Five myths about Libertarianism

[rightwinger]

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.

To a Libertarian, a minority is a person, with the same rights and responsibilities as any other person - no more, and no less.

To a Libertarian, the goal is to pull up the ladder once you have climbed the ladder of success

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you believe the government is the social structure and without it, we'd all be wandering around in the woods eating berries and wearing pelt attire. We get that. You just again, blathered on about nothing.

Government is the social structure, because man is a social animal. Even primitive man at his most basic level of existence far more often than not lived in organized groups,

bands, extended families, tribes, clans, etc.,

all of which whose basic operation represented a form of government, with laws, rules, restrictions, privileges, divisions of labor, ranks of power and authority,

even if many were not written down.

The Libertarian fantasy of every man as some sort of individual government unto himself is nonsensical.

No, government does not make up social structure. Or else places without government wouldn't have any social structure, but they do. History also shows you to be wrong. Plenty of societies have lasted (at least until the violent government promoting statists show up) without any formal government. Governments hijack society to centrally plan it to gain power and maintain it.

You just like stealing, committing violence and using force to take from others and then call that civilized society. Talk about nonsensical....

You're going to try a dodge by using the word 'formal' government? LOL, no.

Name the societies that did not have a government.

 

[rightwinger]

History books are your friend, Dullard. You're wrong. Plain and simple.

A key aspect of moving from hunter/gatherers (Libertarian) to an advanced society was the development of a monetary system. A monetary system allows you to get credit for the roots and berries you gather and spend it at a later date. It also establishes a means to set value for goods and services and a means to accumulate and spread wealth
Without a government backing....that monetary system is just a bunch of paper

You can take your seat on the short bus behind Corky and next to Dunderhead. What a load of fucking crap.

Early hunter/gatherers (the goal of todays Libertarian) relied on Governments to offer them security so that neighboring hunter/gatherers(Libertarians) don't steal their roots and berries by force.

 

[rightwinger]

Government is the social structure, because man is a social animal. Even primitive man at his most basic level of existence far more often than not lived in organized groups,

bands, extended families, tribes, clans, etc.,

all of which whose basic operation represented a form of government, with laws, rules, restrictions, privileges, divisions of labor, ranks of power and authority,

even if many were not written down.

The Libertarian fantasy of every man as some sort of individual government unto himself is nonsensical.

No, government does not make up social structure. Or else places without government wouldn't have any social structure, but they do. History also shows you to be wrong. Plenty of societies have lasted (at least until the violent government promoting statists show up) without any formal government. Governments hijack society to centrally plan it to gain power and maintain it.

You just like stealing, committing violence and using force to take from others and then call that civilized society. Talk about nonsensical....

You're going to try a dodge by using the word 'formal' government? LOL, no.

Name the societies that did not have a government.

Even a basic clan or tribal structure had government

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There were several in colonial times. The Irish went on without government for a long time until the Statists showed too. There are plenty. Like RRer, i suggest reading history for a change instead of watching MSNBC.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A key aspect of moving from hunter/gatherers (Libertarian) to an advanced society was the development of a monetary system. A monetary system allows you to get credit for the roots and berries you gather and spend it at a later date. It also establishes a means to set value for goods and services and a means to accumulate and spread wealth
Without a government backing....that monetary system is just a bunch of paper

You can take your seat on the short bus behind Corky and next to Dunderhead. What a load of fucking crap.

Early hunter/gatherers (the goal of todays Libertarian) relied on Governments to offer them security so that neighboring hunter/gatherers(Libertarians) don't steal their roots and berries by force.

Whatever you say, fella. I'm not going to respond to anymore of these ridiculous 5 year old derailment attempts by a lukewarm room level IQ.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Speaking of weaving, bobbing and weaving in response to questions specific to your positions on the issues is a good indication you either can't defend your position,

or, you don't really hold that position.

Libertarians are in principle and in party platform opposed to the redistribution of wealth.

Public education is a redistribution of wealth. It benefits the poor.

Libertarians, if they kept to their professed principles, would end public education as we know it because it redistributes wealth,

and as said, they oppose that.

So it is fair to say that Libertarians don't care about the ability of the poor to obtain an education,

so at the very least, on that specific issue within the issue of 'caring about the poor',

the Libertarians DO NOT.

Public education does not take wealth from one person and give it to another, it shares knowledge. Knowledge is not wealth, giving some to another person does not mean you have less.

That is false. A poor family's children are entitled a public education even though they don't pay into the system the cost for that education.

Education is a combination of goods and services. It's essentially a commodity. It costs to provide it. Someone's wealth must be tapped to cover that cost.

When my school taxes are paid, I receive no goods or services, since I'm not going to school nor do I have any kids going to school. That amount I pay, representing part of my wealth, is redistributed, indirectly, to someone who is receiving the education but not paying for any or all of it.

Don't try that dodge again.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A key aspect of moving from hunter/gatherers (Libertarian) to an advanced society was the development of a monetary system. A monetary system allows you to get credit for the roots and berries you gather and spend it at a later date. It also establishes a means to set value for goods and services and a means to accumulate and spread wealth
Without a government backing....that monetary system is just a bunch of paper

So all advances in society are due to slavers (democrats) and the institution of slavery?

BTW, isn't it you slavers who are always calling money "evil?"

{"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of GOODS}

It wasn't Karl Marx or any other hero of you slavers who penned the above, it was Ayn Rand.

 

[rightwinger]

There were several in colonial times. The Irish went on without government for a long time until the Statists showed too. There are plenty. Like RRer, i suggest reading history for a change instead of watching MSNBC.

I call bullshit

Name a single society that does not rely on some type of leadership

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, government does not make up social structure. Or else places without government wouldn't have any social structure, but they do. History also shows you to be wrong. Plenty of societies have lasted (at least until the violent government promoting statists show up) without any formal government. Governments hijack society to centrally plan it to gain power and maintain it.

You just like stealing, committing violence and using force to take from others and then call that civilized society. Talk about nonsensical....

You're going to try a dodge by using the word 'formal' government? LOL, no.

Name the societies that did not have a government.

Even a basic clan or tribal structure had government

You dont even know the difference between these words you use, do you?

You're either playing a part, or it's impressive you have the ability to type. You're fuckin stupid, kid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There were several in colonial times. The Irish went on without government for a long time until the Statists showed too. There are plenty. Like RRer, i suggest reading history for a change instead of watching MSNBC.

Please specify them. I would like to see an example of a society without government.

Just be sure you're not concocting a false definition of government in the process.

 

[Uncensored2008]

To a Libertarian, the goal is to pull up the ladder once you have climbed the ladder of success

George Soros, Aljazeera Gore, and Barack Obama are libertarians?

Who knew?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There were several in colonial times. The Irish went on without government for a long time until the Statists showed too. There are plenty. Like RRer, i suggest reading history for a change instead of watching MSNBC.

I call bullshit

Name a single society that does not rely on some type of leadership

You call bullshit because you lack the ability to use the information tools at your disposal. And instead rely on memes you gathered from your favorite talking retard on TV.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There were several in colonial times. The Irish went on without government for a long time until the Statists showed too. There are plenty. Like RRer, i suggest reading history for a change instead of watching MSNBC.

Please specify them. I would like to see an example of a society without government.

Just be sure you're not concocting a false definition of government in the process.

How about using the information tools at your disposal. I'm not here to fucking think for you. Although that usually is the MO of a LOLberal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're going to try a dodge by using the word 'formal' government? LOL, no.

Name the societies that did not have a government.

Even a basic clan or tribal structure had government

You dont even know the difference between these words you use, do you?

You're either playing a part, or it's impressive you have the ability to type. You're fuckin stupid, kid.

When you factor in religion as a form of government in many of its aspects, you see even more 'government' in primitive societies.

 

[rightwinger]

There were several in colonial times. The Irish went on without government for a long time until the Statists showed too. There are plenty. Like RRer, i suggest reading history for a change instead of watching MSNBC.

I call bullshit

Name a single society that does not rely on some type of leadership

You call bullshit because you lack the ability to use the information tools at your disposal. And instead rely on memes you gathered from your favorite talking retard on TV.

Nice diversion but still a fail

You have yet to provide a single example of any society that functioned without a government.

That government could range from tribal elders to monarchies to elected democracies ....but there is always government

Libertarian FAIL

 

[NYcarbineer]

There were several in colonial times. The Irish went on without government for a long time until the Statists showed too. There are plenty. Like RRer, i suggest reading history for a change instead of watching MSNBC.

Please specify them. I would like to see an example of a society without government.

Just be sure you're not concocting a false definition of government in the process.

How about using the information tools at your disposal. I'm not here to fucking think for you. Although that usually is the MO of a LOLberal.

I was merely encouraging to raise the level of your point up from

'unsupported by even one substantive and verifiable example'.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nice diversion but still a fail

You have yet to provide a single example of any society that functioned without a government.

That government could range from tribal elders to monarchies to elected democracies ....but there is always government

Libertarian FAIL

Libertarian <> anarchy..

Slaver fail.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I call bullshit

Name a single society that does not rely on some type of leadership

You call bullshit because you lack the ability to use the information tools at your disposal. And instead rely on memes you gathered from your favorite talking retard on TV.

Nice diversion but still a fail

You have yet to provide a single example of any society that functioned without a government.

That government could range from tribal elders to monarchies to elected democracies ....but there is always government

Libertarian FAIL

The Irish. Colonial times in North America. Now, run along and do the work. I'm not doing it for you. You asked, I answered. Now if you have further doubts. Go fucking look it up. Im not here to think for you, you lazy fuckin' LOLberal.

 

[rightwinger]

You call bullshit because you lack the ability to use the information tools at your disposal. And instead rely on memes you gathered from your favorite talking retard on TV.

Nice diversion but still a fail

You have yet to provide a single example of any society that functioned without a government.

That government could range from tribal elders to monarchies to elected democracies ....but there is always government

Libertarian FAIL

The Irish. Colonial times in North America. Now, run along and do the work. I'm not doing it for you. You asked, I answered. Now if you have further doubts. Go fucking look it up. Im not here to think for you, you lazy fuckin' LOLberal.

Colonial societies still had governments, often very strict and oppressive governments

So, once again.....you fail