Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[Truthmatters]

they are against government.


that makes them historically failed in their ideas.

they are against regulations on corporations.

that makes their ideas historically failed.


Its an histoicallly failed belief system.

 

[RKMBrown]

see nothing of subtance to say in defense of their historically failed ideas

Huh? You cite Thomas Jefferson in your sig line and yet with every post you call the government he helped build a failing idea?

you talking to me?


LIBERTARIANS hate the government.

did you forget that?

Lies. Libertarians hate authoritarian policies of governments, not government.

 

[JWBooth]

The simplest explanation of libertarian philosophy, though hardly all encompassing, is:

Mind your own business.
Keep your hands to yourself.

 

[JWBooth]

Libertarians are<snip>
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/

Bullshit repeated incessantly is still bullshit.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nope.

The truth is difficult to swallow, eh Fakey?

Truth is never hard to accept, and one of the truths is that libertarianism is for the weak of mind and the deficient of character. There are a few exceptions. KevinKennedy comes to mind, but not many others.

Deficient of character?

You mean people who advocate nonaggression and respect for the rights of others are deficient of character?

So I must take it that you believe that people who want to dominate others and bend them to their will via force and aggression have superior character.

 

[RKMBrown]

Libertarians believe in treating Israel the same as every other country. Trade with them, be friends with them, but no entangling alliances. They would be responsible for their own defense and foreign policy, and would not be given American taxpayer money for any reason.

I don't think you speak for all libertarians.

I don't think all libertarians are against lending money.

I don't think all libertarians are against defense alliances.

I don't think all libertarians are against helping people.

How in the world could I speak for all libertarians?

Libertarians are not against lending money. Libertarians are against stealing money and then lending it out, however, and that is what the U.S. government does with its so-called "aid."

Libertarians are non-interventionists. Yes, they're against defense alliances.

Libertarians are not against helping people.

>>> Libertarians are non-interventionists. Yes, they're against defense alliances.

Wrong. There is a marked difference between having a policy of non-intervention and having a policy of blind indifference.

By your measure we would still be under the rule of the British Empire because we would not have accepted "intervention" help from France.

Libertarians would not have been for sitting out the fight in Europe during WWII either. There are some fights that have to be attended to. We cannot sit by and let a country like Germany, Russia, or China take over the planet. Just because the wars on drugs and terror are stupid offensive interventionist wars... does not mean all wars fought on foreign soil are stupid offensive interventionist wars.

 

[Truthmatters]

non aggression is a tiny meme in your ilk.

we all know you would dump it in a red hot second if you got power.

Look at who your base really is

 

[Truthmatters]

The simplest explanation of libertarian philosophy, though hardly all encompassing, is:

Mind your own business.
Keep your hands to yourself.

things you teach a five year old.

yeap

 

[Skull Pilot]

non aggression is a tiny meme in your ilk.

we all know you would dump it in a red hot second if you got power.

Look at who your base really is

nonaggression is a major plank of the libertarian platform.

Just like aggression and war are major planks of the Dimwitcrap and Repugnantcan parties

 

[RKMBrown]

The simplest explanation of libertarian philosophy, though hardly all encompassing, is:

Mind your own business.
Keep your hands to yourself.

To broad, can be read by authoritarians in too many bad ways. Libertarians are not the hermits your proposed explanation reads as.

 

[Truthmatters]

nothing but childish insults.


now why do you think it would work in reality?

It wouldnt.


Its an historically failed idea SP

 

[Skull Pilot]

nothing but childish insults.


now why do you think it would work in reality?

It wouldnt.


Its an historically failed idea SP

It's never been tried.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I don't think you speak for all libertarians.

I don't think all libertarians are against lending money.

I don't think all libertarians are against defense alliances.

I don't think all libertarians are against helping people.

How in the world could I speak for all libertarians?

Libertarians are not against lending money. Libertarians are against stealing money and then lending it out, however, and that is what the U.S. government does with its so-called "aid."

Libertarians are non-interventionists. Yes, they're against defense alliances.

Libertarians are not against helping people.

>>> Libertarians are non-interventionists. Yes, they're against defense alliances.

Wrong. There is a marked difference between having a policy of non-intervention and having a policy of blind indifference.

By your measure we would still be under the rule of the British Empire because we would not have accepted "intervention" help from France.

Libertarians would not have been for sitting out the fight in Europe during WWII either. There are some fights that have to be attended to. We cannot sit by and let a country like Germany, Russia, or China take over the planet. Just because the wars on drugs and terror are stupid offensive interventionist wars... does not mean all wars fought on foreign soil are stupid offensive interventionist wars.

So, Kevin doesn't speak for all libertarians, but you do?

You'll need to understand what non-interventionist means, along with the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle). Those who do not understand and adhere to these principles aren't quite libertarian. Their view is something else.

