How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[Synthaholic]

And if the government is in charge of where our charity goes, then it 'depends on government'.

Since government is 'the people', then people as a society would decide.

Government is "the people"? Really? So you are the asshole responsible for Abu Ghraib? You're the one who should be prosecuted for it? Oh wait - you were also behind Guantanamo Bay? And let's not forget the highly illegal felonious wiretapping expanded by the NSA - which was expanded under Barack Obama.

Man...you are going to be brought up on a lot of charges if you were responsible for all of that stuff as you claim. I can tell you unequivocally that I was not responsible. I had no voice in any of it.

Like I said, you're clueless about the Constitution and the concept of representative government.

You're dismissed, retard.

 

[Synthaholic]

But you people will sure support a 42 year old man stripping naked in front of a 6 year old girl and then watching her pee.

Leave your fantasies out of it.

 

[Billy000]

I have long been acquainted with Libertarians and used to find them kind of adorable in a yapping lapdog kind of way, bitching about the Federal governments over reach, the rise in taxes and why doesnt the GOP have more Libertarians in it?

Well now we have a blend of conservative and Libertarian that many people confuse with 'true' conservatism, but it is NOT conservatism. It is the putrid purge from the mind of an evil avowed atheist escapee from the Soviet Union who had no use for love or charity or God. All Ayn Rand wanted was for people to hate the government and be willing to kill each other to keep their toys. The deepest thought she produced was a complex system of excuses to let your neighbor starve in the street as was common in many parts of the Soviet Union of her time.

William F Buckley Jr and Whitaker Chambers both exposed Rand for the loveless bitch she was deep in her soul. Both observed that 'Atlas Shrugged' was a fantasy shpeel of a world devoid of God, Christian mercy and charity and any semblance of community. They were quite right to denounce her work, her novels and her values system as alien to the body of Conservative American thought.

But fast forward to today's corporate America and we find Rand rehabilitated and flourishing under the guise of conservatism again, a.k.a. 'Conservatarians' and it is rotting Conservatism from the inside, like a cancer.

The take over of the Conservative movement by 'Conservatarians' or Rand Objectivists is a real disaster for the Conservative movement as we enter a new Digital Age in which jobs will be scarce and the party that offers to help other Americans through their adjustment to it will be the majority party for the distant future. Conservatarians cant even put the words together about how to care for other Americans, because deep in their hearts they truly just dont give a shit about anyone but themselves and maybe a few friends.

Which means that either Conservatism will shed itself of these useless evil parasites that are a pimple on Conservatism's ass or the Conservative movement will die the well deserved death of wicked heresies.

Libertarianism is not at all practical on an administrative level. It's simply an emotional, self-serving ideology. It that has no place in government capacity.

Really? Why not? You freedom hating douche bags keep saying stuff like this, but you never prove it.

Well the proof is pretty obvious. Name a single successful libertarian nation on the planet.

Even an unsuccessful one!

Well they can always fall back on no government whatsoever like Somalia

 

[kaz]

Keep in mind that Jim Crow was government, the opposite of libertarian

Government is 'the people'.

Amazing how libertarians can't seem to understand this simple truth.

Only to a subject. I guess you like the servitude. Free shit is better than liberty, huh

 

[kaz]

Dumbest solution I have ever heard

The real problem is that conservatives do not want the transgendered to use either bathroom. They would just as soon beat the shit out of them

We're talking about libertarianism not conservatism, so who cares what conservatives want?

And what is dumb about allowing the owner of something to determine how that thing is used?

I live in North Carolina. That's exactly what that law does, it prevents local governments from forcing businesses to say how customers use their private bathrooms. It doesn't force them to not allow transgender access to the bathroom of their choice, it stops local governments from forcing local businesses how to provide access to the bathrooms. It's a correct law regardless of whether you think they should do

You're close to losing next year's NBA All-Star game.

Since you profess people doing what they want, I'm sure you have no objections to all the corporate and individual boycotts of your state, right?

OMG, not the all-star game!

