Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
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 cant 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.
Speaking of hacks
I didnt 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.
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.
Keeping government out of abortion altogether is not a 'subtle' position on a 'subtle' issue.
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?
You have government on the brain, fella. Everything equals government to you. So, it would seem that everything is government anyway. How could we possibly not want it. It's in our fuckin' cheerios according to your dumbfuckery.
Have you read it? It says:
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.
Keeping government out of abortion altogether is not a 'subtle' position on a 'subtle' issue.
Sure it is. And, as the platform plank recognizes there is 'good faith' disagreement among libertarians on the issue. Anyway, you've got your 'one self-described libertarian/Libertarian around here' who agrees with the party on that. What point were you trying to make?
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?
Again, to the Libertarian Party platform:
All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
That is a clear and unequivocal endorsement of 'unrestrained 'dog-eat-dog' competition.
Keeping government out of abortion altogether is not a 'subtle' position on a 'subtle' issue.
Sure it is. And, as the platform plank recognizes there is 'good faith' disagreement among libertarians on the issue. Anyway, you've got your 'one self-described libertarian/Libertarian around here' who agrees with the party on that. What point were you trying to make?
What is 'subtle' about it? Government 'out of abortion altogether' leaves no wiggle room. That is highly refined, narrow, and unequivocal expression of a principle.
You say libertarians are more principled than D's or R's. Really? If the core libertarian principle on abortion is pro-choice, with no government involved AT ALL,
and if in fact most libertarians don't hold that principle, which I suspect is the case,
how can you call libertarians more principled? Wouldn't that mean that Libertarians are less principled?
Keeping government out of abortion altogether is not a 'subtle' position on a 'subtle' issue.
Sure it is. And, as the platform plank recognizes there is 'good faith' disagreement among libertarians on the issue. Anyway, you've got your 'one self-described libertarian/Libertarian around here' who agrees with the party on that. What point were you trying to make?
What is 'subtle' about it? Government 'out of abortion altogether' leaves no wiggle room. That is highly refined, narrow, and unequivocal expression of a principle.
You say libertarians are more principled than D's or R's. Really? If the core libertarian principle on abortion is pro-choice, with no government involved AT ALL,
and if in fact most libertarians don't hold that principle, which I suspect is the case,
how can you call libertarians more principled? Wouldn't that mean that Libertarians are less principled?
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?
Again, to the Libertarian Party platform:
All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
That is a clear and unequivocal endorsement of 'unrestrained 'dog-eat-dog' competition.
Is that not 'libertarianism'?
The only thing clear and unequivocal about that is the straw man you built to besmirch the ending of the redistributionist socialistic welfare state.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?
Again, to the Libertarian Party platform:
All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
That is a clear and unequivocal endorsement of 'unrestrained 'dog-eat-dog' competition.
Is that not 'libertarianism'?
The only thing clear and unequivocal about that is the straw man you built to besmirch the ending of the redistributionist socialistic welfare state.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?
Again, to the Libertarian Party platform:
All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
That is a clear and unequivocal endorsement of 'unrestrained 'dog-eat-dog' competition.
Is that not 'libertarianism'?
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?
Again, to the Libertarian Party platform:
All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
That is a clear and unequivocal endorsement of 'unrestrained 'dog-eat-dog' competition.
Is that not 'libertarianism'?
FYI: the libertarian party platform does not define libertarianism, it is nothing more than one small group of peoples opinions on the application of (their interpretation of) libertarian philosophy. If you really want to understand libertarian philosophy I'm afraid it will take more effort and intellectual curiosity on your part than simply looking up a single political parties "platform".
Until you are willing to make such an effort then it's fairly difficult to have any meaningful exchange on the subject with you since at this point you seem only interested in attempting to construct straw men.
"Free your mind and the rest will follow" -- En Vogue
I've seen so many people spend so much time trying to distance themselves from the political philosophy they profess to be adherents to.
No, quoting the Libertarian party platform then implying that it represents the gospel of libertarian philosophy is constructing a straw man.The only thing clear and unequivocal about that is the straw man you built to besmirch the ending of the redistributionist socialistic welfare state.Again, to the Libertarian Party platform:
All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
That is a clear and unequivocal endorsement of 'unrestrained 'dog-eat-dog' competition.
Is that not 'libertarianism'?
So quoting the Libertarian party platform verbatim is now constructing a strawman?
Yet another straw man mixed with ad hominem, I've already pointed out to you what the Libertarian party represents, if you don't accept that definition please explain why you don't accept it, otherwise do yourself a favor and stop attempting to support your flawed reasoning with ever more flawed reasoning.lol, apparently most of the so-called libertarians around here think the Libertarian Party is some sort of political organization whose sole purpose is to misrepresent libertarianism.
You've made it abundantly clear that you don't even understand what the philosophy really is so how can you claim that others are trying to "distance themselves from it"? If you don't want to do the homework that is required to understand the subject that's fine, just say so and recognize that you don't have anything to contribute to a rational discussion on the topic.I've seen so many people spend so much time trying to distance themselves from the political philosophy they profess to be adherents to.
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.
According to What It Means to Be a Libertarian by Charles Murray, Broadway Books, 1997.
The American Founders created a society based on the belief that human happiness is intimately connected with personal freedom and responsibility. The twin pillars of the system they created were limits on the power of the central government and protection of individual rights. . . .
A few people, of whom I am one, think that the Founders' insights are as true today as they were two centuries ago. We believe that human happiness requires freedom and that freedom requires limited government.
The correct word for my view of the world is liberal. "Liberal" is the simplest anglicization of the Latin liber, and freedom is what classical liberalism is all about. The writers of the nineteenth century who expounded on this view were called liberals. In Continental Europe they still are. . . . But words mean what people think they mean, and in the United States the unmodified term liberal now refers to the politics of an expansive government and the welfare state. The contemporary alternative is libertarian. . . .
Libertarianism is a vision of how people should be able to live their lives-as individuals, striving to realize the best they have within them; together, cooperating for the common good without compulsion. It is a vision of how people may endow their lives with meaning-living according to their deepest beliefs and taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
What is Libertarian? | The Institute for Humane Studies
