Libertarianism is DANGEROUS

[Paulie]

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.

This is the number 1 reason why libertarianism gets a bad name.

 

[occupied]

Here's something I wrote a couple of years ago, it still works.

A guide to becoming an Internet Libertarian.

I know most of us are pretty embarrassed by the stuff that President Bush did and don’t really like being on the defensive. Don't fret friend ,the answer has been found. Our best conservative minds have spent dozens of hours and millions of dollars to provide the all purpose answer when confronted with republican policies of the past that did not turn out so well. The answer is simple, become an Internet libertarian!

You may ask: “But I don’t know anything about libertarianism how can I just claim to be one?” Well that is the really good part, you do not have to know anything about it to be one. There are no classes to take, no hard reading to do at all, you just have to learn one simple phrase and you too will be an Internet libertarian. The all important phrase is: “They are all crooks I don’t support any of them” See so simple even a child or uneducated adult can do it. If you really want to get serious you can reply with some excellent derailment techniques, some of them follow:

We need to go back to the gold standard, fiat currencies are worthless. (no need to really know what this means, it is only to throw off your attackers)

Self fulfillment is the only freedoms our founders advocated. (in fact it is useful to claim Jefferson would have liked anything you like)

Claim to be against the drug war, that always derails things. (you know how liberals love illegal drugs)

Claim everything you do not like is unconstitutional and never budge (crucial!)

Always claim to be an entirely self made person no matter how much help you may have had.

Social programs = socialism = fascism = communism (it boggles better educated people’s minds to an extent that they will forget the topic at hand in disgust)

“I did not vote as a protest” is a good one that .allows you to publicly disavow voting republican, thanks for voting for us, we can understand if you don’t want to admit it in public.

There are numerous other strategies to use to shed yourself of any responsibility for the actions of republicans, look around your average discussion forum, We have already placed many skillful practitioners of this technique around the net to guide you. We now come to the most important part, the only part that makes this smoke and mirrors operation work, continue to vote republican, do not forget that this is only a con job and not a real political movement. I mean seriously, what person in their right mind would think this mumbo-jumbo is worth any consideration.

Yours truly

The GOP

PS remember to vote for us as usual.

 

[dblack]

Here's something I wrote a couple of years ago, it still works.

A guide to becoming an Internet Libertarian.

I know most of us are pretty embarrassed by the stuff that President Bush did and don’t really like being on the defensive. Don't fret friend ,the answer has been found. Our best conservative minds .....

Yours truly

The GOP

PS remember to vote for us as usual.

LOL... very nice. I've often wondered if there wasn't something out there like this.

I've also wondered whether there wasn't similar for out-of-work Democrats. They seem just as happy to take up an anti-war, anti-corporate posture when out of power and than go hog wild with each once they're behind the wheel. Obama could teach a course on this approach.

 

[Wiseacre]

Here's something I wrote a couple of years ago, it still works.

A guide to becoming an Internet Libertarian.

I know most of us are pretty embarrassed by the stuff that President Bush did and don’t really like being on the defensive. Don't fret friend ,the answer has been found. Our best conservative minds have spent dozens of hours and millions of dollars to provide the all purpose answer when confronted with republican policies of the past that did not turn out so well. The answer is simple, become an Internet libertarian!

You may ask: “But I don’t know anything about libertarianism how can I just claim to be one?” Well that is the really good part, you do not have to know anything about it to be one. There are no classes to take, no hard reading to do at all, you just have to learn one simple phrase and you too will be an Internet libertarian. The all important phrase is: “They are all crooks I don’t support any of them” See so simple even a child or uneducated adult can do it. If you really want to get serious you can reply with some excellent derailment techniques, some of them follow:

We need to go back to the gold standard, fiat currencies are worthless. (no need to really know what this means, it is only to throw off your attackers)

Self fulfillment is the only freedoms our founders advocated. (in fact it is useful to claim Jefferson would have liked anything you like)

Claim to be against the drug war, that always derails things. (you know how liberals love illegal drugs)

Claim everything you do not like is unconstitutional and never budge (crucial!)

Always claim to be an entirely self made person no matter how much help you may have had.

Social programs = socialism = fascism = communism (it boggles better educated people’s minds to an extent that they will forget the topic at hand in disgust)

“I did not vote as a protest” is a good one that .allows you to publicly disavow voting republican, thanks for voting for us, we can understand if you don’t want to admit it in public.

There are numerous other strategies to use to shed yourself of any responsibility for the actions of republicans, look around your average discussion forum, We have already placed many skillful practitioners of this technique around the net to guide you. We now come to the most important part, the only part that makes this smoke and mirrors operation work, continue to vote republican, do not forget that this is only a con job and not a real political movement. I mean seriously, what person in their right mind would think this mumbo-jumbo is worth any consideration.

Yours truly

The GOP

PS remember to vote for us as usual.

Outside of not liking much of what Bush43 did, the rest of this is crap. Your attempt to marginalize those with a different viewpoint from your own is quite superficial and lame. I have seen others posting similar tripe suggesting that libertarians or conservatives are mindless robots parroting mumbo-jumbo spewed from Fox News, Limbaugh, and God knows who else. Lumping everyone who does not share your ideology into the same group and demagoguing them may make you feel superior, but it sure as hell isn't going to foster an intelligent conversation or help arrive at any solutions. You sir, are part of the problem.

 

[Rocko]

Liberatarianism is similar to utopian fantasy land. I agree with many tenants, but to go all in would be dangerous.

 

[Billy000]

I feel like I haven't gotten much substance in response to my thread. Most of these replies are pretty generic....

