How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[bripat9643]

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

It's not anarchy either. It's a form of feudalism where a set of petty barons each run their own little section of the country. The idea that they don't have government is preposterous. Cross one of those barons and you'll find out exactly how much government they have. Their power is absolute and totally arbitrary.

That's the inevitable result of anarchy

I disagree. It's the result of a failed totalitarian state. The same thing happened after the Roman Empire collapsed.

 

[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.

The United States prior to 1914.

Oh gee and what made it libertarian exactly? And why was there so much economic growth after that?

The warmest day of the year on average is June 20. But the hottest day of the year is July 20. Think about it. The income tax was the beginning of the end, it wasn't the end. That took time, almost a century until we hit perpetual stagnant growth. W and O are the culmination of that effort

 

[kaz]

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

It's not anarchy either. It's a form of feudalism where a set of petty barons each run their own little section of the country. The idea that they don't have government is preposterous. Cross one of those barons and you'll find out exactly how much government they have. Their power is absolute and totally arbitrary.

That's the inevitable result of anarchy

I disagree. It's the result of a failed totalitarian state. The same thing happened after the Roman Empire collapsed.

It's happened everywhere. Europe, Russia. Most people are followers. If everyone was like you and me, sure, it would work to have voluntary associations. But most people are like the majority of Americans who serve the parties and follow them. You take away one government, they'll find someone new to control them. And we'll have to join to fight them back. We going to just form our own fuedal state or we going to set up government again? Our choice. You aren't getting little house on the prairie anarchy

 

[bripat9643]

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

It's not anarchy either. It's a form of feudalism where a set of petty barons each run their own little section of the country. The idea that they don't have government is preposterous. Cross one of those barons and you'll find out exactly how much government they have. Their power is absolute and totally arbitrary.

That's the inevitable result of anarchy

I disagree. It's the result of a failed totalitarian state. The same thing happened after the Roman Empire collapsed.

It's happened everywhere. Europe, Russia. Most people are followers. If everyone was like you and me, sure, it would work to have voluntary associations. But most people are like the majority of Americans who serve the parties and follow them. You take away one government, they'll find someone new to control them. And we'll have to joint to fight them back. You aren't getting little house on the prairie anarchy

The Idea of a Private Law Society

 

[kaz]

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.

The Constitution is flat out a libertarian document. And for the same reason, they set out to create a limited Federal government with far more local power. They were libertarians in philosophy

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

The United States prior to 1914.

Oh gee and what made it libertarian exactly? And why was there so much economic growth after that?

The USA prior to WW1 was a predominately rural nation whose small communities were mostly held together and supported each other throguh their few churches that they would have. Most little towns would have a dominant big church and then a few smaller churches and between them they could help their family members in a jam or emergency.

That dissolves in the modern urban setting where people have not known other people since they sere both small kids. The one in need feels like a beggar as hehas never helped these people before other than weekly donations,and the one who contributes to the strangers need feels take advantage of, especially of the needful person leaves shortly after they receive help.

The millions of people who demonstrated the inadequacies of the old social safety net based on the small church centered community by the 1930s proved that there was a need for the government to step in and help out these desperate people, and the vast majority of states were controlled by an Old Guard who refused to help with state funds, so the federal government was all that was left to play that roll that the states should have.

So Social Security and Medicare etc have become Federal Programs that Subsidiarity would suggest should have been state programs if not county.

The USA was not Libertarians prior to WW1, it was mostly Christian, and they took care of each other, beyond that it was left to the extended families to help each other out. But extended families have largely broken down as well.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

No, confiscation involves no payment for the property.

The phrase you are trying to think of is 'Imminent Domain' where people are compensated for their lost property and it has been a fundamental practice in civilization for thousands of years..

 

[kaz]

The idea that it's wrong to use violence against someone who hasn't trespassed against anyone's person or property is fundamental to the libertarians philosophy. Violent authoritarians may consider it "batshit crazy", but libertarians don't.

So if a person is killing an unborn baby, is that a violation of another person? - libertarians are mixed on this, but my view is the baby doesn't have a right to the mother's body

If a Father abandons his own biologically conceived children to live on the street, is that violence of some kind? - Um ... violence? No. It's a civil wrong though and the family has the right to redress it through the civil courts

If someone refuses to defend their own country by ducking the draft in a time of war, is that against the Libertarian belief system? - If people won't voluntarily defend the country, why should the country be able to force them? Maybe it's time to move on to a new government if people would be overrun than fight for the one they have

If someone refuses to pay their taxes is that a violation? - Legitimate taxes to fund common services, sure. Taxes to redistribute your money to other citizens, no

If a person buys out a company that has the patent on a life saving drug then runs the price up by a factor of 50, is that wrong by Libertarian values? - Unrealistic scenario. The drug would have to be still under patent, and if the profit maximizing price was 50 times lower, they'd be losing more sales than making new profits

If a person decides that a law against selling crack cocaine to minors is unjust and begins to do so, is he violating Libertarian values? - Yes, if as you said it's to a minor

If a pimp coerces one of his whores to get back out on the street, despite her flu and resume getting the minimum number of johns he has given her, is that wrong by Libertarian notions? - I'm not quite clear what the question is here. But if coerce means actual force, then duh, yeah, it's wrong right there. Past that, it's kind of convoluted

I have heard Libertarians defend each and everyone of the above, but I thought I would give you the chance to speak for yourself? - No you haven't

Are any of these things unethical in your Libertarian opinion?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You take away one government, they'll find someone new to control them.

