Five myths about Libertarianism

[thanatos144]

Libertarian creed

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

I agree they are way to much like you progressives in this manner.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're the perfect example of what makes Libertarianism so foolish. It's a party inhabited by fools who can't even defend their own party's platform.

I dont belong to a party, derp. You'll forgive me for not taking your line of bullshit with anything more than a mocking rebuttal. if you wanna "imagine", but some John Lennon on and STFU. You belong over in the LOLberal threads, where you can spray the usual liquid shit.

So there's no such thing as the Libertarian Party and no such thing as the Libertarian Party platform?

Are those two more myths we should add to the list?

lol

The only myth I see is that you have comprehension skills or can input something beside blather and tripe.

 

[thanatos144]

For the less educated posters on the board, and for the curious.

That's the propaganda, isn't it? If you don't go for it, you're "less educated". When the truth is that it just doesn't work. While nearly everyone has libertarian leanings and doesn't like to be told what to do, the truly educated realize, if the more radical elements of libertarianism came to fruition, it would be a disaster on the scale of Marxism.

The less educated are the idiots who think libertarians are anarchists. The curios are the honest people.

Some are. You cant deny that.... Some are true anarchists not like the stupid commies acting the anarchist

 

[thanatos144]

Libertarians fail to realize that it's 2013 and everything is more complex than they can understand.

Libertarians fail to understand 'greed'.

Libertarians are the original hypocrites. Their 'god' Ayn who denounced social programs, but used social programs when it was in her best interest. (under an assumed name)

Obama has shown us all about greed seeing he had more Corporate sponsors than any other candidate EVER.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Libertarians are always great at defining what they are not but get very sketchy when asked to specifically define what they are. Each will give a different answer.

While they will proudly spout about how they are for "Liberty" and "Freedom" and small government, they sputter when asked to define how much government they want to keep and what happens when hated government programs are eliminated

Utter bullshit - as is all we get from you.

BTW, you never DID define what it is that makes a "modern liberal" or leftist in the other thread.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I know you are....but what am I?

You?

Why do you ask? Everyone on the board knows that answer;

You're a troll, a demagogue, and a mindless partisan hack.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[rightwinger]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[/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

The idiot speaketh, all bow down.

Can you point out what, exactly, in the portion of the platform you just quoted, proves that they don't care about minorities? When the government supports wealth redistribution we get wonderful things like the government taking entire neighborhoods away from poor communities and giving them to rich corporations to build parking lots adjacent to office buildings that never get built because there is no money in building offices in areas where there is no residential or business development.

Keep lying to yourself, just don't expect to fool the people that can think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[/B]4. Libertarians are pro-drug, pro-abortion and anti-religion.

This is from the Libertarian Party Platform on abortion:

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.

That is a statement supporting the right to legal abortion at any time, for any reason, between conception and birth.

I'm sure there's a dance move that anti-abortion Libertarians can provide to claim that the above does not make Libertarianism 'pro-abortion',

and I look forward to seeing it.

I am sure there is, right after you show me the one that pro abortion libertarians use to prove that the party actually supports it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the less educated posters on the board, and for the curious.

1. Libertarians are a fringe band of “hippies of the right.”


2. Libertarians don’t care about minorities or the poor.


3. Libertarianism is a boys’ club.


4. Libertarians are pro-drug, pro-abortion and anti-religion.


5. Libertarians are destroying the Republican Party.

Five myths about libertarians - The Washington Post

WEll yes and no. Certainly the above five states describe SOME libertarians.

But as the author of the article suggests:

Libertarians are found across the political spectrum and in both major parties.

I think of myself as a Libertarian, for example.

Most of this boards self proclaiming libertarians would probably disagree.

But it is entirely possible to be a SOCIALIST and a Libertian, too.

What is the basic notion of LIBERTARIANISM?

I believe that anyone who wants MINIMUM (but just enough) GOVERNMENT in their lives, is a LIBERTARIAN.

LIBERTARIANS are not anarchists...they believe in government.

So then..its all a question of HOW MUCH government, isn't it?

Libertarianism is a THEME about governance, not a clearly defined set of rule or policies.

In fact a thinking libertarian might object to a policy or law under one circumstance, and support that law or policy under another circumstance.

Why would a thinking libertarian NOT be consistent?

Because REALITY changes the equasion as to what is necessary government.

I might call you an idiot for believing that it is possible to have "just enough" government, but that does not mean I would argue with your labellings yourself anything you want. I can only think of one person on this board who I fully believe is the exact opposite of what he claims, and it isn't you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Libertarianisms fatal flaw is that it fails to recognize the importance of the social structure. Man has flourished because of his ability to form strong societies. Cultures with small, clan centered or tribe centered cultures failed, those able to form large, powerful societies were able to dominate. We are all stronger as part of a society than we are as individuals

Libertarians look at each person being only responsible for themselves. If others fail, that is none of their concern. They are willing to reap the benefits of a society, but claim all of those benefits as being the result of their own personal initiative

Which part of libertarianism has a problem with social structure? the only problem I have is with the idiots that think the government is the social structure.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why is it libertarians constantly need to explain themselves? If libertarianism were a clearly established political or philosophic position, all this explaining would be unnecessary. The reason it is required is because libertarianism is a vague apology or justification for what economists call 'accumulated advantage.' When you think you are the center of the known universe you call yourself a libertarian. I wonder how many as they age and mature will consider themselves libertarian? Life can throw some mean curves.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/299619-libertarianism-24.html#post7504773

"Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles."

Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism: Vulgar Libertarianism Watch, Part 1

"The ideal "free market" society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society "reformed" by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle." link above

and this too: Not Even a Bourgeois Freedom: Liberty of Contract in John Roberts?s America ? Crooked Timber

Why is you constantly need to belittle anyone who disagrees with you? Do you think it is remotely possible that the desire of libertarians to be understood is a more mature expression of your desire to appear more intelligent than everyone around you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

it's always the same fools that show up in these threads with the same false assertions, accusations, ignorance and most of all, relentless fucking stupidity.

Every. Single. Thread.

Next, Corky and Rabbi will show up and talk about pot smoking and anti-semites. You pukes are so predictable it isn't even much for entertainment anymore.

Face it. Those of you in here spouting off about what libertarians believe have not a fucking clue about libertarinaism, classical liberalism and probably not much about political philosophy at all beyond the droning of your favorite talking retard on the tellie.

Libertarians are always great at defining what they are not but get very sketchy when asked to specifically define what they are. Each will give a different answer.

While they will proudly spout about how they are for "Liberty" and "Freedom" and small government, they sputter when asked to define how much government they want to keep and what happens when hated government programs are eliminated

I've already played this mihndless game with you. I've defined WHAT libertariansim is about on its basic premises several times. Your inability to grasp the concepts doesn't mean it wasn't done. It means you lack the mental fortitude to understand.

No one can help that but you. Read some books. Do whatever you can to try and figure it out. But do us a favor and stop repeating your false assertions about what is, and what is not libertarianism. It only leaves us with one conclusion. That conclusion doesn't lend you any favors.

It isn't that he fails to understand, it is that he cannot imagine a society where the government is not in charge. He fails to grasp the fundamental principal that the government should serve the social structure, not define it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The reason most people don't see Libertarianism as insane as it is is because Libertarianism is such a fringe political philosophy that it never actually gets to have its way,

on all or most of its positions,

in any government of any size.

Read the Libertarian platform, and then imagine that somehow, whatever how that might be,

that Libertarians were in power, holding the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

Then, all you people who think you're kind of sort of 'libertarian', imagine if you would really want your country to look like that.

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

I think you finally managed to figure out how to talk to him in a language he will understand.

 

[Plasmaball]

Minarchist libertarians believe that one of the responsibilities of government is to outlaw murder. A pro-life libertarian obviously sees abortion as murder. Thus there is nothing anti-libertarian about being pro-life.

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.

What in the blue sky is a "libert?" Regardless, you are incorrect. Pro-life libertarians likely see it as a state issue, and state governments are still governments. That you think there is a libertarian consensus on abortion shows how little you know about libertarianism.

As for the bolded portion, I have no idea what you're saying.

i was being lazy and didnt feel like spelling out libertarian......

And all i am saying is people like to talk about themselves.

state issue? that doesnt change anything. That doesnt make you a libertarian. That makes you a social conservative.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[/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

The idiot speaketh, all bow down.

Can you point out what, exactly, in the portion of the platform you just quoted, proves that they don't care about minorities? .

I said:

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.


You're claiming it's a myth to say that Libertarians don't care about the poor.

Is not caring whether or not the poor can afford to educate their children an example of not caring about poor?

I say it's a perfect example of not caring about the poor.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

The idiot speaketh, all bow down.

Can you point out what, exactly, in the portion of the platform you just quoted, proves that they don't care about minorities? .

I said:

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.


You're claiming it's a myth to say that Libertarians don't care about the poor.

Is not caring whether or not the poor can afford to educate their children an example of not caring about poor?

I say it's a perfect example of not caring about the poor.

You think it benefits poor people to give them the ability to earn degrees in underwater basket weaving and then demand that they pay back the $100,000 free ride?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Libertarianisms fatal flaw is that it fails to recognize the importance of the social structure. Man has flourished because of his ability to form strong societies. Cultures with small, clan centered or tribe centered cultures failed, those able to form large, powerful societies were able to dominate. We are all stronger as part of a society than we are as individuals

Libertarians look at each person being only responsible for themselves. If others fail, that is none of their concern. They are willing to reap the benefits of a society, but claim all of those benefits as being the result of their own personal initiative

Which part of libertarianism has a problem with social structure? the only problem they have is with the idiots that think the government is the social structure.

The Libertarian Party platform denies government the right to tax without an individual's consent:

"...within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.


We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation..."

"We", the Libertarians, according to the above, deny the right of any government to seize the fruits of any individuals' labor without their consent.

What that means in English is that Libertarians believe that the government cannot force you, as an individual, to pay taxes, unless you, the individual, has given consent, individually.

Or is that supposed to mean something else? If so, what, specifically?