 

[Toro]

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 a freedom-hating socialist.

 

[conner700]

Total Personal Freedom = Libertarianism?

 

[conner700]

Needing foodstamps = government moocher?

I can't say for sure, but if I had to guess, your paycheck comes from the government? Who on one hand take tax payer dollars to feed yourself, and on the other hand use your position to put down others who would like to eat as well...but they don't have your job.

Your proactive sentence structure clearly shows the bias in your statement. You trying to manipulate your readers to agree and disagree with you at the same time without taking a stand on any side of the argument. This circular position is a waste of time.

 

[Mr.Nick]

"Libertarianism" is not an "ism."

That would somehow imply libertarians believe and have a desire to enforce their belief on others which would be contradictory to their beliefs in the first place..

I don't believe libertarians would give two shits if the state of California wanted to live as a socialist state (just as long as it was voluntary amongst its citizens)..

From a sociopolitical perspective I believe the biggest beef among libertarians is the fact the federal government continually ignores the Tenth Amendment...

People er states and communities have the Goddamn right to self legislate - we don't need the fucking federal government legislating for all 50 states...

 

[Oddball]

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.

Bull...SHIT!

Just because limp-dick RINO and neocon republicans campaign like libertarians and govern like progressive liberoidal socialists isn't the fault of libertarians and their principles.

 

[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...

 

[Mr.Nick]

Honestly as a libertarian I believe Amendments XI-XXVII should be repealed...

The other 17 have no use in modern society nor in a libertarian United States - most are tyrannical in the first place and grant way too much power to the federal government and in some cases contradict the Bill of Rights...

 

[Billy000]

Needing foodstamps = government moocher?

I can't say for sure, but if I had to guess, your paycheck comes from the government? Who on one hand take tax payer dollars to feed yourself, and on the other hand use your position to put down others who would like to eat as well...but they don't have your job.

Your proactive sentence structure clearly shows the bias in your statement. You trying to manipulate your readers to agree and disagree with you at the same time without taking a stand on any side of the argument. This circular position is a waste of time.

No, I do not have a government job, actually. That kind of bias would make this issue a lot simpler for you to figure out, wouldn't it?

My "proactive sentence structure" is what's called critical thinking. In order to fully understand an issue in politics, you must be able to acknowledge and analyze the positions of both sides of the debate. This is how you come to objective conclusions. My objective conclusion (obviously) is that libertarianism is harmful.

 

[Billy000]

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?

 

[Oddball]

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?

Bullshit.

If semi-auto and automatic weapons are good enough for gubmint troops, they're good enough for the citizenry...That's part of the point of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Oddball]

Needing foodstamps = government moocher?

I can't say for sure, but if I had to guess, your paycheck comes from the government? Who on one hand take tax payer dollars to feed yourself, and on the other hand use your position to put down others who would like to eat as well...but they don't have your job.

Your proactive sentence structure clearly shows the bias in your statement. You trying to manipulate your readers to agree and disagree with you at the same time without taking a stand on any side of the argument. This circular position is a waste of time.

No, I do not have a government job, actually. That kind of bias would make this issue a lot simpler for you to figure out, wouldn't it?

My "proactive sentence structure" is what's called critical thinking. In order to fully understand an issue in politics, you must be able to acknowledge and analyze the positions of both sides of the debate. This is how you come to objective conclusions. My objective conclusion (obviously) is that libertarianism is harmful.

Except that you've come to your "objective" conclusions by using reasoning that is as flawed as it comes.

Just because libertarians want to privatize or outright abolish a number of bureaucracies that you believe to be indispensable, that doesn't make them harmful.

Get a grip.

 

[Wiseacre]

This is what I believe in. It's from libertarianism.org:

" Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his life as he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property. In the libertarian view, voluntary agreement is the gold standard of human relationships. If there is no good reason to forbid something (a good reason being that it violates the rights of others), it should be allowed. Force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who themselves use force, such as murderers, robbers, rapists, kidnappers, and defrauders (who practice a kind of theft). Most people live their own lives by that code of ethics. Libertarians believe that that code should be applied consistently, even to the actions of governments, which should be restricted to protecting people from violations of their rights. Governments should not use their powers to censor speech, conscript the young, prohibit voluntary exchanges, steal or “redistribute” property, or interfere in the lives of individuals who are otherwise minding their own business. "

 

[Dr Grump]

Needing foodstamps = government moocher?

I can't say for sure, but if I had to guess, your paycheck comes from the government? Who on one hand take tax payer dollars to feed yourself, and on the other hand use your position to put down others who would like to eat as well...but they don't have your job.

Your proactive sentence structure clearly shows the bias in your statement. You trying to manipulate your readers to agree and disagree with you at the same time without taking a stand on any side of the argument. This circular position is a waste of time.

No, I do not have a government job, actually. That kind of bias would make this issue a lot simpler for you to figure out, wouldn't it?

My "proactive sentence structure" is what's called critical thinking. In order to fully understand an issue in politics, you must be able to acknowledge and analyze the positions of both sides of the debate. This is how you come to objective conclusions. My objective conclusion (obviously) is that libertarianism is harmful.

Except that you've come to your "objective" conclusions by using reasoning that is as flawed as it comes.

Just because libertarians want to privatize or outright abolish a number of bureaucracies that you believe to be indispensable, that doesn't make them harmful.

Get a grip.

It just makes them wrong...)

 

[Dr Grump]

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?

Bullshit.

If semi-auto and automatic weapons are good enough for gubmint troops, they're good enough for the citizenry...That's part of the point of the 2nd Amendment.

Can I have my nuke now please...