Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Jefferson believed in democracy.

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 believed in democracy

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

The two things are virtually indistinguishable.

False, based on your own comments.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Bullshit repeated incessantly is still bullshit.

If he posts that cartoon enough times he thinks it will become reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kevin, libertarianism will continue an insignificant political modern-day phenomenon until your disparate comrades can create a coherent and consistent philosophy and platform.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Libertarians would not seek to tell France what they should do with their foreign policy. If they want to help the colonies that's their business.

I never said non-interventionism was blind indifference, but you're wrong about libertarians not wanting to sit out WWII. H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock are perfect examples of libertarians who would have preferred the U.S. actually adopt a policy of neutrality during that conflict.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Jefferson believed in democracy.

Jefferson believed in democracy

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

The two things are virtually indistinguishable.

False, based on your own comments.

Are you one of "those" people who don't understand the difference between a republic with a limited federal government and a simple majority led democracy?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Yeah, you have to look pretty hard and in the wrong direction to see anything about being a hermit in what he said.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

>>> 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.

I suspect we have completely and entirely different understandings of defense and imminent threats. Defense of the homeland ends where offense on other nations begins. Therefore, the foreign policy of using and aiding israel as a launch pad to the PNAC, is entirely against the principles of non-aggression and non-interventionism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you one of "those" people who don't understand the difference between a republic with a limited federal government and a simple majority led democracy?

(1) Are you aware the former is not libertarian and (2) unaware of our national narrative?

 

[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.

Libertarians would not seek to tell France what they should do with their foreign policy. If they want to help the colonies that's their business.

I never said non-interventionism was blind indifference, but you're wrong about libertarians not wanting to sit out WWII. H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock are perfect examples of libertarians who would have preferred the U.S. actually adopt a policy of neutrality during that conflict.

>>>Libertarians would not seek to tell France what they should do with their foreign policy. If they want to help the colonies that's their business.
Libertarians, such as yourself, are hypocritical?

>>> I never said non-interventionism was blind indifference
Glad we agree.

>>> H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock are perfect examples of libertarians who would have preferred the U.S. actually adopt a policy of neutrality during that conflict.
Perfect to you maybe. Though I can see how many pacifists would trend to the libertarian ideal of limited government, not all libertarians are "pacifists" to a fault of refusing to defend one's neighbors from violent attack.

 

[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

False Statement, TM.

go read post 63

right under where you poosted this one.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you one of "those" people who don't understand the difference between a republic with a limited federal government and a simple majority led democracy?

(1) Are you aware the former is not libertarian and (2) unaware of our national narrative?

(1) You are wrong, and you don't speak for conservative constitutional libertarians. (2) What national narrative?

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

see Im right

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

kevin, libertarianism will continue an insignificant political modern-day phenomenon until your disparate comrades can create a coherent and consistent philosophy and platform.

I don't know about insignificant. When has libertarianism ever been more popular than it is right now? Never? That doesn't mean that libertarianism is dominating the conversation in the country, or anywhere close to it, of course, but it is certainly a part of the conversation at the highest levels.

Just a little anecdotal evidence, my American Political Theory professor, not a libertarian by any stretch, said he was considering adding Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" to his reading list in future semesters, obviously due to the popularity that libertarianism is gaining. Obviously nothing to write home about, but still a positive development I think.

Also, I think the trend for libertarianism at the moment is only upwards for the moment.

 

[Truthmatters]

they hate the govenment we have.

It is the government the founders left us.

they pretend it is not.


they are wrong.


not many americans agree with them

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

>>> 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.

Libertarians would not seek to tell France what they should do with their foreign policy. If they want to help the colonies that's their business.

I never said non-interventionism was blind indifference, but you're wrong about libertarians not wanting to sit out WWII. H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock are perfect examples of libertarians who would have preferred the U.S. actually adopt a policy of neutrality during that conflict.

