering around in the woods eating berries and wearing pelt attire. We get that. You just again, blathered on about nothing.

The Government represents our social structure

No, the government attempts to centrally plan society. it represents its own interests. But i understand it's a very scary world out there without an authority telling you how to live at every given moment.

Fraid not.....the Government represents "We the People"

And without that Government you would still be gathering roots and berries

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you believe the government is the social structure and without it, we'd all be wandering around in the woods eating berries and wearing pelt attire. We get that. You just again, blathered on about nothing.

Government is the social structure, because man is a social animal. Even primitive man at his most basic level of existence far more often than not lived in organized groups,

bands, extended families, tribes, clans, etc.,

all of which whose basic operation represented a form of government, with laws, rules, restrictions, privileges, divisions of labor, ranks of power and authority,

even if many were not written down.

The Libertarian fantasy of every man as some sort of individual government unto himself is nonsensical.

No, government does not make up social structure. Or else places without government wouldn't have any social structure, but they do. History also shows you to be wrong. Plenty of societies have lasted (at least until the violent government promoting statists show up) without any formal government. Governments hijack society to centrally plan it to gain power and maintain it.

You just like stealing, committing violence and using force to take from others and then call that civilized society. Talk about nonsensical....

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The Government represents our social structure

No, the government attempts to centrally plan society. it represents its own interests. But i understand it's a very scary world out there without an authority telling you how to live at every given moment.

Fraid not.....the Government represents "We the People"

And without that Government you would still be gathering roots and berries

History books are your friend, Dullard. You're wrong. Plain and simple.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The idiot speaketh, all bow down.

Can you point out what, exactly, in the portion of the platform you just quoted, proves that they don't care about minorities? When the government supports wealth redistribution we get wonderful things like the government taking entire neighborhoods away from poor communities and giving them to rich corporations to build parking lots adjacent to office buildings that never get built because there is no money in building offices in areas where there is no residential or business development.

Keep lying to yourself, just don't expect to fool the people that can think.

To a Libertarian, a minority is a person, with the same rights and responsibilities as any other person - no more, and no less.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fraid not.....the Government represents "We the People"

And without that Government you would still be gathering roots and berries

Even for a Communist - that is an incredibly stupid claim.

 

[rightwinger]

No, the government attempts to centrally plan society. it represents its own interests. But i understand it's a very scary world out there without an authority telling you how to live at every given moment.

Fraid not.....the Government represents "We the People"

And without that Government you would still be gathering roots and berries

History books are your friend, Dullard. You're wrong. Plain and simple.

A key aspect of moving from hunter/gatherers (Libertarian) to an advanced society was the development of a monetary system. A monetary system allows you to get credit for the roots and berries you gather and spend it at a later date. It also establishes a means to set value for goods and services and a means to accumulate and spread wealth
Without a government backing....that monetary system is just a bunch of paper

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Fraid not.....the Government represents "We the People"

And without that Government you would still be gathering roots and berries

History books are your friend, Dullard. You're wrong. Plain and simple.

A key aspect of moving from hunter/gatherers (Libertarian) to an advanced society was the development of a monetary system. A monetary system allows you to get credit for the roots and berries you gather and spend it at a later date. It also establishes a means to set value for goods and services and a means to accumulate and spread wealth
Without a government backing....that monetary system is just a bunch of paper

You can take your seat on the short bus behind Corky and next to Dunderhead. What a load of ******* crap. So paper was the first unit of exchange? The kind printed by government and distributed out? You're at best, a complete moron. At best, son.