Debate Now Is Libertarianism UnAmerican?

[Derideo_Te]

Under what authority are we "required" to throw in to help others and to what extent. I am not saying we are not....I am asking a legitimate question.

Try reading the preamble to the constitution.

You first.

I noticed you glazed right over the fact that you blew it in your assertions.

Understandable given that both sides have their fair share of people who just accept that they've made a mistake.

I'll also consider this a deflection to other things you can't or won't answer.

The preamble sets goals for Americans to "form a more perfect union", "ensure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare" of We the People.

Your turn.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you liberts submitted the above to a high school civics teacher, you would fail.

 

[dblack]

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What is that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

You benefit from living in this civilized society and you have an obligation to contribute to this society. Unfortunately your selfishness and greed makes you resent having to provide for those less fortunate than yourself. That is your problem and you are not going to be able to remake society into your own selfish image because society will reject you if you try.

I'll try to steer clear of the petty personal attacks, but the stereotype of libertarians as selfish and greedy is laughably off base. We just see the purpose of government differently than you do. We don't think government exists to take care of us. That is the relationship of the king to the serf, the plantation owner to the slave, and sacrifices fundamental freedom for temporary security.

We can take care of ourselves, as a responsible society, without resorting to violence. I realize you think this isn't the case, that without state coercion, most people will be too short-sighted and selfish to see the wisdom of taking care of those in need. But if that's really your conviction, why would a government steered by democracy - by the votes of the very same people you apparently have no faith in - produce better results?

I'll try to steer clear of the petty personal attacks,

It is a violation of SDF OP Rules to resort to ad homs.

but the stereotype of libertarians as selfish and greedy is laughably off base.

The LP website says otherwise.

I realize you think this isn't the case, that without state coercion, most people will be too short-sighted and selfish to see the wisdom of taking care of those in need.

There has never been any successful private program that has ever made any significant reduction in the poverty rate. Compare that to the government social welfare programs that reduced poverty in the 1990's.

But if that's really your conviction, why would a government steered by democracy - by the votes of the very same people you apparently have no faith in - produce better results?

Because the evidence shows that it does actually produce better results than those in the private sector.

Unfortunately, history doesn't provide counterfactual evidence. So this only an assumption.

Logical analysis, however, shows the inherent contradiction in your argument. How do you account for that?

 

[RKMBrown]

The libertarians play straight into the hands of the communists.

Yup!

There has never been a single successful private program that has ended poverty entirely.

There hasn't been a successful public sector program either but the government programs are a means to reduce the crime that is inevitable with poverty.

Eliminating all government social welfare programs means that there will be endemic poverty (just look at 3rd world nations) and rampant crime. The cost of dealing with that crime will exceed the cost of the social welfare programs. Libertarians put their ideology ahead of pragmatism which is why it will fail and America will be far worse off than it is now.

Liar.

The libertarians play straight into the hands of the communists.

Yup!

There has never been a single successful private program that has ended poverty entirely.

There hasn't been a successful public sector program either but the government programs are a means to reduce the crime that is inevitable with poverty.

Eliminating all government social welfare programs means that there will be endemic poverty (just look at 3rd world nations) and rampant crime. The cost of dealing with that crime will exceed the cost of the social welfare programs. Libertarians put their ideology ahead of pragmatism which is why it will fail and America will be far worse off than it is now.

Liar.

I hardly agree that the statement is a lie.

I it is nothing more than a thought experiment that the left uses to rail against things they don't agree with.

Kinda like the whole "Red states take more welfare than Blue states" argument. I've never fully understood that one. It appears to be true based on statistics. So why don't Blue States try to pull back. That would force red states to either pony up or turn into blue states.

Just never got it.

The red/blue states argument is also a lie. It's a lie based on the strawman argument that only republicans live in red states and only democrats live in blue states. It's total BS. They also ignore the fact that retired people tend to move to low cost of living states in retirement... because the left knows this they use SS numbers in the totals and pretend that SS is welfare. IOW it's total BS.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As provided by the government.

