Five myths about Libertarianism

[NightFox]

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

So libertarianism is really just some ethereal collection of indefinable, often contradictory, often incoherent, often incomprehensible ideas,

It is to those that lack the intellectual curiosity to delve below the surface, but so is quantum physics, for those of us that do not suffer from such limitations the subject matter is varied, thought provoking and extremely interesting, exactly the way the study of philosophy is meant to be.

to which anyone with the desire to label themselves a Libertarian can attach themselves to in any way shape or form they desire?

Sure, libertarians don't impose any limitations upon what others choose to label themselves as, however you'd have a difficult case proving you have anything in common with the bulk of libertarians if your philosophy isn't grounded in the non-aggression principle, if that were the case you'd be like the white guy claiming that he's black, which he has every right to do but black guys are going to look at him funny when he does.

And this you peoples' idea of the political future of America? lol.

It's not my idea of the political future of America, the political future of America is written in the history books, libertarianism for me represents what I hope that mankind can one day achieve. In the meantime libertarianism can win small victories (like for example ending the idiotic drug war) but it cannot at this point swim against the circular tide of history, society has not yet progressed to the point where it is capable of abandoning violence to achieve its goals. That probably will make little sense to you since you don't appear to be able to separate the study of philosophy from politics, which is a shame because that limitation denies you the joy of seeking understanding for it's own sake.

What I used to say many years ago about the Libertarians gets borne out more every day:

That just proves that you have been confused about libertarianism for many years, wasn't really interested but thanks for sharing.

Libertarianism is fantasy politics - like fantasy football - a bunch of guys pretending to have a political party,

I could see your point if you were to referring to the Libertarian Party , however you've managed to stick your foot in your mouth again by conflating the Libertarian Party with libertarianism.

 

[Oddball]

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.

So quoting the Libertarian party platform verbatim is now constructing a strawman?

No, purposefully mischaracterizing planks of the PL platform, as you did, is constructing a straw man...I'd ask if you're really so dumb as to not know the difference had I already not known that you are.

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.

No, that job has fallen to the brain dead blind hacks who infest the Remocrat and Depublican Parties....Like you.

I've seen so many people spend so much time trying to distance themselves from the political philosophy they profess to be adherents to.

None more so than socialist little worms like you, attempting to distance yourself from your socialism.

 

[Pete7469]

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?

Huh... you cherry pick ONE issue and hold it up as an example of the entirety of the ideology???

Yes, I do say that libertarians are (far, far) more principled that Democrats and Republicans.

When it comes to liberals, there is no disent allowed. You can not call yourself a liberal in the eyes of these bed wetters if you don't toe the line on every issue.

Are there any significant democrooks that easily hold office in moonbat districts that are pro-life? How about pro-2A? There may be a few blue dog democrooks that aren't dedicated to disarming the people and purging blacks from society through abortion, but they have tenuous grip on their offices. The small handful that voted against the last gun control scheme received death threats from their "tolerant" constituents.

Bed wetters like NYCarboner cannot comprehend that other people may not march in lock step with everyone else. Their desire to fit in overrides any instinct to think independently, and they're incapable of considering the possibility that someone can call themselves a libertarian, conservative, republican or anything they're programmed to hate and deviate from certain beliefs.

I'm a republican, (basically) though abortion IMO is a state issue. I don't like it, I think is the most heinous form of murder, but I wouldn't promote the feds getting involved. I think pot should be legal, not because I want society dumbed down and lethargic like elite moonbats do, but because it's worse to lock people up for it because not everyone who uses it is a lethargic oxygen thief.

Too a bed wetter I am still the enemy. Regardless of what I just said they'll insist I want gov't regulation of vaginas. I want the prisons full of black people. I hate (insert victim group here).

That's why I don't bother engaging these sniveling mindless drones. They're too stupid to waste the time on.

I applaud those of you who though.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only thing clear and unequivocal about that is the straw man you built to besmirch the ending of the redistributionist socialistic welfare state.

So quoting the Libertarian party platform verbatim is now constructing a strawman?

No, quoting the Libertarian party platform then implying that it represents the gospel of libertarian philosophy is constructing a straw man.

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.

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.

I've seen so many people spend so much time trying to distance themselves from the political philosophy they profess to be adherents to.

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 did the 'homework' by going to the most logical place one would go to to find out about the Libertarian Party,

I went to the Libertarian Party's website and read their platform.

Now if you want to argue that the Libertarian Party is in no way a legitimate representation of libertarianism, that's fine,

but since you're not telling me what you think IS the best representation of libertarianism,

who am I supposed to ask?

