Five myths about Libertarianism

[TemplarKormac]

[/B]
2. Libertarians don’t care about minorities or the poor.

This is directly from the Libertarian Party 2012 Platform:

All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Since it requires a redistribution of wealth to provide public education to all regardless of their ability to pay,

and since Libertarianism opposes any redistribution of wealth, it is not a myth to say that Libertarians don't care about the poor,

unless you believe that providing an education to the poor regardless of their ability to pay is of no benefit.

This is further indicated by this plank in the Libertarian platform:

2.8 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

Education 'without interference from government' and without any governmental 'redistribution of wealth',

means NO public education. Period. Which thus means education can only be acquired based on one's ability to pay for it.

Platform | Libertarian Party

FAIL

Money has nothing to do with the ability of a parent to provide their children with education.

It costs nothing to spend time with your kids, instilling healthy knowledge... instead of shipping them off to some pinko whacko filling their head with stupid hate.

Money can influence what a child learns. It's so obvious it's impossible to ignore. His parents will witlessly pay our government to pollute his mind and his studies with twisted political dogma. And as of yes, nobody knows what your definition of "healthy knowledge" is.

For example, do you even know what a pinko is? For all that education, we just caught you misusing a word. Let our children compete in school instead of having them programmed like mindless automatons.

The failure is yours, friend.

 

[arKangel]

This is directly from the Libertarian Party 2012 Platform:

All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Since it requires a redistribution of wealth to provide public education to all regardless of their ability to pay,

and since Libertarianism opposes any redistribution of wealth, it is not a myth to say that Libertarians don't care about the poor,

unless you believe that providing an education to the poor regardless of their ability to pay is of no benefit.

This is further indicated by this plank in the Libertarian platform:

2.8 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

Education 'without interference from government' and without any governmental 'redistribution of wealth',

means NO public education. Period. Which thus means education can only be acquired based on one's ability to pay for it.

Platform | Libertarian Party

FAIL

Money has nothing to do with the ability of a parent to provide their children with education.

It costs nothing to spend time with your kids, instilling healthy knowledge... instead of shipping them off to some pinko whacko filling their head with stupid hate.

Money can influence what a child learns. It's so obvious it's impossible to ignore. His parents will witlessly pay our government to pollute his mind and his studies with twisted political dogma. And as of yes, nobody knows what your definition of "healthy knowledge" is.

For example, do you even know what a pinko is? For all that education, we just caught you misusing a word. Let our children compete in school instead of having them programmed like mindless automatons.

The failure is yours, friend.

Ok, at first glance it appears that you fumbled your sock puppets, 'cause you appear to be answering with the wrong sign in.


Still, would you care to restate your point? It seems quite contradictory.

You seem to argue that oh-so-precious money is better than a parent? correct?
And that sending people to pinko indoctrination camp is bad, but not sending them to pinko indoctrination camp is bad?
Just doesn't make much sense.

Again, please clear it up for us dumb Americans.

 

[TemplarKormac]

FAIL

Money has nothing to do with the ability of a parent to provide their children with education.

It costs nothing to spend time with your kids, instilling healthy knowledge... instead of shipping them off to some pinko whacko filling their head with stupid hate.

Money can influence what a child learns. It's so obvious it's impossible to ignore. His parents will witlessly pay our government to pollute his mind and his studies with twisted political dogma. And as of yet, nobody knows what your definition of "healthy knowledge" is.

For example, do you even know what a pinko is? For all that education, we just caught you misusing a word. Let our children compete in school instead of having them programmed like mindless automatons.

The failure is yours, friend.

Ok, at first glance it appears that you fumbled your sock puppets, 'cause you appear to be answering with the wrong sign in.


Still, would you care to restate your point? It seems quite contradictory.

You seem to argue that oh-so-precious money is better than a parent? correct?

Again, please clear it up for us dumb Americans.

What? Did you just accuse me of being a sock puppet?