Let's see, do I want:

Option A) Businesses to decide the rules for the use of their own restrooms

Option B) The "all star game"

Yes, you do live in an Entertainment Tonight world. I'll take Option A, please. But I don't crave slavery like you do

 

[kaz]

I have long been acquainted with Libertarians and used to find them kind of adorable in a yapping lapdog kind of way, bitching about the Federal governments over reach, the rise in taxes and why doesnt the GOP have more Libertarians in it?

Well now we have a blend of conservative and Libertarian that many people confuse with 'true' conservatism, but it is NOT conservatism. It is the putrid purge from the mind of an evil avowed atheist escapee from the Soviet Union who had no use for love or charity or God. All Ayn Rand wanted was for people to hate the government and be willing to kill each other to keep their toys. The deepest thought she produced was a complex system of excuses to let your neighbor starve in the street as was common in many parts of the Soviet Union of her time.

William F Buckley Jr and Whitaker Chambers both exposed Rand for the loveless bitch she was deep in her soul. Both observed that 'Atlas Shrugged' was a fantasy shpeel of a world devoid of God, Christian mercy and charity and any semblance of community. They were quite right to denounce her work, her novels and her values system as alien to the body of Conservative American thought.

But fast forward to today's corporate America and we find Rand rehabilitated and flourishing under the guise of conservatism again, a.k.a. 'Conservatarians' and it is rotting Conservatism from the inside, like a cancer.

The take over of the Conservative movement by 'Conservatarians' or Rand Objectivists is a real disaster for the Conservative movement as we enter a new Digital Age in which jobs will be scarce and the party that offers to help other Americans through their adjustment to it will be the majority party for the distant future. Conservatarians cant even put the words together about how to care for other Americans, because deep in their hearts they truly just dont give a shit about anyone but themselves and maybe a few friends.

Which means that either Conservatism will shed itself of these useless evil parasites that are a pimple on Conservatism's ass or the Conservative movement will die the well deserved death of wicked heresies.

Libertarianism is not at all practical on an administrative level. It's simply an emotional, self-serving ideology. It that has no place in government capacity.

Really? Why not? You freedom hating douche bags keep saying stuff like this, but you never prove it.

Well the proof is pretty obvious. Name a single successful libertarian nation on the planet.

Even an unsuccessful one!

Well they can always fall back on no government whatsoever like Somalia

Somalia's not libertarian, moron. It's anarchy. The most successful libertarian government was the most successful government ever, the United States of America. Right up until the leeches became the majority. That's you, Holmes

 

[kaz]

Keep in mind that Jim Crow was government, the opposite of libertarian

Government is 'the people'.

Amazing how libertarians can't seem to understand this simple truth.

Government is "the people".

I'm one of "the people."

Why didn't my kid's government school let me in to walk around?

Why didn't my local police department let me in to hang around?

Why can't I get one of those fancy police cars I see on my local highway?

The FF's sure the fuck didn't think government "is" the people. It's just tyranny of the majority

 

[Billy000]

Libertarianism is not at all practical on an administrative level. It's simply an emotional, self-serving ideology. It that has no place in government capacity.

Really? Why not? You freedom hating douche bags keep saying stuff like this, but you never prove it.

Well the proof is pretty obvious. Name a single successful libertarian nation on the planet.

Even an unsuccessful one!

Well they can always fall back on no government whatsoever like Somalia

Somalia's not libertarian, moron. It's anarchy. The most successful libertarian government was the most successful government ever, the United States of America. Right up until the leeches became the majority. That's you, Holmes

We both know that you couldn't elaborate with specifics on this bullshit you just spewed if your life depended on it.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac, Do you respect the life, liberty and property of others and eschew aggression against other peaceful human beings?

To the second part of that, yes. To the first part, I would need more comprehensive description of the terms "liberty" and "property".
.

fingernail definitions might look like this:
Liberty.... I can do whatever I choose as long as what I choose to do doesn't infringe on the life, liberty and property of others.
Property.... that which I have acquired through the utilization of my own mind and/or body and/or have acquired by voluntary exchange with others.

Do I respect them? Yes. Are they absolute? No.

you don't think that you eschewing aggression against other peaceful persons is absolute?

