Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[bripat9643]

Not to mention, we adhere strictly to the idea of "our freedom ends where yours begins". So to claim we only care about our own freedom pretty much confirms the OP's suggestion you don't know what libertarians stand for.

Don't kid yourself: they know what libertarians stand for, but they despise it. liberals are servile to the bone. The idea of freedom scares them witless.

 

[Avatar4321]

The retarded American libertarianism that rejects all government power as leftist is not in any way an accepted theory in the social sciences, Beck invented that shit and he never even went to school.

Except that's not the position of Beck or Libertarians. So why do you feel the need to lie about their positions?

Well set me straight there professor, tell me how that is not the position of scores of self described libertarians I have talked to on this and other boards?

Limited government doesn't equal no government.

 

[bripat9643]

Why is it that no country on earth is libertarian?

Because they know it is nutz

The human race hasn't advanced far enough to accept it.

 

[bucs90]

People have odd definitions of freedom.

Please explain. The way I see it, if there is a sliding scale between absolute freedom and absolute imprisonment, then libertarianism increases as you get closer to absolute freedom.

And ABSOLUTE freedom means no restraints..on good or bad behavior. If there is a loner, homeless guy with no friends or family, and Im totally free (with no govt laws restraining me) then he is at my free will. I can rob him, kill him or help him and give him shelter. Either way, Im free to do that. And he's free to do the same to me. To restrain those options is to take away a bit of freedom.

There's not a single libertarian who would agree with this.

Oh, Im not saying they would support it. They would absolutely oppose this. BUT...total freedom would allow that individual to make that decision. And then, only vigilante justice could respond. By having government with laws, we prevent that decision from being a "free" one and instead make it a criminal one.

But thats just an example. Apply that logic to..say...food. Laws make it a crime to put dangerous chemicals into food. In a totally free market, they could do it. Laws require accurate food labeling. Totally free market would not require honest labelling.

Apply that to drugs. EVERY drug would be legal in such a free society. Beer, cigarettes, weed (should be legal), heroine, crack, meth, LSD, crank, ice, whatever you want. Now...do we want a society that freely allows the use of that shit? And if so, HOW PRODUCTIVE could our society be with all the drug use, economically? Militarily?

Apply that logic to simple things, like noise ordinances. Your neighbor could set up a techno-dance club with amplified music all night. Without a govt enforcing noise ordinance, you'd never sleep.

Hell, even the "poop scoop" laws in local government, requiring you pick up your dogs shit when you walk him. What if a neighbor took his dog for a daily walk (while you were at work) and the shit ended up in your yard, every single day. And you'd be powerless to stop it.

People LIKE having some civil control. They may or may not admit it, but they do.

Thats why there aren't as many libertarian minded folks.

 

[occupied]

See above regarding demagoguery and charlatans.

See above for my invitation to sell your snakeoil to such a clueless neophyte as myself rather than just dismissing my obviously erroneous assumptions based on thousands of discussions with libertarians in less guarded topics.

Boring. Beck is a neocon, not a libertarian. He has nothing to do with libertarianism whatsoever. That you're trying to pass him off as the intellectual godfather of libertarianism is what makes you a charlatan.

Beck is the one who popularized his retarded views as libertarianism, he is the first one I ever noticed that lumped all the dictators on the left (Hitler AND Stalin LOL)therefore stating that the right is incapable of tyranny, it's dangerous bullshit and it is on display every day of the week here.

 

[Samson]

Why? Standard Oil revolutionized the oil industry and lowered the cost of oil considerably, which greatly benefited American consumers.

I agree that it served a purpose.

So did mules, but I don't think making them the universal mode of transportation would really work out very well.

Well I was going to say your analogy was flawed, but I suppose it's not. Your original premises were flawed. Standard Oil couldn't own everything in a free market. Only the state is capable of granting monopolies on that scale, or any scale really.

How do you know "only the state is capable of granting monopolies?"

Speaking of absurd assumptions.

An uncontrolled monopoly could buy the ******* state.

 

[bripat9643]

It's because libertarians tend to be the worst kind of advertisement for their ideology, they swing wildly from incredibly permissive on big business to downright fascist on things like labor unions. American libertarians even seem to hate the ideology of the European libertarians on which they are based. In short they seem to be mainly engaged in disavowing all social responsibility and have zero regard for anyone's freedom other than their own.

Um, how about NO?

We don't have a problem with unions. Workers are free to unite however they want. What we have a problem with is government colluding with them.

There would be no labor unions without the government providing them with the legal protection where they can exist without being beaten in the streets. Take a look at the early history of the labor movement, before the government protected them strikes were violent, bloody affairs, now they are much more peaceful and hardly anyone gets killed by management goon squads.

Union members are entitled to the same protection as anyone else. What they aren't entitled to is the right to prevent non union members from working for the employer of their choice.

Unions members are the ones who made strikes bloody. They trespassed on private property and physically assaulted anyone who crossed their picket lines. Fuckheads like you are apologists for union thuggery.