It does not mean they don't believe in helping each other out.

And so it gets strange.......

Why would anyone who wants to use the government to help others......feel the need to compell others to follow their path ?

If I needed help, I'd only want it from those who want to give it.

I'd starve before taking help from the government knowing full good and well some of that money came from people who would just as soon not provided it.

The usual progression in this argument is the road/school/police/fire dept.

I've never known libertarians who were against local government supplying those things.

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

Your facile responses are becoming tedious.

Links were made to the official Libertarian party website and their stated positions on ending all forms of welfare were quoted.

Ending all government social welfare programs will substantially increase poverty. That is evidenced by nations that do and don't have social welfare programs.

Unless you can provide substantive credible evidence proving that the Libertarians have a sound and feasible alternative you are just wasting the time of everyone in this thread.

So far you have offered nothing but puerile taunting. If you cannot provide anything else then you will disqualify yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread.

Again, as this thread itself was based on a meaningless premise, everybody is disqualified from meaningful participation in it. You want to mock libertarian positions be my guest, but don't try to pretend you're engaged in substantive discussion on the subject.

 

[Derideo_Te]

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What is that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

You benefit from living in this civilized society and you have an obligation to contribute to this society. Unfortunately your selfishness and greed makes you resent having to provide for those less fortunate than yourself. That is your problem and you are not going to be able to remake society into your own selfish image because society will reject you if you try.

I'll try to steer clear of the petty personal attacks, but the stereotype of libertarians as selfish and greedy is laughably off base. We just see the purpose of government differently than you do. We don't think government exists to take care of us. That is the relationship of the king to the serf, the plantation owner to the slave, and sacrifices fundamental freedom for temporary security.

We can take care of ourselves, as a responsible society, without resorting to violence. I realize you think this isn't the case, that without state coercion, most people will be too short-sighted and selfish to see the wisdom of taking care of those in need. But if that's really your conviction, why would a government steered by democracy - by the votes of the very same people you apparently have no faith in - produce better results?

I'll try to steer clear of the petty personal attacks,

It is a violation of SDF OP Rules to resort to ad homs.

but the stereotype of libertarians as selfish and greedy is laughably off base.

The LP website says otherwise.

I realize you think this isn't the case, that without state coercion, most people will be too short-sighted and selfish to see the wisdom of taking care of those in need.

There has never been any successful private program that has ever made any significant reduction in the poverty rate. Compare that to the government social welfare programs that reduced poverty in the 1990's.

But if that's really your conviction, why would a government steered by democracy - by the votes of the very same people you apparently have no faith in - produce better results?

Because the evidence shows that it does actually produce better results than those in the private sector.

Unfortunately, history doesn't provide counterfactual evidence. So this only an assumption.

Logical analysis, however, shows the inherent contradiction in your argument. How do you account for that?

You have failed to provide any "logical analysis" to demonstrated any actual "inherent contradiction" either.

Simply making allegations without substantiation does not refute the facts that government social welfare programs have reduced the poverty rates when appropriately funded.

Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Government safety net programs put in place since the War on Poverty have helped reduce the poverty rate from 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012, according to a Supplemental Poverty Model(SPM) created by Columbia University, while the official U.S. Poverty Rate has not changed, as the economy by itself has done little to reduce poverty. According to the 2013 Columbia University study which created the (SPM) method of measuring poverty, without such programs the poverty rate would be 29% today.[107] An analysis of the study by Kevin Drum suggests the American welfare state effectively reduces poverty among the elderly but provides relatively little assistance to the working-age poor.[108] A 2014 study by Pew Charitable Trusts shows that without social programs like food stamps, social security and the federal EITC, the poverty rate in the U.S. would be much higher.[109] Nevertheless, the U.S. has the weakest social safety net of all developed nations.​

 

[RKMBrown]

Unless you can offer an alternative, your first claim is bogus. Unless, of course, you can show us where that is written by someone who we all call an ultimate authority.