No, I said I agree with that part of the question, that we eschew aggression on other peaceful people.

Regarding property, I'm not an absolutist there. I think a society, particularly a wealthy and advanced society, can make a conscious decision to create a foundation for those who simply don't have the capacity to generate significant wealth (or health, for that matter). That would require identifying a point of equilibrium at which (a) people are not made to be so dependent on others that it significantly retards their own growth, and (b) taxes and restrictions on those who do have the capacity to generate significant wealth are not so onerous as to disincentivize their wealth-creating production.

Where is that point of equilibrium? The ballot box. And if those on the more libertarian side of the equation want to turn things around and make gains, they'll have to do a better job of messaging. And further, they'll have to realize that we did not get to this level of dependency overnight, nor will we be able to move away from it overnight. If this happens at all, and I'm very doubtful, it will have to be accomplished with skill and patience, not with volume and absolutism.

FYI, I took a political test a while back, and I think the results were pretty accurate:

.

What would the difference be between an absolutist regarding property and a non-absolutist regarding property?

The non absolutist believes the government should be able to confiscate your property so a developer can use it to build a parking lot for a gambling casino.

You'll note that, back in post 137, my actual answer was the opposite.
.

 

[Mac1958]

My point was about income, money, which is property.

So, the variable here would be taxation of that property.

So when you say that property rights are not absolute, it seems that you're saying that the government has the right to tax. Okay, are there any other ways in which property rights are not absolute, or is taxation the only acceptable violation, in you opinion?

I might be fairly libertarian outside of that. Eminent domain, no, for example.

What other examples do you have in mind?

I don't have any examples in mind. I just wanted to know what you meant when you said that property rights are not absolute, and now I know that you meant that property rights can be violated by the state solely for the purposes of taxation.

Although, come to think of it, do you think a person has the right to deny access to his property for whatever reason he chooses?

Goddamn it, making me think late on a Friday afternoon isn't terribly nice of you.

Okay. I can think of two exceptions to that - law enforcement and emergency services. Someone may not be in their right mind and law would have to take precedence (although the property owner still has rights regarding what happens).
.

I actually agree with you. I think that the law can make allowances for those who can't act as their own agent. For example, let's say you fall down and stop breathing. Now, normally, if someone were to pound on your chest and put his mouth on yours he would be guilty of assault and battery. However, I think it is legitimate for the law to recognize that you had no mechanism to convey your desire to be helped, and that a reasonable person would assume you wanted to be helped.

Of course, it's a judgement call, which is why we have juries, but I do think there are cases in which a person can "trespass" against the person or property of another and be forgiven for the transgression.

Since it's Friday afternoon, feel free to respond at your leisure. No hurry.

Yeah, that's where judgement has to come into play, and where it's reasonable for a society to recognize that life is nuance.

And for me, it's an example of why absolutism too often goes too far. We're becoming more trapped by shallow, simplistic, binary thinking every day.
.

 

[gipper]

I have long been acquainted with Libertarians and used to find them kind of adorable in a yapping lapdog kind of way, bitching about the Federal governments over reach, the rise in taxes and why doesnt the GOP have more Libertarians in it?

Well now we have a blend of conservative and Libertarian that many people confuse with 'true' conservatism, but it is NOT conservatism. It is the putrid purge from the mind of an evil avowed atheist escapee from the Soviet Union who had no use for love or charity or God. All Ayn Rand wanted was for people to hate the government and be willing to kill each other to keep their toys. The deepest thought she produced was a complex system of excuses to let your neighbor starve in the street as was common in many parts of the Soviet Union of her time.

William F Buckley Jr and Whitaker Chambers both exposed Rand for the loveless bitch she was deep in her soul. Both observed that 'Atlas Shrugged' was a fantasy shpeel of a world devoid of God, Christian mercy and charity and any semblance of community. They were quite right to denounce her work, her novels and her values system as alien to the body of Conservative American thought.

But fast forward to today's corporate America and we find Rand rehabilitated and flourishing under the guise of conservatism again, a.k.a. 'Conservatarians' and it is rotting Conservatism from the inside, like a cancer.