First, learn to read. Second, explain how I "contradicted" myself. Third, you can explain where or how I implied that money somehow serves as a better implement than a parent.

Parents waste their money giving their child an education at a public, government funded school. That is as condensed as my point can be.

 

[arKangel]

Parents waste their money giving their child an education at a public, government funded school. That is as condensed as my point can be.

Very well then, we have an understanding.

Parents > money.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Parents waste their money giving their child an education at a public, government funded school. That is as condensed as my point can be.

Very well then, we have an understanding.

Parents > money.

Wow. Four years, 14 rep power, I now know why. Twist my words all you like, but you will see that total go down. Negged.

Now once again, I asked you to prove where I said money was superior to a parent. Do it.

 

[rightwinger]

Imagine derp herp derppity herp derp derp. Now herp derp, derp herp herp herp. Then, derpity derp derp derp.

That's essentially the type of breadth and depth you display over libertarian discussions, yes.

That was very orignal, Bing.

Now -

Go get your Shinebox

 

[FA_Q2]

Liberts find it a private issue where government has no opinion on it
Anything else and you are not a libert.

And btw liberts talk about this because they can. Just like liberals talk about liberals and cons talk about cons....there is no special reason beyond nothing.

I always love when a liberal or conservative who is NOT a libertarian tries to tell al libertarian what one is. This is particularly funny when they are clueless and basing their ‘definition’ on utter falsehoods. Tell us more about things that you do not understand, please….

It is also of note that you used a no true Scotsman fallacy here. IOW, you are full of bullshit.

I keep citing items right out of the Libertarian Party Platform, which I assume is where the Libertarians are trying to tell ME what a libertarian is.

And yet the libertarians here, so-called, don't want to defend their own party's positions.

And yet I did not mention any of your assumptions (even though they are wrong) as many of the other posters seem to have that covered. I will say that you seem to not understand that party platforms are not universal and just because you are a libertarian does not mean that you agree 100 percent with their platform. The concept might be foreign to you because you are what is known as a partisan hack. Just because YOU can’t find something you disagree with in the democrat party platform does not mean that all democrats/republicans/libertarians unthinkingly accept party platforms. Most of us bother to think about the issues themselves and form our own opinions.

Liberts find it a private issue where government has no opinion on it
Anything else and you are not a libert.

And btw liberts talk about this because they can. Just like liberals talk about liberals and cons talk about cons....there is no special reason beyond nothing.

I always love when a liberal or conservative who is NOT a libertarian tries to tell al libertarian what one is. This is particularly funny when they are clueless and basing their ‘definition’ on utter falsehoods. Tell us more about things that you do not understand, please….

It is also of note that you used a no true Scotsman fallacy here. IOW, you are full of bullshit.

Wow totally refuted my post....totally.

Speaking of hacks…

I didn’t need to refute anything because there was nothing to refute. You put an outright falsehood in your post supported without a single fact or statement other than a logical fallacy. WTF was I supposed to ‘refute.’

 

[FA_Q2]

I joined the Young Americans for Freedom in 1977, and went to their national convention in New York City. That is where I met Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley. I also met Henry Kissinger, Bob Dole, Jim Buckley, and several other luminaries. I also have a very amusing story about an incident I had involving Nixon's treasury secretary.

Anyway, while most of the conventioneers were Republicans, there was a large Libertarian contingent. This was my first exposure to Libertarians. I glady wore one of the Laissez-faire buttons they gave me. I also wore a ZGG button.

Zero Government Growth.

It was obvious Reagan was heavily influenced by libertarians, and Buckley certainly had a wide libertarian streak. Conservatives were a little pissed off at Buckley at that time because he argued for the legalization of pot and for giving the Panama Canal back to Panama.

I have had a solid grasp of Libertarians ever since, and hold many of their same views. But I do not "peg the meter", as it were. For example, I am in favor of legalizing pot, but not hard drugs like heroin or crack or cocaine or meth.