All you so-called Libertarians around here who believe that the Libertarian Party is some sort of impostor,

should go tell them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Huh... you cherry pick ONE issue and hold it up as an example of the entirety of the ideology???

Yes, I do say that libertarians are (far, far) more principled that Democrats and Republicans.

When it comes to liberals, there is no disent allowed. You can not call yourself a liberal in the eyes of these bed wetters if you don't toe the line on every issue.

Are there any significant democrooks that easily hold office in moonbat districts that are pro-life? How about pro-2A? There may be a few blue dog democrooks that aren't dedicated to disarming the people and purging blacks from society through abortion, but they have tenuous grip on their offices. The small handful that voted against the last gun control scheme received death threats from their "tolerant" constituents.

Bed wetters like NYCarboner cannot comprehend that other people may not march in lock step with everyone else. Their desire to fit in overrides any instinct to think independently, and they're incapable of considering the possibility that someone can call themselves a libertarian, conservative, republican or anything they're programmed to hate and deviate from certain beliefs.

I'm a republican, (basically) though abortion IMO is a state issue. I don't like it, I think is the most heinous form of murder, but I wouldn't promote the feds getting involved. I think pot should be legal, not because I want society dumbed down and lethargic like elite moonbats do, but because it's worse to lock people up for it because not everyone who uses it is a lethargic oxygen thief.

Too a bed wetter I am still the enemy. Regardless of what I just said they'll insist I want gov't regulation of vaginas. I want the prisons full of black people. I hate (insert victim group here).

That's why I don't bother engaging these sniveling mindless drones. They're too stupid to waste the time on.

I applaud those of you who though.

lol, it's hard to figure out what Libertarians would do if elected to high office,

until some of them actually get elected.

 

[Trajan]

Only if you define government as anything that you want it to mean.

What is Government then?

Belonging to a group, contributing to a group, benefitting from a group structure, having a leadership structure.

Using that intellectually retarded definition, the Crips and Bloods are "governments".

Congratulations...You have now officially descended to rderp stupidity.

I'm down yo..............

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The topic isn't about the libertarian parties platform. it's about libertarioanism. i realize this must come as a shock, but not all libertarians are in the party.

And you went right ahead and used more flawed reasoning to support your flawed reasoning. Does this circle ever end?

 

[Oddball]

So quoting the Libertarian party platform verbatim is now constructing a strawman?

No, quoting the Libertarian party platform then implying that it represents the gospel of libertarian philosophy is constructing a straw man.


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.

I've seen so many people spend so much time trying to distance themselves from the political philosophy they profess to be adherents to.

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 did the 'homework' by going to the most logical place one would go to to find out about the Libertarian Party,

I went to the Libertarian Party's website and read their platform.

Now if you want to argue that the Libertarian Party is in no way a legitimate representation of libertarianism, that's fine,

but since you're not telling me what you think IS the best representation of libertarianism,

who am I supposed to ask?

All you so-called Libertarians around here who believe that the Libertarian Party is some sort of impostor,

should go tell them.

You read the platform, then blatantly mischaracterized it through the filter of your blind partisan bigotry and ignorance.

That's not "doing your homework"...It's known as demagoguery.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only thing clear and unequivocal about that is the straw man you built to besmirch the ending of the redistributionist socialistic welfare state.

No, purposefully mischaracterizing planks of the PL platform, as you did, is constructing a straw man...I'd ask if you're really so dumb as to not know the difference had I already not known that you are.

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.

No, that job has fallen to the brain dead blind hacks who infest the Remocrat and Depublican Parties....Like you.

I've seen so many people spend so much time trying to distance themselves from the political philosophy they profess to be adherents to.

None more so than socialist little worms like you, attempting to distance yourself from your socialism.

You say I mischaracterized the following statement, from the platform:

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

So you tell us, specifically, what the above means, and how that conflicts with what I said.

"All efforts by the government...to control or manage trade are improper in a free society."

The key word is bolded and italicized. ALL. A-L-L

 

[Foxfyre]

So quoting the Libertarian party platform verbatim is now constructing a strawman?

No, quoting the Libertarian party platform then implying that it represents the gospel of libertarian philosophy is constructing a straw man.


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.

I've seen so many people spend so much time trying to distance themselves from the political philosophy they profess to be adherents to.

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 did the 'homework' by going to the most logical place one would go to to find out about the Libertarian Party,

I went to the Libertarian Party's website and read their platform.

Now if you want to argue that the Libertarian Party is in no way a legitimate representation of libertarianism, that's fine,

but since you're not telling me what you think IS the best representation of libertarianism,

who am I supposed to ask?

