Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Libertarianism can appear appear to endorse strong individuals ignoring the needs of the sick and the weak.
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?
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.
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:
See Libertarian Party opposes health care plan"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."
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
okay give me your best shot lets see what you.ve gotIf people truly understood the roots of narco-libertarianism they would burn them all at the stake.
Well apparently you think you understand libertarianism, why aren't you out there burning us up?
I do my best.
ok i dont understand educate meIf people truly understood the roots of narco-libertarianism they would burn them all at the stake.
Don't be afraid to give examples here Dblack...
but in all fairness there is contradition (or focus on special interest agendas ) in both the other partiesHere 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
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.
Don't be afraid to give examples here Dblack...
Not afraid, just lazy. Thanks for filling in the blanks.
ok i dont understand educate meIf people truly understood the roots of narco-libertarianism they would burn them all at the stake.
ok i dont understand educate meIf people truly understood the roots of narco-libertarianism they would burn them all at the stake.
He won't defend that John.. Check back a page or so.. He LOVES the War on Drugs...
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?
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".
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?