I believe in more regulation than Libertarians. However, I do not believe in a lot of regulation, just good regulation.

[Somewhere, there is a Libertarian/Anarchist howling, "There is no such thing as a good regulation!"]


Libertarians believe we should end the Federal Reserve. I understand all the points, and yet still think that would be a colossal mistake. I trust a banker (not much) more than a politician for the proper management of our money supply. You have to be stone cold crazy to think politicians won't turn on the money spigot every two years to inflate their way to re-election.

Ending the Fed would not end runaway government spending. That's a simple fact.

So Libertarians and I part ways on the Federal Reserve. And I think our differences on the Fed are illustrative of all our differences in that I am a realist who understands the perfect is the enemy of the good.

In a perfect world, we would need no laws, no regulation. But the world is made of very, very flawed human beings with poor impulse control.

It would only take a few tweaks here and there to get us back on the right path, not an entire dismantling.

I would like to see Libertarians start topics explaining their platform. One item at a time. Perhaps starting with a topic about the privatization of the roads.

It certainly would be a nice break from all the whiny bitching topics with which we are plagued here.

It has been done here a dozen times. The fact that you have not noticed is, again, not the fault of the other posters. If it would be so nice, you could start one yourself.

 

[dblack]

I joined the Young Americans for Freedom in 1977, and went to their national convention in New York City. That is where I met Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley. I also met Henry Kissinger, Bob Dole, Jim Buckley, and several other luminaries. I also have a very amusing story about an incident I had involving Nixon's treasury secretary.

Anyway, while most of the conventioneers were Republicans, there was a large Libertarian contingent. This was my first exposure to Libertarians. I glady wore one of the Laissez-faire buttons they gave me. I also wore a ZGG button.

Zero Government Growth.

It was obvious Reagan was heavily influenced by libertarians, and Buckley certainly had a wide libertarian streak. Conservatives were a little pissed off at Buckley at that time because he argued for the legalization of pot and for giving the Panama Canal back to Panama.

I have had a solid grasp of Libertarians ever since, and hold many of their same views. But I do not "peg the meter", as it were. For example, I am in favor of legalizing pot, but not hard drugs like heroin or crack or cocaine or meth.

I believe in more regulation than Libertarians. However, I do not believe in a lot of regulation, just good regulation.

[Somewhere, there is a Libertarian/Anarchist howling, "There is no such thing as a good regulation!"]


Libertarians believe we should end the Federal Reserve. I understand all the points, and yet still think that would be a colossal mistake. I trust a banker (not much) more than a politician for the proper management of our money supply. You have to be stone cold crazy to think politicians won't turn on the money spigot every two years to inflate their way to re-election.

Ending the Fed would not end runaway government spending. That's a simple fact.

So Libertarians and I part ways on the Federal Reserve. And I think our differences on the Fed are illustrative of all our differences in that I am a realist who understands the perfect is the enemy of the good.

In a perfect world, we would need no laws, no regulation. But the world is made of very, very flawed human beings with poor impulse control.

It would only take a few tweaks here and there to get us back on the right path, not an entire dismantling.

I would like to see Libertarians start topics explaining their platform. One item at a time. Perhaps starting with a topic about the privatization of the roads.

It certainly would be a nice break from all the whiny bitching topics with which we are plagued here.

It has been done here a dozen times. The fact that you have not noticed is, again, not the fault of the other posters. If it would be so nice, you could start one yourself.

Heh.. yes. This reminds me of the droning demands that anyone opposed to PPACA offer an 'alternative'; something that many of us have been doing pretty much continuously for the last three years.

 

[NightFox]

It seems there is a widespread misunderstanding of libertarianism, the fact of the matter is that at it's heart libertarianism relies on a simple principle that the vast majority of people already understand and practice in their own personal lives. That is the principle of non-aggression; simply put that you don't initiate violence against others to achieve your objectives, this non-aggression applies not only to individuals but also applies to the state.