'They' will find a new one? No, dude, the existence of barbarians who sill plunder you if you do not have a government is what causes people to form into governments, not their preference to be ruled.

And we'll have to join to fight them back. We going to just form our own fuedal state or we going to set up government again?

And you will choose to form a government or you will be plundered; historical FACT.

Our choice. You aren't getting little house on the prairie anarchy

The society of 'Little House on the Prairie' was not anarchy.

 

[kaz]

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

It's not anarchy either. It's a form of feudalism where a set of petty barons each run their own little section of the country. The idea that they don't have government is preposterous. Cross one of those barons and you'll find out exactly how much government they have. Their power is absolute and totally arbitrary.

That's the inevitable result of anarchy

I disagree. It's the result of a failed totalitarian state. The same thing happened after the Roman Empire collapsed.

It's happened everywhere. Europe, Russia. Most people are followers. If everyone was like you and me, sure, it would work to have voluntary associations. But most people are like the majority of Americans who serve the parties and follow them. You take away one government, they'll find someone new to control them. And we'll have to joint to fight them back. You aren't getting little house on the prairie anarchy

The Idea of a Private Law Society

Still requires the world to be comprised of people like you and me. Tyrants will seek followers to conquer us and liberals seeking masters will follow them. Yeah, government deciding sucks, the key is to make it as weak as possible. But somehow judgments need to be universally recognized, and whatever you call that universal recognition, it's government

 

[kaz]

You take away one government, they'll find someone new to control them.

'They' will find a new one? No, dude, the existence of barbarians who sill plunder you if you do not have a government is what causes people to form into governments, not their preference to be ruled.

Open your eyes, clown, so few in this country think for themselves. Look at the incredible opportunity we have in this country to make ourselves into anything we want and yet people descend into slavery and consumed with anger and greed are tearing us down instead of enjoying what they have. Hell yea, most people want to be ruled. A huge percent of the Republican party are like that, and liberals are nothing but

And we'll have to join to fight them back. We going to just form our own fuedal state or we going to set up government again?

And you will choose to form a government or you will be plundered; historical FACT.

You realize you're agreeing with me, no?

Our choice. You aren't getting little house on the prairie anarchy

The society of 'Little House on the Prairie' was not anarchy.

Not totally, there was a government. But the community was pretty damned anarchy. There was little force to follow rules, but if you didn't work together, you didn't survive

 

[JimBowie1958]

So if a person is killing an unborn baby, is that a violation of another person? - libertarians are mixed on this, but my view is the baby doesn't have a right to the mother's body

Then the mother should not have chosen to conceive the baby. You also didnt answer the question I asked; is the baby a person for whom killing it is wrong? IF it is a person, then by Libertarian beliefs it has a right to live and not have the violence of abortion done to it.

If a Father abandons his own biologically conceived children to live on the street, is that violence of some kind? - Um ... violence? No. It's a civil wrong though and the family has the right to redress it through the civil courts

So then there are things wrong according to Libertarian cults than only violence and trespass.

If someone refuses to defend their own country by ducking the draft in a time of war, is that against the Libertarian belief system? - If people won't voluntarily defend the country, why should the country be able to force them? Maybe it's time to move on to a new government if people would be overrun than fight for the one they have

So the cowards have a right to live in a country that they refuse to defend?> How nice for anarchist cowards.

If someone refuses to pay their taxes is that a violation? - Legitimate taxes to fund common services, sure. Taxes to redistribute your money to other citizens, no

But all spending of taxes 'redistributes' money to other people whether it is the military the Bureaucrat or the homeless. Your mantra makes no sense in the real world.

If a person buys out a company that has the patent on a life saving drug then runs the price up by a factor of 50, is that wrong by Libertarian values? - Unrealistic scenario. The drug would have to be still under patent, and if the profit maximizing price was 50 times lower, they'd be losing more sales than making new profits

No, it has actually happened in the real world, so how can it be 'unrealistic'? You duck the question because it shows the heartlessness of Libertarianism.

If a person decides that a law against selling crack cocaine to minors is unjust and begins to do so, is he violating Libertarian values? - Yes, if as you said it's to a minor

Why is it unethical to a minor? So if the minor is 17 and he buys crack and smokes it with friends, that is unethical to buy or sell it in that case?