We always see the "selfishness" and "greed" card played when someone is trying to leverage an argument they can't win.

Spoken just like a Libertarian who cannot defend his support of the elimination of all government social welfare programs.

It's great that you don't care that what you are posting is in direct contradiction to what has been posted earlier.

In some ways, I admire the person who can ignore reality.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

What part of post #33 did you not understand ?

The LP put it on their website but Libertarians run away and hide because they cannot support the feckless dogma of their own party.

Little wonder the LP requires hundreds of millions of dollars from the Koch bros just to get mentioned on the GOP platform.

They most certainly are failing miserably to elect any Libertarian candidates on the dubious "merits" of Libertarianism. Would that be because they too cannot defend what they allegedly stand for when asked about it by the American people themselves?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

He means that if we don't steal money from peter to hand it over to poor little paul, then we are allowing paul to wallow in misery as he sits around doing absolutely nothing with his life that is of value to anyone, including himself.

I don't fully agree with this.

As in most cases, there is a continuum. There are a certain number of poor little paul's that would greatly benefit from a helping hand. Not everyone stays in poverty (in this, I don't claim to be an expert...but I have read that most people on welfare get off of it pretty quickly).

The right tends to rail against those who scam the system. And those people do exist.

It's not a one size fits all and one ideaology does not fit all.

However, I am still at a loss as to how something is un-American. Don't get that one.

Under what authority are we "required" to throw in to help others and to what extent. I am not saying we are not....I am asking a legitimate question.

Any appeal to moral authority only admits that somehow people are trying to uitlize government to achieve moral ends (and what kind of duststorm does that kick up ?).

If it is simply an economic formula...then someone has to consider taking steps that many today would consider unthinkable.

The right is for hand ups and against hand-outs. The left chooses hand-outs over hands ups because hand-outs don't work. The left benefits greatly from having a voting public that is poor and remains so.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

Your facile responses are becoming tedious.

Links were made to the official Libertarian party website and their stated positions on ending all forms of welfare were quoted.

Ending all government social welfare programs will substantially increase poverty. That is evidenced by nations that do and don't have social welfare programs.

Unless you can provide substantive credible evidence proving that the Libertarians have a sound and feasible alternative you are just wasting the time of everyone in this thread.

So far you have offered nothing but puerile taunting. If you cannot provide anything else then you will disqualify yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread.

Again, as this thread itself was based on a meaningless premise, everybody is disqualified from meaningful participation in it. You want to mock libertarian positions be my guest, but don't try to pretend you're engaged in substantive discussion on the subject.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread by your own hand.

Have a nice day.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you liberts submitted the above to a high school civics teacher, you would fail.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to as "the above," but I did quite well in graduating college.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

Your facile responses are becoming tedious.

Links were made to the official Libertarian party website and their stated positions on ending all forms of welfare were quoted.

Ending all government social welfare programs will substantially increase poverty. That is evidenced by nations that do and don't have social welfare programs.

Unless you can provide substantive credible evidence proving that the Libertarians have a sound and feasible alternative you are just wasting the time of everyone in this thread.

So far you have offered nothing but puerile taunting. If you cannot provide anything else then you will disqualify yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread.

Again, as this thread itself was based on a meaningless premise, everybody is disqualified from meaningful participation in it. You want to mock libertarian positions be my guest, but don't try to pretend you're engaged in substantive discussion on the subject.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread by your own hand.

Have a nice day.

I was disqualified the moment you posted the OP, because your thread is meaningless drivel. Don't get upset that I treat your thread with the same level of seriousness that you showed in starting it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

Your facile responses are becoming tedious.

Links were made to the official Libertarian party website and their stated positions on ending all forms of welfare were quoted.

Ending all government social welfare programs will substantially increase poverty. That is evidenced by nations that do and don't have social welfare programs.