If one is capable of extrapolating this into public policy questions one can understand where libertarians are coming from on any given issue (obviously as with any large group of people there are hypocrites within the libertarian ranks), it doesn't mean anyone has to agree with those answers (and their are different perspectives on how the non-aggression applies) it just means that to understand the libertarian you have to first understand what his/her belief system is founded upon (in other words the well spring of the philosophy) as well as understand that the foundation goes beyond how that morality applies on a personal level and into public policy and economic questions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I always love when a liberal or conservative who is NOT a libertarian tries to tell al libertarian what one is. This is particularly funny when they are clueless and basing their ‘definition’ on utter falsehoods. Tell us more about things that you do not understand, please….

It is also of note that you used a no true Scotsman fallacy here. IOW, you are full of bullshit.

I keep citing items right out of the Libertarian Party Platform, which I assume is where the Libertarians are trying to tell ME what a libertarian is.

And yet the libertarians here, so-called, don't want to defend their own party's positions.

And yet I did not mention any of your assumptions (even though they are wrong) as many of the other posters seem to have that covered. I will say that you seem to not understand that party platforms are not universal and just because you are a libertarian does not mean that you agree 100 percent with their platform. The concept might be foreign to you because you are what is known as a partisan hack. Just because YOU can’t find something you disagree with in the democrat party platform does not mean that all democrats/republicans/libertarians unthinkingly accept party platforms. Most of us bother to think about the issues themselves and form our own opinions.

I always love when a liberal or conservative who is NOT a libertarian tries to tell al libertarian what one is. This is particularly funny when they are clueless and basing their ‘definition’ on utter falsehoods. Tell us more about things that you do not understand, please….

It is also of note that you used a no true Scotsman fallacy here. IOW, you are full of bullshit.

Wow totally refuted my post....totally.

Speaking of hacks…

I didn’t need to refute anything because there was nothing to refute. You put an outright falsehood in your post supported without a single fact or statement other than a logical fallacy. WTF was I supposed to ‘refute.’

Why does the Libertarian party have an abortion plank in its platform that so far I haven't been able to get one self-described libertarian/Libertarian around here to agree with?

 

[rightwinger]

It seems there is a widespread misunderstanding of libertarianism, the fact of the matter is that at it's heart libertarianism relies on a simple principle that the vast majority of people already understand and practice in their own personal lives. That is the principle of non-aggression; simply put that you don't initiate violence against others to achieve your objectives, this non-aggression applies not only to individuals but also applies to the state.

If one is capable of extrapolating this into public policy questions one can understand where libertarians are coming from on any given issue (obviously as with any large group of people there are hypocrites within the libertarian ranks), it doesn't mean anyone has to agree with those answers (and their are different perspectives on how the non-aggression applies) it just means that to understand the libertarian you have to first understand what his/her belief system is founded upon (in other words the well spring of the philosophy) as well as understand that the foundation goes beyond how that morality applies on a personal level and into public policy and economic questions.

Non-aggression?

Libertarians advocate a dog-eat-dog society and survival of the fittest

Can't have no gubmint standing up for you

 

[dblack]

I keep citing items right out of the Libertarian Party Platform, which I assume is where the Libertarians are trying to tell ME what a libertarian is.

And yet the libertarians here, so-called, don't want to defend their own party's positions.

And yet I did not mention any of your assumptions (even though they are wrong) as many of the other posters seem to have that covered. I will say that you seem to not understand that party platforms are not universal and just because you are a libertarian does not mean that you agree 100 percent with their platform. The concept might be foreign to you because you are what is known as a partisan hack. Just because YOU can’t find something you disagree with in the democrat party platform does not mean that all democrats/republicans/libertarians unthinkingly accept party platforms. Most of us bother to think about the issues themselves and form our own opinions.