The take over of the Conservative movement by 'Conservatarians' or Rand Objectivists is a real disaster for the Conservative movement as we enter a new Digital Age in which jobs will be scarce and the party that offers to help other Americans through their adjustment to it will be the majority party for the distant future. Conservatarians cant even put the words together about how to care for other Americans, because deep in their hearts they truly just dont give a shit about anyone but themselves and maybe a few friends.

Which means that either Conservatism will shed itself of these useless evil parasites that are a pimple on Conservatism's ass or the Conservative movement will die the well deserved death of wicked heresies.

Libertarianism is not at all practical on an administrative level. It's simply an emotional, self-serving ideology. It that has no place in government capacity.

Really? Why not? You freedom hating douche bags keep saying stuff like this, but you never prove it.

Well the proof is pretty obvious. Name a single successful libertarian nation on the planet.

Even an unsuccessful one!

Well they can always fall back on no government whatsoever like Somalia

Ah...there it is, as always. Without a big centralized government controlled by a small elite, Somalia is what results. This illogical and unbelievable stupid belief has been foisted on the ignorant, by the liberal statist media and gets repeated over and over again as if it were factual.

Keep telling a lie until all dummies believe it.

 

[Centinel]

You think there's economic opportunity awaiting everyone, everywhere. It's just not so.

If one business discriminates, it opens up the opportunity for another business so swoop in and snatch up those who have been discriminated against.

 

[Centinel]

Yeah, that's where judgement has to come into play, and where it's reasonable for a society to recognize that life is nuance.

And for me, it's an example of why absolutism too often goes too far. We're becoming more trapped by shallow, simplistic, binary thinking every day.

I agree.

 

[Centinel]

This is too retarded to respond to.

Do all libertarians believe you should be able to just walk into the White House?

You said that the government is the people. I'm one of the people, no? So I'm the government.

 

[Centinel]

Your business breaks the law ...you are fined
Don't pay the fine and you will be shut down

You have access to the courts, if you become violent when you are shut down, you get arrested

See how easy it is?

Yes, it is very easy to see how right wing authoritarians use violence to force people to comply with their desired behaviors.

A libertarian, on the other hand, considers violence unjustified unless/until someone trespasses against one's person or property.

Libertarians are peaceful. Authoritarians are violent.

 

[Centinel]

Charles W. Cooke, author of The Conservatarian Manifesto is on Real Time with Bill Maher right now - just started.

Are you confusion conservatism with libertarianism?

No.

Libertarianism and Conservatism are different political philosophies.

 

[Centinel]

Of course not. We The People have decided, through our elected representatives (and plain common sense) that we protect our leaders from the unbalanced and the malicious people in our country.

The government protects the government from the government? Why does the government need to protect itself from itself?

 

[rightwinger]

Your business breaks the law ...you are fined
Don't pay the fine and you will be shut down

You have access to the courts, if you become violent when you are shut down, you get arrested

See how easy it is?

You authoritarians are super big on subjugating people with violence and making them do you bidding.

LIbertarians consider violence justified only when/until a person trespasses against someone's person or property.

On the other hand, authoritarians, like yourself, consider violence justified pretty much whenever it suits your needs.

That's the difference between a libertarian and an authoritarian like yourself.

No violence...we have laws and they are enforced
It all comes with belonging to a society

 

[Centinel]

No violence...we have laws and they are enforced
It all comes with belonging to a society

They're enforced with violence, stupid.

Using violence against someone who hasn't trespassed against anyone's person or property is unethical.

How evil are these authoritarians, anyway?

 

[rightwinger]

If you want to run your business in our society, you have to follow our rules

It applies to building codes, labor regulations, hours you are allowed to operate and who you are required to serve

Yes, the proclivity for authoritarians to use violence to enforce their rules on their fellow man is well established.

To an authoritarian, violence is always the answer.

No violence unless you create a dangerous scene

Otherwise, your business is just shut down until you can follow the rules

Coming from a person who not only never ran a business, but has never even worked for one.

It's comical sitting here listening to you pretend like you're in charge.

You own a business, you conform with the regulations of your community

If you had really owned your own business you would realize that