>>>Libertarians would not seek to tell France what they should do with their foreign policy. If they want to help the colonies that's their business.
Libertarians, such as yourself, are hypocritical?

>>> I never said non-interventionism was blind indifference
Glad we agree.

>>> H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock are perfect examples of libertarians who would have preferred the U.S. actually adopt a policy of neutrality during that conflict.
Perfect to you maybe. Though I can see how many pacifists would trend to the libertarian ideal of limited government, not all libertarians are "pacifists" to a fault of refusing to defend one's neighbors from violent attack.

Neither Mencken nor Nock were pacifists.

 

[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.

go read post 63

right under where you poosted this one.

Who doesn't have a hard time with Totalitarianism?

Those that benefit from the persecution of others?

Totalitarian's Themselves?

Sorry no more room in the life raft.

 

[RKMBrown]

kevin, libertarianism will continue an insignificant political modern-day phenomenon until your disparate comrades can create a coherent and consistent philosophy and platform.

I don't know about insignificant. When has libertarianism ever been more popular than it is right now? Never? That doesn't mean that libertarianism is dominating the conversation in the country, or anywhere close to it, of course, but it is certainly a part of the conversation at the highest levels.

Just a little anecdotal evidence, my American Political Theory professor, not a libertarian by any stretch, said he was considering adding Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" to his reading list in future semesters, obviously due to the popularity that libertarianism is gaining. Obviously nothing to write home about, but still a positive development I think.

Also, I think the trend for libertarianism at the moment is only upwards for the moment.

The upwards trend is why the authoritarian led media and authoritarian bloggers are out to smear anyone with a reasoned approach to anything domestic and/or geopolitical.

 

[JakeStarkey]

kevin, libertarianism will continue an insignificant political modern-day phenomenon until your disparate comrades can create a coherent and consistent philosophy and platform.

I don't know about insignificant. When has libertarianism ever been more popular than it is right now? Never? That doesn't mean that libertarianism is dominating the conversation in the country, or anywhere close to it, of course, but it is certainly a part of the conversation at the highest levels.

Just a little anecdotal evidence, my American Political Theory professor, not a libertarian by any stretch, said he was considering adding Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" to his reading list in future semesters, obviously due to the popularity that libertarianism is gaining. Obviously nothing to write home about, but still a positive development I think.

Also, I think the trend for libertarianism at the moment is only upwards for the moment.

But that does not vault the hurdle: only when and if libertarians develops a consistent and coherent philosophy and platform will it become significant in the American narrative.

 

[Intense]

they hate the govenment we have.

It is the government the founders left us.

they pretend it is not.


they are wrong.


not many americans agree with them

There are those that are troubled by certain aspects of th Government we have today? Who isn't? That's not to say that all is lost. You are arguing extremes. Where Government begins to have problems is when it loses the consent of the governed, when it abandons or sacrifices what is just action for the convenience of the State. Principles should not be abandoned for convenience. The end does not justify the means, the cause, the process, the tailoring to specific needs does, without corrupting principle or purpose.

 

[Contumacious]

kevin, libertarianism will continue an insignificant political modern-day phenomenon until your disparate comrades can create a coherent and consistent philosophy and platform.

I don't know about insignificant. When has libertarianism ever been more popular than it is right now? Never? That doesn't mean that libertarianism is dominating the conversation in the country, or anywhere close to it, of course, but it is certainly a part of the conversation at the highest levels.

Just a little anecdotal evidence, my American Political Theory professor, not a libertarian by any stretch, said he was considering adding Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" to his reading list in future semesters, obviously due to the popularity that libertarianism is gaining. Obviously nothing to write home about, but still a positive development I think.

Also, I think the trend for libertarianism at the moment is only upwards for the moment.

But that does not vault the hurdle: only when and if libertarians develops a consistent and coherent philosophy and platform will it become significant in the American narrative.

Comrade Starkiev, you and your ilk define a "coherent philosophy and platform" as once which supports the welfare/warfare state.

Not gonna happen.

.