Wow totally refuted my post....totally.

Speaking of hacks…

I didn’t need to refute anything because there was nothing to refute. You put an outright falsehood in your post supported without a single fact or statement other than a logical fallacy. WTF was I supposed to ‘refute.’

Why does the Libertarian party have an abortion plank in its platform that so far I haven't been able to get one self-described libertarian/Libertarian around here to agree with?

Have you read it? It says:

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

What part of that confused you? Abortion, and the broader question of the rights of children, is a subtle issue. Libertarians are much, much more consistently principled than Democrats or Republicans, but they don't walk in lock step. FWIW, I agree with the party's platform position abortion 100%. Government should stay out of the inner workings of our bodies.

 

[Gadawg73]

Libertarian creed

I got mine.......Fuck the rest of you

You have the first part right and left one out.

1. I got mine
2. I will try to stop anyone from stealing it from me to give to someone else deemed by government to deserve it more than I do.
3. I will support the right of you to KEEP yours ALSO and if you want to send government yiour entire wealth I support that also.

We are the only party that supports full equality for all.

 

[Gadawg73]

It seems there is a widespread misunderstanding of libertarianism, the fact of the matter is that at it's heart libertarianism relies on a simple principle that the vast majority of people already understand and practice in their own personal lives. That is the principle of non-aggression; simply put that you don't initiate violence against others to achieve your objectives, this non-aggression applies not only to individuals but also applies to the state.

If one is capable of extrapolating this into public policy questions one can understand where libertarians are coming from on any given issue (obviously as with any large group of people there are hypocrites within the libertarian ranks), it doesn't mean anyone has to agree with those answers (and their are different perspectives on how the non-aggression applies) it just means that to understand the libertarian you have to first understand what his/her belief system is founded upon (in other words the well spring of the philosophy) as well as understand that the foundation goes beyond how that morality applies on a personal level and into public policy and economic questions.

Non-aggression?

Libertarians advocate a dog-eat-dog society and survival of the fittest

Can't have no gubmint standing up for you

Wrong.
What is it about folks that can not fully define themselves so they go and tell others what they believe they believe?
Tell us what you believe, we can define ourselves without any help.

 

[rightwinger]

It seems there is a widespread misunderstanding of libertarianism, the fact of the matter is that at it's heart libertarianism relies on a simple principle that the vast majority of people already understand and practice in their own personal lives. That is the principle of non-aggression; simply put that you don't initiate violence against others to achieve your objectives, this non-aggression applies not only to individuals but also applies to the state.

If one is capable of extrapolating this into public policy questions one can understand where libertarians are coming from on any given issue (obviously as with any large group of people there are hypocrites within the libertarian ranks), it doesn't mean anyone has to agree with those answers (and their are different perspectives on how the non-aggression applies) it just means that to understand the libertarian you have to first understand what his/her belief system is founded upon (in other words the well spring of the philosophy) as well as understand that the foundation goes beyond how that morality applies on a personal level and into public policy and economic questions.

Non-aggression?

Libertarians advocate a dog-eat-dog society and survival of the fittest

Can't have no gubmint standing up for you

Wrong.
What is it about folks that can not fully define themselves so they go and tell others what they believe they believe?
Tell us what you believe, we can define ourselves without any help.

Libertarians advocate unrestrained competition which by its very nature is aggressive. Can't have no government stepping in when one competitor engages in unfair business practices. If you can't survive in a dog-eat-dog business environment, that is your problem

 

[dblack]

Non-aggression?

Libertarians advocate a dog-eat-dog society and survival of the fittest

Can't have no gubmint standing up for you

Wrong.
What is it about folks that can not fully define themselves so they go and tell others what they believe they believe?
Tell us what you believe, we can define ourselves without any help.