Unless you can provide substantive credible evidence proving that the Libertarians have a sound and feasible alternative you are just wasting the time of everyone in this thread.

So far you have offered nothing but puerile taunting. If you cannot provide anything else then you will disqualify yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread.

Again, as this thread itself was based on a meaningless premise, everybody is disqualified from meaningful participation in it. You want to mock libertarian positions be my guest, but don't try to pretend you're engaged in substantive discussion on the subject.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread by your own hand.

Have a nice day.

I was disqualified the moment you posted the OP, because your thread is meaningless drivel. Don't get upset that I treat your thread with the same level of seriousness that you showed in starting it.

Why are you trying to flatter yourself that your failure to participate would "upset me"?

The reality is that I found your posts to be mere disingenuous deflections and little more than a feeble attempt to derail the thread. Hence they were treated accordingly.

Have a nice day.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

Your facile responses are becoming tedious.

Links were made to the official Libertarian party website and their stated positions on ending all forms of welfare were quoted.

Ending all government social welfare programs will substantially increase poverty. That is evidenced by nations that do and don't have social welfare programs.

Unless you can provide substantive credible evidence proving that the Libertarians have a sound and feasible alternative you are just wasting the time of everyone in this thread.

So far you have offered nothing but puerile taunting. If you cannot provide anything else then you will disqualify yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread.

Again, as this thread itself was based on a meaningless premise, everybody is disqualified from meaningful participation in it. You want to mock libertarian positions be my guest, but don't try to pretend you're engaged in substantive discussion on the subject.

Thank you for disqualifying yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread by your own hand.

Have a nice day.

I was disqualified the moment you posted the OP, because your thread is meaningless drivel. Don't get upset that I treat your thread with the same level of seriousness that you showed in starting it.

Why are you trying to flatter yourself that your failure to participate would "upset me"?

The reality is that I found your posts to be mere disingenuous deflections and little more than a feeble attempt to derail the thread. Hence they were treated accordingly.

Have a nice day.

By the fact that you've resorted to repeatedly dismissing me, obviously. If you weren't upset about not being able to rationally defend the idea that libertarianism is some meaningless idea of "un-American" you wouldn't respond at all. Of course we'd still know that you're unable to make your argument, but I digress.

 

[thanatos144]

No ore un american then progressiveness or democrats....Oh wait....

 

[JakeStarkey]

You libertarians have demonstrated that even two of you cannot get along.

So, as far as the political philosophy goes, get lost.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You libertarians have demonstrated that even two of you cannot get along.

That has to be one of the most astute political observations that I have seen in quite some time.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The libertarians play straight into the hands of the communists.

Yup!

There has never been a single successful private program that has ended poverty entirely.

There hasn't been a successful public sector program either but the government programs are a means to reduce the crime that is inevitable with poverty.

Eliminating all government social welfare programs means that there will be endemic poverty (just look at 3rd world nations) and rampant crime. The cost of dealing with that crime will exceed the cost of the social welfare programs. Libertarians put their ideology ahead of pragmatism which is why it will fail and America will be far worse off than it is now.

Liar.

The libertarians play straight into the hands of the communists.

Yup!

There has never been a single successful private program that has ended poverty entirely.

There hasn't been a successful public sector program either but the government programs are a means to reduce the crime that is inevitable with poverty.

Eliminating all government social welfare programs means that there will be endemic poverty (just look at 3rd world nations) and rampant crime. The cost of dealing with that crime will exceed the cost of the social welfare programs. Libertarians put their ideology ahead of pragmatism which is why it will fail and America will be far worse off than it is now.

Liar.

I hardly agree that the statement is a lie.

I it is nothing more than a thought experiment that the left uses to rail against things they don't agree with.

Kinda like the whole "Red states take more welfare than Blue states" argument. I've never fully understood that one. It appears to be true based on statistics. So why don't Blue States try to pull back. That would force red states to either pony up or turn into blue states.