All you so-called Libertarians around here who believe that the Libertarian Party is some sort of impostor,

should go tell them.

How about going to the Republican Party Platform and trying to make most modern American conservatives or even most Republicans fit into it. Most don't.

How about going to the Green Party Platform and trying to make all "greenies" fit into it. Most won't.

How about going to the Democratic Party Platform and try to make a case that most modern American liberals or most Democrats practice what is preached there? You'll provide a really good laugh for everybody.

To pretend that The Libertarian Party, of which most libertarians don't belong, is representative of even most who call themselves libertarian is just as absurd.

But then many modern American liberal arguments are absurd, so nothing new under the sun and all that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The topic isn't about the libertarian parties platform. it's about libertarioanism. i realize this must come as a shock, but not all libertarians are in the party.

And you went right ahead and used more flawed reasoning to support your flawed reasoning. Does this circle ever end?

That's just a dodge so you people don't have to address the gaping flaws of logic, reason, and common sense that libertarianism represents.

You people are trying to tell us that libertarianism represents both pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

What the fuck is that? That's like saying in my religion, it's both a sin and not a sin to steal.

lol. Are you trying to convince us that to be a Libertarian is to stand for nothing?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, quoting the Libertarian party platform then implying that it represents the gospel of libertarian philosophy is constructing a straw man.


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.


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 did the 'homework' by going to the most logical place one would go to to find out about the Libertarian Party,

I went to the Libertarian Party's website and read their platform.

Now if you want to argue that the Libertarian Party is in no way a legitimate representation of libertarianism, that's fine,

but since you're not telling me what you think IS the best representation of libertarianism,

who am I supposed to ask?

All you so-called Libertarians around here who believe that the Libertarian Party is some sort of impostor,

should go tell them.

How about going to the Republican Party Platform and trying to make most modern American conservatives or even most Republicans fit into it. Most don't.

How about going to the Green Party Platform and trying to make all "greenies" fit into it. Most won't.

How about going to the Democratic Party Platform and try to make a case that most modern American liberals or most Democrats practice what is preached there? You'll provide a really good laugh for everybody.

To pretend that The Libertarian Party, of which most libertarians don't belong, is representative of even most libertarians is just as absurd.

But then many modern American liberal arguments are absurd, so nothing new under the sun and all that.

I'm just proving what a big bowl of mush Libertarianism is.

 

[Foxfyre]

The topic isn't about the libertarian parties platform. it's about libertarioanism. i realize this must come as a shock, but not all libertarians are in the party.

And you went right ahead and used more flawed reasoning to support your flawed reasoning. Does this circle ever end?

That's just a dodge so you people don't have to address the gaping flaws of logic, reason, and common sense that libertarianism represents.

You people are trying to tell us that libertarianism represents both pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

What the fuck is that? That's like saying in my religion, it's both a sin and not a sin to steal.

lol. Are you trying to convince us that to be a Libertarian is to stand for nothing?

Referring to my previous post, to be a member and advocate for the Libertarian Party platorm absolutely does stand for something. But only a tiny TINY minority of libertarians embrace it totally or even mostly. The Libertarian Party, like all political parties, has an agenda that may or may not reflect the principle and/or philosophy of libertarianism in general.

And surprise, surprise (cough), you completely ignored the definitions of libertarianism I provided an hour or so ago on this thread. Perhaps you could find a single clause in those definitions that you see as flaws of logic, reason, and common sense? Then we might be able to narrow down the debate to something all of us could get our teeth into.

 

[NightFox]

The topic isn't about the libertarian parties platform. it's about libertarioanism. i realize this must come as a shock, but not all libertarians are in the party.

And you went right ahead and used more flawed reasoning to support your flawed reasoning. Does this circle ever end?

That's just a dodge so you people don't have to address the gaping flaws of logic, reason, and common sense that libertarianism represents.

You people are trying to tell us that libertarianism represents both pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

What the fuck is that? That's like saying in my religion, it's both a sin and not a sin to
steal.

No professor it's more akin to claiming that Catholics and Protestants are both Christians even though they draw different conclusions from the same philosophy.

lol. Are you trying to convince us that to be a Libertarian is to stand for nothing?

No, you are trying to convince yourself that your lack reason can be obfuscated by further demonstrations of your of lack reason, won't work, all you are doing is making a fool of yourself, what you hope to achieve by this behavior remains a mystery.

 

[Oddball]

No, purposefully mischaracterizing planks of the PL platform, as you did, is constructing a straw man...I'd ask if you're really so dumb as to not know the difference had I already not known that you are.