Defense alliances are entanglements that proceed on potential acts of aggression. See Israel and the US today. That type of alliance is at odds with non-interventionist belief. Foreign alliances for the purposes of defense would be just that and nothing more. Not an ongoing never ending "watch my back no matter what" alliance of the worlds nations today. In a non-interventionist society, Israel would not have the support of the US for many of its policies. Though, that situation is unique in that it was western civilization intervention that granted Israel what it is today.

 

[Intense]

see nothing of subtance to say in defense of their historically failed ideas

Huh? You cite Thomas Jefferson in your sig line and yet with every post you call the government he helped build a failing idea?

you talking to me?


LIBERTARIANS hate the government.

did you forget that?

The libertarian or "classical liberal" perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary."

These ideas lead to new questions: What's possible? What's necessary? What are the practical implications and the unsolved problems?

Below are a number of different takes on the libertarian political perspective from which you can deepen your understanding; also be sure to check out the videos in the sidebar.

According to The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman, Open Court Publishing Company, 1973.

The central idea of libertarianism is that people should be permitted to run their own lives as they wish.

According to Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz, Free Press, 1997.

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

According to Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary

lib-er-tar-i-an, n. 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.... advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.

According to American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000.

NOUN: 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

The Challenge of Democracy (6th edition), by Kenneth Janda, Jeffrey Berry, and Jerry Goldman

Liberals favor government action to promote equality, whereas conservatives favor government action to promote order. Libertarians favor freedom and oppose government action to promote either equality or order.

What is Libertarian? | The Institute for Humane Studies

Which is true, TM? Which is a lie?

 

[Truthmatters]

libertarians hate government.

they call anything the govenment does evil.

they see the profoundly world changing government the founders left us as a failure.


That is who they are

 

[Intense]

libertarians hate government.

they call anything the govenment does evil.

they see the profoundly world changing government the founders left us as a failure.


That is who they are

False Statement, TM.

 

[bripat9643]

see nothing of subtance to say in defense of their historically failed ideas

Huh? You cite Thomas Jefferson in your sig line and yet with every post you call the government he helped build a failing idea?

you talking to me?


LIBERTARIANS hate the government.

did you forget that?

They certainly hate the totalitarian monstrosity we currently all suffer under. It doesn't follow that they hate all government.

 

[bripat9643]

Since "within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" cannot be defined by the individual, the "limits drawn around us" must be defined by a We the People legislature elected by our peers.

The limits are defined by "the equal rights of others," not some arbitrary majority.

Since definition of what such limits will be, the laws will reflect the majority definition of those limitations. Thus a constitution is required that protects minorities and their equal rights to the majority.

Laws do not define rights. The majority is nothing more than a mob with no more moral authority than a dictator.

Jefferson was certainly a classical liberal but certainly not a libertarian.

The two things are virtually indistinguishable.

An aside: note the difference RMKBrown indicates with Kevin_Kennedy above. There is no one pure and unadulterated libertarian philosophy.

For once you said something that was actually true.

 

[RKMBrown]

How in the world could I speak for all libertarians?

Libertarians are not against lending money. Libertarians are against stealing money and then lending it out, however, and that is what the U.S. government does with its so-called "aid."

Libertarians are non-interventionists. Yes, they're against defense alliances.

Libertarians are not against helping people.

>>> Libertarians are non-interventionists. Yes, they're against defense alliances.

Wrong. There is a marked difference between having a policy of non-intervention and having a policy of blind indifference.

By your measure we would still be under the rule of the British Empire because we would not have accepted "intervention" help from France.

Libertarians would not have been for sitting out the fight in Europe during WWII either. There are some fights that have to be attended to. We cannot sit by and let a country like Germany, Russia, or China take over the planet. Just because the wars on drugs and terror are stupid offensive interventionist wars... does not mean all wars fought on foreign soil are stupid offensive interventionist wars.

So, Kevin doesn't speak for all libertarians, but you do?

You'll need to understand what non-interventionist means, along with the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle). Those who do not understand and adhere to these principles aren't quite libertarian. Their view is something else.

Defense alliances are entanglements that proceed on potential acts of aggression. See Israel and the US today. That type of alliance is at odds with non-interventionist belief. Foreign alliances for the purposes of defense would be just that and nothing more. Not an ongoing never ending "watch my back no matter what" alliance of the worlds nations today. In a non-interventionist society, Israel would not have the support of the US for many of its policies. Though, that situation is unique in that it was western civilization intervention that granted Israel what it is today.

I suspect you and I are in violent agreement and are merely striving for a definition of "as little government as necessary."

While I would agree what we are doing with Israel borders on using Israel as a forward base of attack on our enemies in the ME, I would not agree that all alliances for the purposes of defending our homeland from military aggression are bad. By your apparent measure as little government as necessary means no intervention in world politics and/or conflicts whatsoever. While zero is definitely small, it is naive to pretend we can or should have no economic and/or defensive ties with anyone outside our borders.

 

[Darkwind]

Fakey couldn't find the truth with Diogenes as a tour guide.

lol