Just never got it.

The red/blue states argument is also a lie. It's a lie based on the strawman argument that only republicans live in red states and only democrats live in blue states. It's total BS. They also ignore the fact that retired people tend to move to low cost of living states in retirement... because the left knows this they use SS numbers in the totals and pretend that SS is welfare. IOW it's total BS.

Yes, there are several problems with the argument.

But my point was I don't think you could call it a lie as much as you could call it a fantasy or a fallacy.

Continuing....why don't the Blue States pull back on welfare overall at a federal level. That would force the hand of the red staters (Kentucky seems to be the one they always point at).

I don't hold to an ideology.

Just asking the question.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If you liberts submitted the above to a high school civics teacher, you would fail.

If you'd utilize the quote function, someone might know what you were talking about.

Or are you saying that "a more perfect untion", "the general welfare" etc. were not part of the preamble.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Spoken just like a Libertarian who cannot defend his support of the elimination of all government social welfare programs.

It's great that you don't care that what you are posting is in direct contradiction to what has been posted earlier.

In some ways, I admire the person who can ignore reality.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

What part of post #33 did you not understand ?

No. In other words, I don't recognize any 'onus' to supply an alternative to a policy I consider immoral. Government should protect us from bullies, not do their bidding.

But allowing people to fall/be born into poverty and a life of crime through no fault of their own is "moral" in your opinion?

Allowing?? What that supposed to mean? Answer the question in my sig and we'll talk. The whole idea that we "allow" someone else to do something assumes we have unlimited authority over their actions. If we took the view that government owns people, then it might make sense to say we "allow" someone to live in poverty. But that's exactly view I'm rejecting.

He means that if we don't steal money from peter to hand it over to poor little paul, then we are allowing paul to wallow in misery as he sits around doing absolutely nothing with his life that is of value to anyone, including himself.

I don't fully agree with this.

As in most cases, there is a continuum. There are a certain number of poor little paul's that would greatly benefit from a helping hand. Not everyone stays in poverty (in this, I don't claim to be an expert...but I have read that most people on welfare get off of it pretty quickly).

The right tends to rail against those who scam the system. And those people do exist.

It's not a one size fits all and one ideaology does not fit all.

However, I am still at a loss as to how something is un-American. Don't get that one.

Under what authority are we "required" to throw in to help others and to what extent. I am not saying we are not....I am asking a legitimate question.

Any appeal to moral authority only admits that somehow people are trying to uitlize government to achieve moral ends (and what kind of duststorm does that kick up ?).

If it is simply an economic formula...then someone has to consider taking steps that many today would consider unthinkable.

The right is for hand ups and against hand-outs. The left chooses hand-outs over hands ups because hand-outs don't work. The left benefits greatly from having a voting public that is poor and remains so.

C'mon...this is a gross overgeneralization and you know it.

I've tried to, at least, lay out the continuum of ideologies and how they travel along different axis in terms of purity vs. pragmatism.

If a true righty is as you say...then they don't exist (except in very small numbers).

If a true lefty is as you say...then they don't exist (unless their names are lizzy warren).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Under what authority are we "required" to throw in to help others and to what extent. I am not saying we are not....I am asking a legitimate question.

Try reading the preamble to the constitution.

You first.

I noticed you glazed right over the fact that you blew it in your assertions.

Understandable given that both sides have their fair share of people who just accept that they've made a mistake.

I'll also consider this a deflection to other things you can't or won't answer.

The preamble sets goals for Americans to "form a more perfect union", "ensure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare" of We the People.

Your turn.

Wonderful....

And the metrics as outlined in the Constitution are ??????

Oh wait..they don't exist.

Of course YOUR view of a more perfect union is the one that is the RIGHT view. Nobody else matters. You've clearly shown that over and over again.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We still don't have anything that describes what un-American is. How would we know if Libertarianism is un-American without that definition ?