 

[bripat9643]

Not to mention, we adhere strictly to the idea of "our freedom ends where yours begins". So to claim we only care about our own freedom pretty much confirms the OP's suggestion you don't know what libertarians stand for.

Compartmentalizing a society into a collection of tiny little separate kingdoms is pretty silly.

Even of that's what libertarians believed in, why would it be silly?

 

[bucs90]

Your description is a little broad. Libertarians do NOT "reject all government"

Libertarians believe only federal programs and services described in the U.S. constitution should exist.




Platform | Libertarian Party

So the FBI, ATF, CIA and FEMA should not exist? The constitution allows the federal govt to have an army. Those are all civlian law enforcement/aid groups.

I think MOST people like having the FBI, CIA, ATF and FEMA in existence. The FBI and FEMA at least.

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

Platform | Libertarian Party

Not sure what the ATF does that the FBI could not do.

FEMA's functions are performed by the US miliary; more unnecessary government duplication.

The ATF is simply a specialized section of federal law enforcment. Like ANY large police dept, the Feds have broken theirs down to specialized units, and it is far more effective. The ATF focus is on guns, booze, tobacco and bombs. The FBI does the more traditional criminal stuff, like fraud, extortion, missing people/kidnapping, etc, etc.

As for the military and FEMA...is that the military's JOB to provide civil aid inside our borders? Remember, the US military isn't for operating inside our borders without martial law, right? Thats the job of cops, firemen, EMS. FEMA is there to supplement the locals when an event overwhelms the local resources, like Katrina. Thats by design. What if Sandy hit during...say,....a massive war with China? Would our military be able to respond? No. They'd be in a huge war over there. FEMA is for that.


When you really dissect it, there is a purpose and a logic behind 90% of government.

 

[bripat9643]

All the libertarians I have ever met are solely concerned with making drugs legal and stopping people from exercising self defense against the drug addled.

I've never met a libertarian who was against self-defense.

 

[bripat9643]

Simply? American libertarianism is the belief that anarchy can be a peaceful, wonderful way to live, nutball stuff. European libertarianism believes that the government exists to proactively protect freedom and to stamp out unfair exploitation, it's where the American libertarians differ in that the government has no domestic use.

European libertarians believe the same thing as American libertarians. Every time you post you only prove that you're an ignorant buffoon.

 

[Samson]

It's because libertarians tend to be the worst kind of advertisement for their ideology, they swing wildly from incredibly permissive on big business to downright fascist on things like labor unions. American libertarians even seem to hate the ideology of the European libertarians on which they are based. In short they seem to be mainly engaged in disavowing all social responsibility and have zero regard for anyone's freedom other than their own.

Um, how about NO?

We don't have a problem with unions. Workers are free to unite however they want. What we have a problem with is government colluding with them.

There would be no labor unions without the government providing them with the legal protection where they can exist without being beaten in the streets. Take a look at the early history of the labor movement, before the government protected them strikes were violent, bloody affairs, now they are much more peaceful and hardly anyone gets killed by management goon squads.

Actually, the government did protect early Union Strikes.

But anyway, back to the topic.

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain

Platform | Libertarian Party

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Please explain. The way I see it, if there is a sliding scale between absolute freedom and absolute imprisonment, then libertarianism increases as you get closer to absolute freedom.

And ABSOLUTE freedom means no restraints..on good or bad behavior. If there is a loner, homeless guy with no friends or family, and Im totally free (with no govt laws restraining me) then he is at my free will. I can rob him, kill him or help him and give him shelter. Either way, Im free to do that. And he's free to do the same to me. To restrain those options is to take away a bit of freedom.

There's not a single libertarian who would agree with this.

Oh, Im not saying they would support it. They would absolutely oppose this. BUT...total freedom would allow that individual to make that decision. And then, only vigilante justice could respond. By having government with laws, we prevent that decision from being a "free" one and instead make it a criminal one.

But thats just an example. Apply that logic to..say...food. Laws make it a crime to put dangerous chemicals into food. In a totally free market, they could do it. Laws require accurate food labeling. Totally free market would not require honest labelling.

Apply that to drugs. EVERY drug would be legal in such a free society. Beer, cigarettes, weed (should be legal), heroine, crack, meth, LSD, crank, ice, whatever you want. Now...do we want a society that freely allows the use of that shit? And if so, HOW PRODUCTIVE could our society be with all the drug use, economically? Militarily?

Apply that logic to simple things, like noise ordinances. Your neighbor could set up a techno-dance club with amplified music all night. Without a govt enforcing noise ordinance, you'd never sleep.

Hell, even the "poop scoop" laws in local government, requiring you pick up your dogs shit when you walk him. What if a neighbor took his dog for a daily walk (while you were at work) and the shit ended up in your yard, every single day. And you'd be powerless to stop it.

People LIKE having some civil control. They may or may not admit it, but they do.

Thats why there aren't as many libertarian minded folks.

The anarcho-capitalist wing of the libertarian ideology would say that those "decisions" would still be criminal, and that all you've achieved with your government is to setup an unaccountable organization with a monopoly on the use of violence. In other words, you setup an organization that can make those "decisions" without them being criminal. Not exactly the most logical thing to do.

