Of course, there are millions of instances that could be provided to show just how far liberalism has fallen in terms of being an ideology of substance, having some integrity, honesty, etc. As it has been examined over the decades and its policies have failed so profoundly, those that subscribe to it have been forced to stoop to lower and lower measures instead of just abandoning a failed ideology. Most notably: nonsensical and disingenuous positions.
I think this is one of the many instances that are a good example. While doing some research I came across a specific section of this article hit me like a bolt of lighting for being a prime example of the nonsensical and disingenuous positions of the modern-day liberal. The article instructs its readers on questions to pose to libertarians to "defeat" them. Here was the second question in the article:
Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?
Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.
Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?
Now...what is the problem with this? Well, for starters, libertarians are very open about the fact that the ideology revolves around the individual (and for the record here - I am not, nor have I ever been - a libertarian). So how is it a "gotcha" question to ask them if they support the collective??? But more importantly - how are employees banning together in the "collective" mindset to coerce a company into giving them what they want, "free-market"? It's not. At all. It's about the furthest thing from "free-market" that exists. If you were so good at your job, why would you need other people to step up and strike for you? If you were so good at your job, you could simply walk into your managers office and tell them what you want and tell them that if you didn't get it, you would leave. That is "free-market". The individual performing their talents and make a case for what their talents are worth. The last sentence in particular (highlighted in blue above) is the most absurd. Your value in the free market is completely and totally linked to you as an individual. If you decide to leave Walmart or McDonalds for a new job, does the new business accept all of your co-workers as part of the deal? Do they all come with you? Of course not.
As usual, the left - which has been annihilated on the battlefield of ideas - results to nonsensical and disingenuous positions to make a case which could not be made with a logical and rational position. They attempt to make the case that a single individuals "value" is actually the value of the collective and thus why any libertarian should logically support unions. Well, unless the collective accepts and leaves jobs together until they retire, then we can unequivocally conclude that each individual has their own unique market value in the free-market and as such, asking the collective (especially more talented, more valuable employees) to use their leverage to coerce a company to increase your compensation package above your value for your benefit (of which you will of course not give a portion of that increase back to said collective for their work in getting you that increase - proving the disgusting hypocrisy of liberalisms "collective mindset" while hoarding the increase instead of splitting it with the collective) is nonsensical and disingenuous.
Lastly, because libertarians are very serious about their commitment to freedom and choice, they would be the last people on earth to tell you that unions should be "banned". They wouldn't care if you had union - they just wouldn't be a part of one. Literally every aspect of this question fails in a very major way. It is so disingenuous and it's the epitome of the entire ideology and the people who subscribe to it.
11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites
I think this is one of the many instances that are a good example. While doing some research I came across a specific section of this article hit me like a bolt of lighting for being a prime example of the nonsensical and disingenuous positions of the modern-day liberal. The article instructs its readers on questions to pose to libertarians to "defeat" them. Here was the second question in the article:
Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?
Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.
Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?
Now...what is the problem with this? Well, for starters, libertarians are very open about the fact that the ideology revolves around the individual (and for the record here - I am not, nor have I ever been - a libertarian). So how is it a "gotcha" question to ask them if they support the collective??? But more importantly - how are employees banning together in the "collective" mindset to coerce a company into giving them what they want, "free-market"? It's not. At all. It's about the furthest thing from "free-market" that exists. If you were so good at your job, why would you need other people to step up and strike for you? If you were so good at your job, you could simply walk into your managers office and tell them what you want and tell them that if you didn't get it, you would leave. That is "free-market". The individual performing their talents and make a case for what their talents are worth. The last sentence in particular (highlighted in blue above) is the most absurd. Your value in the free market is completely and totally linked to you as an individual. If you decide to leave Walmart or McDonalds for a new job, does the new business accept all of your co-workers as part of the deal? Do they all come with you? Of course not.
As usual, the left - which has been annihilated on the battlefield of ideas - results to nonsensical and disingenuous positions to make a case which could not be made with a logical and rational position. They attempt to make the case that a single individuals "value" is actually the value of the collective and thus why any libertarian should logically support unions. Well, unless the collective accepts and leaves jobs together until they retire, then we can unequivocally conclude that each individual has their own unique market value in the free-market and as such, asking the collective (especially more talented, more valuable employees) to use their leverage to coerce a company to increase your compensation package above your value for your benefit (of which you will of course not give a portion of that increase back to said collective for their work in getting you that increase - proving the disgusting hypocrisy of liberalisms "collective mindset" while hoarding the increase instead of splitting it with the collective) is nonsensical and disingenuous.
Lastly, because libertarians are very serious about their commitment to freedom and choice, they would be the last people on earth to tell you that unions should be "banned". They wouldn't care if you had union - they just wouldn't be a part of one. Literally every aspect of this question fails in a very major way. It is so disingenuous and it's the epitome of the entire ideology and the people who subscribe to it.
11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites
