Five myths about Libertarianism

[TakeAStepBack]

Not all of them, no. There are several instances of completely free of formal government systems (leaders, taxes, etc). That is, until the Statists heard of such blasphmey. Then they had to be dealt with. Something you would have fuckin' cheered on, no doubt.

And I noticed you conveniently omitted the fact that celtic ireland existed for 1,000s of years free of any State. I suppose that goes againt your ability to deflect, meld together terminology and general fucktardery.

 

[GHook93]

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

Easily false. Hippies are lazy fool that preach against war when their conservative counter-part is in office, but support war to help the oppressed people when their socialist guy is in office.

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

I believe Libertarians support the Reagan phrase. The best welfare program is a job. They support a strong business community that will help the poor in the end. Great thing about libertarians is they don't see color, creed, religion or nationality. They see all as equals that should be treated as such

3. Libertarianism is a boys’ club.

Hardly! The old Republican Guard and the Elitest Democrats and Washington Insiders that Play along with both parties are the boy's club.

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

Some are and some aren't. You don't have to be pro either way like both the Republican and Democratic parties force their candidates to be. I vote Republican, I don't make the a secret, but I am also pro-abortion, pro-legalization of pot (and possibly shroom and cocaine also) and indifferent to religion (glad I live in a Christian country and live Evangelicals, but not a religious person myself).

5. Libertarians are destroying the Republican Party.

Worst of the Worst myth. I believe they are not only making the GOP a better country, but making the country strong also!


Five myths about libertarians - The Washington Post [/QUOTE]

 

[rightwinger]

Not all of them, no. There are several instances of completely free of formal government systems (leaders, taxes, etc). That is, until the Statists heard of such blasphmey. Then they had to be dealt with. Something you would have fuckin' cheered on, no doubt.

And I noticed you conveniently omitted the fact that celtic ireland existed for 1,000s of years free of any State. I suppose that goes againt your ability to deflect, meld together terminology and general fucktardery.

And yet, you have failed to identify a single one of them

Why am I not surprised

Celtic Ireland existed on a clan structure which is still a government. So, once again you fail miserably

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Interesting that you seem to think you would get the same answer if you asked 2 liberals that question. In reality, you would get wildly different answers but they would be based on the same base ideals – just like libertarians. Then again, if you are a partisan hack, you would get the same answer but that is because partisan hacks can’t bother to think, just regurgitate.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree. Liberts fall on the side of less government. So they prefer government not even weigh in on the issue at all. Same for drugs. We are adults, we can make adult choices.
Liberts are about free will....

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.

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not all of them, no. There are several instances of completely free of formal government systems (leaders, taxes, etc). That is, until the Statists heard of such blasphmey. Then they had to be dealt with. Something you would have fuckin' cheered on, no doubt.

And I noticed you conveniently omitted the fact that celtic ireland existed for 1,000s of years free of any State. I suppose that goes againt your ability to deflect, meld together terminology and general fucktardery.

Are you through mutilating the definition of government yet?

The point is, humans have always had some form of government since their most primitive existence.

They have to. That is how social animals survive. That is the natural order.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fraid not.....the Government represents "We the People"

And without that Government you would still be gathering roots and berries

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

No it wasn't.

By the way, the first money transfers were letters of credit, government had nothing to do with them. Money, as we know it today, was developed so government could control the economy, which explains why they are going after Bitcoin know that it is popular.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You say I said something false, then you start blathering about entitlements. Does that make you an idiot, or does it make you a moron?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

As in what? The Plymouth Colony?

The Plymouth colony was run by an elected Governor, an elected legislative/judiciary body called the General Court.

Their governing documents were the Mayflower Compact and later the Book of Laws.

Their laws derived generally from English common law and from the Bible.

They were hardly without government.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And yet, you have failed to identify a single one of them

Why am I not surprised

Celtic Ireland existed on a clan structure which is still a government. So, once again you fail miserably

Weren't you going to tell us how you slavers (democrats) were the big proponents of money, and how you promote trade?

You seem to have lost interest in that subject...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

There are societies that exist today that do not have government. Since they have been doing the same thing for 300 years, they were obviously doing it in colonial times.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Majority-Rule-Decisions-Religious/dp/0941308049]Beyond Majority Rule: Voteless Decisions in the Religious Society of Friends: Michael J. Sheeran: 9780941308045: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

When I read your posts I lose brain cells. The only rational response is to stop reading your posts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You say I said something false, then you start blathering about entitlements. Does that make you an idiot, or does it make you a moron?

You said public education does not take wealth from one and give it to another. That is false.

The cost of public education is paid for by pooled money that is unequally collected from taxpayers,

therefore those who pay more are having their wealth redistributed to those who pay less, all else being equal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You trying to tell me what I believe by citing the Libertarian Party platform is no different than me quoting the Communist Party platform and telling you that is what you believe.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Well. . . .we do have a few folks around who describe themseves as 'libertarian' who are actively promoting anarchy as they reject ALL forms of government as coercive. I have gone toe to toe with a couple of them just recently.

Just as we have Republicans who describe themselves as conservative but demand that EVERYBODY be anti-drug, pro-religion, pro-life, etc. which is not a conservative position at all any more than those Democrats who demand that EVERYBODY be pro-drug, anti-religion, pro-choice etc. are in any way 'liberal'. Usually it is the opposite side that perpetuates such myths, however.

But in my definition of libertarianism, it is the recognition and respect for unalienable rights--i.e. we can do any damn thing we please with our persons and our property that does not require contribution or participation by any other--and liberty also allows people to organize their society, i.e. form a mutually beneficial or pleasing social contract, that provides the quality of life they prefer whether or not it is what anybody else would choose

So the myths in the OP don't really measure up to that do they..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You say I said something false, then you start blathering about entitlements. Does that make you an idiot, or does it make you a moron?

You said public education does not take wealth from one and give it to another. That is false.

The cost of public education is paid for by pooled money that is unequally collected from taxpayers,

therefore those who pay more are having their wealth redistributed to those who pay less, all else being equal.

I see the problem now, you can't read.

I said that education is not redistribution of wealth, it isn't.

 

[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.

There are societies that exist today that do not have government. Since they have been doing the same thing for 300 years, they were obviously doing it in colonial times.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Majority-Rule-Decisions-Religious/dp/0941308049]Beyond Majority Rule: Voteless Decisions in the Religious Society of Friends: Michael J. Sheeran: 9780941308045: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

lol, the Quakers have no government? Colonial Quakers had no government?

William Penn was a Quaker.

 

[Foxfyre]

You say I said something false, then you start blathering about entitlements. Does that make you an idiot, or does it make you a moron?

You said public education does not take wealth from one and give it to another. That is false.

The cost of public education is paid for by pooled money that is unequally collected from taxpayers,

therefore those who pay more are having their wealth redistributed to those who pay less, all else being equal.

I see the problem now, you can't read.

I said that education is not redistribution of wealth, it isn't.

No, but when it is called education when it isn't, it can be confiscation of wealth.

To NYC, do not confuse Libertarian - capital "L" - as a political party with libertarian - small "L" - which is a philosophy, a mindset, and/or a belief system.