It would still be a crime to harm people by putting dangerous chemicals in their food. This is a basic idea of property rights. If your product harms somebody you're still liable on the free market. The same applies to your "noise ordinances."

As for drugs, who are you to say how productive any society has to be? If that society deems it better to be high at all times rather than productive then what right do you have to stop them? Regardless, the argument is ridiculous. It's not like we're all going to go out and get addicted to heroin if it were suddenly legal tomorrow. I don't know about you, but I don't need the government telling me it's stupid to poison myself.

The dog pooping in my yard is a violation of my property rights.

 

[bripat9643]

Total Freedom = Survival of the fittest.

Our people dont want survival of the fittest.

The 18 year old college girl who gets raped should not have to track down her attacker, or her father have to do it. In TOTAL FREEDOM, that would be the case. Vigilante justice.

I DONT WANT to just hope and pray that the food company I bought from is being honest in their ingredient list. If they have aspartame in their shit, I want to know. But only a govt body is gonna force that. I suppose a private sector watchdog could do...BUT that hasn't happened yet.

Most libertarians don't believe in eliminating government entirely.

It's amazing how stupid libertarian critics are. They don't know the first thing about it. Apparently all they know is what propagandists on sights like DailyKOS and MoveOn.org tell them about it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

See above for my invitation to sell your snakeoil to such a clueless neophyte as myself rather than just dismissing my obviously erroneous assumptions based on thousands of discussions with libertarians in less guarded topics.

Boring. Beck is a neocon, not a libertarian. He has nothing to do with libertarianism whatsoever. That you're trying to pass him off as the intellectual godfather of libertarianism is what makes you a charlatan.

Beck is the one who popularized his retarded views as libertarianism, he is the first one I ever noticed that lumped all the dictators on the left (Hitler AND Stalin LOL)therefore stating that the right is incapable of tyranny, it's dangerous bullshit and it is on display every day of the week here.

So what? Beck's warmongering nationalist hysteria has nothing to do with libertarianism, regardless of what he claims to be.

 

[Samson]

When you really dissect it, there is a purpose and a logic behind 90% of government.

Why I love a message board.

 

[bripat9643]

Several reasons I think. For starters, some people simply disagree with what we have to say. Obviously you can't convince everybody you're right, so there is that. That aside, however, I think it boils down to a couple key things.

Many people, maybe even most people, have no idea what a libertarian is, meaning that they've never even heard the word before. I can't tell you how many times I've told people I'm a libertarian and they say "What's that?" Then there's a lot of misinformation out there, and many of the replies in this thread are evidence of this. I walked into my history class a few weeks ago and the professor had written on the board the words "Conservative" and "Liberal," and underneath both words was the word "Libertarian." He made the case that libertarians can either be conservative or liberal, rather than having their own distinct ideology. Then he told the class that the greatest promoter of libertarianism from the mid-20th century was probably William F. Buckley. Hopefully I don't have to explain why that's ridiculous. I couldn't believe it, but that's what the rest of the students in that class took away from him about libertarianism, my protests not withstanding.

Also, I think libertarianism is a bit of a shock to the system even when it's not being demagogued by charlatans. Our positions are radically different from what you get with your typical liberal or conservative, and some people just can't conceive that what we're saying is possible. People in general, myself and all other libertarians included, are not as open to new or different ideas as they would like to believe.

The retarded American libertarianism that rejects all government power as leftist is not in any way an accepted theory in the social sciences, Beck invented that shit and he never even went to school.

So-called "social science" is 99% communist propaganda. The term is virtually an oxymoron. It's no surprise that it objects to freedom.

 

[occupied]

Simply? American libertarianism is the belief that anarchy can be a peaceful, wonderful way to live, nutball stuff. European libertarianism believes that the government exists to proactively protect freedom and to stamp out unfair exploitation, it's where the American libertarians differ in that the government has no domestic use.

European libertarians believe the same thing as American libertarians. Every time you post you only prove that you're an ignorant buffoon.

Projection.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I agree that it served a purpose.

So did mules, but I don't think making them the universal mode of transportation would really work out very well.

Well I was going to say your analogy was flawed, but I suppose it's not. Your original premises were flawed. Standard Oil couldn't own everything in a free market. Only the state is capable of granting monopolies on that scale, or any scale really.

How do you know "only the state is capable of granting monopolies?"

Speaking of absurd assumptions.

An uncontrolled monopoly could buy the ******* state.

Because only the state has the power to restrict competition. McDonald's can't go shut down Burger King or vice versa, but the state could.

 

[bripat9643]

Please explain. The way I see it, if there is a sliding scale between absolute freedom and absolute imprisonment, then libertarianism increases as you get closer to absolute freedom.

And ABSOLUTE freedom means no restraints..on good or bad behavior. If there is a loner, homeless guy with no friends or family, and Im totally free (with no govt laws restraining me) then he is at my free will. I can rob him, kill him or help him and give him shelter. Either way, Im free to do that. And he's free to do the same to me. To restrain those options is to take away a bit of freedom.

Libertarians don't believe in no laws, doofus.