No, that job has fallen to the brain dead blind hacks who infest the Remocrat and Depublican Parties....Like you.

I've seen so many people spend so much time trying to distance themselves from the political philosophy they profess to be adherents to.

None more so than socialist little worms like you, attempting to distance yourself from your socialism.

You say I mischaracterized the following statement, from the platform:

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

So you tell us, specifically, what the above means, and how that conflicts with what I said.

"All efforts by the government...to control or manage trade are improper in a free society."

The key word is bolded and italicized. ALL. A-L-L

I can read, asswipe.

That does not automatically translate to dog-eat-dog rule of the jungle, as you claimed it did.

I'm sorry that you're too intellectually arrested and infantile to recognize this.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The topic isn't about the libertarian parties platform. it's about libertarioanism. i realize this must come as a shock, but not all libertarians are in the party.

And you went right ahead and used more flawed reasoning to support your flawed reasoning. Does this circle ever end?

That's just a dodge so you people don't have to address the gaping flaws of logic, reason, and common sense that libertarianism represents.

You people are trying to tell us that libertarianism represents both pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

What the fuck is that? That's like saying in my religion, it's both a sin and not a sin to steal.

lol. Are you trying to convince us that to be a Libertarian is to stand for nothing?

No one said libertarianism respresents both of those. it's a personal issue best left to the individual involved. The doctor and patient. Libertarianism as one of it's main philosophical points, is that people are INDIVIDUALS.

I realize you come from the hive, where everyone buzzes on and on sasying the same shit and no dissent to any issue is allowed. We dont have that problem. We embrace individuals right to take responsibility for themselves and their decisions. Whether I like it or not or advocate it is entirely beside the point. it's not my decision to make, nor is it anyone elses, what some woman decides about abortion, or whether a doctor chooses to, or chooses not to perform it for their own INDIVIDUAL beliefs.

The fact you can not grasp this is of course, to no one's surprise here.

 

[NightFox]

No one said libertarianism respresents both of those. it's a personal issue best left to the individual involved. The doctor and patient. Libertarianism as one of it's main philosophical points, is that people are INDIVIDUALS.

I think most statists understand that people are individuals, IMHO the problem is they are unable to recognize that the state should be bound by the same morality that individuals are. Once that connection is made it's fairly easy to demonstrated the immoral behavior of the state to rational individuals. However there are those that will willfully continue to insist that human morality doesn't apply to the state and thus attempt to justify murder, theft, arson, rape, etc.., etc.., regardless of what they're shown.

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." -- Jesus, Luke 23:34

 

[Uncensored2008]

lol, it's hard to figure out what Libertarians would do if elected to high office,

But not leftists - because Pete is right, you all march in lockstep, more automatons than people. The party dictates what you think and feel. You will do whatever the party prefers, in every case. Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Biden - it's all the same, different clown masks on mindless drones who execute party orders to the letter.

until some of them actually get elected.

You're right. Libertarians are individuals, each one a free thinker who hold views of their own. But unlike the democrats, Libertarians prize integrity; so the candidate will probably do what he or she said they would do.

 

[Foxfyre]

A couple of years ago CATO conducted an experimental poll that produced interesting results.

They commissioned Zogby international to conduct two simultaneous polls--the second divided between two groups. In one the respondants were asked if they would describe themselves as 'libertarian' and only 9% said yes. That is roughly the same as the 250,000 voters registered as Libertarian Party. Roughly 50% of the folks responded in the same group that they described themselves as 'conservative.'

In the second group, respondents were asked if they were fiscally and socially conservative, fiscally liberal and socially conservative, fiscally and socially liberal, or fiscally conservative and socially liberal. A whopping 57% answered that they were fiscally conservative and socially liberal which is the short definition of libertarianism.

But of interest, half the group in that category were asked if they were fiscally conservative and socially liberal also known as 'libertarian' and only 27% answered in the affirmative. (Which was still a significantly larger group than members of the Libertarian Party but suggests a negative reaction to the word 'libertarian'.)

(Source: CATO: More Libertarians Than Conservatives. | Critical Politics)

So the issue does appear to be faulty understanding of what the definitions are. If we do not all agree on what the definitions are, we will likely get the terms themselves wrong and misrepresent what they are.

But as Ringel says in his sig line, philosophies can and do change according to information available, but a principle is firm and unchanging. Libertarianism (little "L") is both a philosophy with ability to adjust to new information, but it is also a principle that has stood the test of time.

 

[dblack]

I'm just proving what a big bowl of mush Libertarianism is.

Compared to what? The clear and concise political philosophies followed by Democrats and Republicans?.... You're a barrel of laughs today.