Libertarians advocate unrestrained competition which by its very nature is aggressive. Can't have no government stepping in when one competitor engages in unfair business practices. If you can't survive in a dog-eat-dog business environment, that is your problem

Aggressive doesn't equal coercive. Libertarianism relies on government that prohibits competition from resorting to coercion. It doesn't, as you repeatedly and erroneously claim, endorse unrestrained 'dog-eat-dog' competition.

You seem to be on a real mission lately to smear and distort the libertarian ethos. What gives?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Wrong.
What is it about folks that can not fully define themselves so they go and tell others what they believe they believe?
Tell us what you believe, we can define ourselves without any help.

Libertarians advocate unrestrained competition which by its very nature is aggressive. Can't have no government stepping in when one competitor engages in unfair business practices. If you can't survive in a dog-eat-dog business environment, that is your problem

Aggressive doesn't equal coercive. Libertarianism relies on government that prohibits competition from resorting to coercion. It doesn't, as you repeatedly and erroneously claim, endorse unrestrained 'dog-eat-dog' competition.

You seem to be on a real mission lately to smear and distort the libertarian ethos. What gives?

Have you not read this thread? RRer is basically the equivalent of Rderp. More complete asinine fucktardery comes out of his brain and into the forums than can even be accounted for.

Just look back at some of these assertions. This jackass is either grade A trolling, or completely fuckin' brain dead.

 

[NightFox]

It seems there is a widespread misunderstanding of libertarianism, the fact of the matter is that at it's heart libertarianism relies on a simple principle that the vast majority of people already understand and practice in their own personal lives. That is the principle of non-aggression; simply put that you don't initiate violence against others to achieve your objectives, this non-aggression applies not only to individuals but also applies to the state.

If one is capable of extrapolating this into public policy questions one can understand where libertarians are coming from on any given issue (obviously as with any large group of people there are hypocrites within the libertarian ranks), it doesn't mean anyone has to agree with those answers (and their are different perspectives on how the non-aggression applies) it just means that to understand the libertarian you have to first understand what his/her belief system is founded upon (in other words the well spring of the philosophy) as well as understand that the foundation goes beyond how that morality applies on a personal level and into public policy and economic questions.

Non-aggression?

Libertarians advocate a dog-eat-dog society and survival of the fittest

Can't have no gubmint standing up for you

What a silly and false assertion, many (most?) libertarians advocate voluntary exchange where government plays the role of the referee in order to ensure honest exchange, that everyone plays by the same rules and that individuals are held accountable for their own choices. STATISTS on the other hand advocate a (to use your terminology) a "dog-eat-dog society" where the state is an instrument of economic exploitation utilized by the wealthy and influential to exploit the masses via state sanctioned violence.

Anyone who has read any history should understand this, going back to the dawn of civilization those in and around the machinery of the state have always utilized it's monopoly on sanctioned violence to accumulate the lions share of the wealth in their own hands at the expense of the majority of the citizenry. History also clearly demonstrates that far from being an instrument that "stands up for you" the state invariably becomes the machinery that is used to economically exploit you (with the direct or indirect consent of the exploited).

I don't really expect you to understand these concepts since you have likely spent your entire life being programmed to believe that state sanctioned aggression is somehow divorced from the morality that you personally practice in your daily life but who knows maybe you'll think about the particulars and recognize the moral realities involved.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong.
What is it about folks that can not fully define themselves so they go and tell others what they believe they believe?
Tell us what you believe, we can define ourselves without any help.

Libertarians advocate unrestrained competition which by its very nature is aggressive. Can't have no government stepping in when one competitor engages in unfair business practices. If you can't survive in a dog-eat-dog business environment, that is your problem

Aggressive doesn't equal coercive. Libertarianism relies on government that prohibits competition from resorting to coercion. It doesn't, as you repeatedly and erroneously claim, endorse unrestrained 'dog-eat-dog' competition.

You seem to be on a real mission lately to smear and distort the libertarian ethos. What gives?

Oh yes......you want government but then again you don't

A very fine line you tread