If a pimp coerces one of his whores to get back out on the street, despite her flu and resume getting the minimum number of johns he has given her, is that wrong by Libertarian notions? - I'm not quite clear what the question is here. But if coerce means actual force, then duh, yeah, it's wrong right there. Past that, it's kind of convoluted

Pimps dont beat their whores every day. They just give a thorough smashing once in a while and then later the whore remembers it and that is enough. But in the specific case of a particular incident where no violence is used, is that unethical to a Libertarians?

Most people would agree it is wrong and should be illegal, but the Libertarian nut balls like you will usually defend it as there is no direct violence in the particular instance though violence is threatened by implication.

I have heard Libertarians defend each and everyone of the above, but I thought I would give you the chance to speak for yourself? - No you haven't

Lol, yeah I just imagined all that by myself. /sarc

You are an ideologue. Common sense means nothing to you once you run a thought through your ideological filter and let the ideology dictate to you what is right, wrong and justifiable. You have abandoned your own free thinking in order to defend a system of thought not authored by you via your own evaluation and analyusis.

You are a pod people, dude.

Are any of these things unethical in your Libertarian opinion?

Libertarianism does not involve moral absolutes, thus none of it is actual morality and at best is a question of ethics.

These godless and soulless minions think themselves liberated but in fact they are craven beasts abusing reason and rhetoric not to find Truth, that they already assume that they have, they merely want to justify their own appetites, selfishness, greed and hatred.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No, confiscation involves no payment for the property.

The phrase you are trying to think of is 'Imminent Domain' where people are compensated for their lost property and it has been a fundamental practice in civilization for thousands of years..

Government never pays the owners what the property is worth. If you don't want to sell, the price is infinity.

 

[dblack]

Libertarianism is not at all practical on an administrative level.

One of the reasons why there are no world governments based on it.

Well there is some "vintage logic" for you. History is completely filled with murderous dictators due to the evil of human nature for power and control over others (such as Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Saddam Hussien, etc.) all of which have been spectacular failures.

Now, a normal, rational person would do the complete opposite of those failed dictators to get the complete opposite results (i.e. what America did in 1776 - libertarianism). But not Synthy here. Nope! He wants to copy the failed centralized planning of those failed murderous dictators.

Two paragraphs of noise to deflect from telling us which world governments are libertarian. Hint - none.

This idiot horseshit? Again?

Here's the real answer: all of them, to some degree.

Libertarianism is advocating liberty. It's not an on/off switch. It's just a matter of how much a given government respects liberty. Some governments respect it very little (North Korea). Some take it on as their nominal purpose (USA). This question is the has been enshrined at Democratic Headquarters as the go-to monkey poo, to fling at the wall when talking to libertarians. But it's tiresome and shows lack of imagination (as well as sheer stupidity). Get some new material.

 

[dblack]

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

Laws are enforced with the threat, and execution, of violence. How do you convince yourself otherwise?

 

[bripat9643]

It's not anarchy either. It's a form of feudalism where a set of petty barons each run their own little section of the country. The idea that they don't have government is preposterous. Cross one of those barons and you'll find out exactly how much government they have. Their power is absolute and totally arbitrary.

That's the inevitable result of anarchy

I disagree. It's the result of a failed totalitarian state. The same thing happened after the Roman Empire collapsed.

It's happened everywhere. Europe, Russia. Most people are followers. If everyone was like you and me, sure, it would work to have voluntary associations. But most people are like the majority of Americans who serve the parties and follow them. You take away one government, they'll find someone new to control them. And we'll have to joint to fight them back. You aren't getting little house on the prairie anarchy

The Idea of a Private Law Society

Still requires the world to be comprised of people like you and me. Tyrants will seek followers to conquer us and liberals seeking masters will follow them. Yeah, government deciding sucks, the key is to make it as weak as possible. But somehow judgments need to be universally recognized, and whatever you call that universal recognition, it's government

No, it actually doesn't require the world to be comprised of people like you and me. If there is no government, then it doesn't matter what kind of people populate the society. If there are no levers of power for them to push, then they can't accomplish their goal of imposing their aims on us.

I've said many times that the phrase "limited government" is an oxymoron. If you allow government to come into existence, it will grow until it consumes all of society. That's what history has shown over and over and over.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Government never pays the owners what the property is worth. If you don't want to sell, the price is infinity.

That is such an old shibboleth, this idea that a thing is worth whatever its owner will part with it for.

So if we had a gold based currency, say 25 dollars/ounce of gold, and some dumbass wont sell his one ounce gold coin for an offer of a hundred dollars, then the value of that one ounce of gold would be 4 ounces of gold. 1 = 4? lolol

And suppose the person isnt so interested in money but only wants the cute young realtor asking to by his one acre of land to pay $1000 and go on a date with him, that price is $1000 and a date? How do you quantify the date?

Another time a guy agrees to sell his acre for $1000 and not having his legs broken. How does that price get written into the accounting ledger? $1000 and a not broken leg?

There does exist a range of reasonable price for items, and I dont care how many times pencil head dip shits like Friedman argues otherwise.

What a person is willing to accept in return for a property is a combination of sentiment, greed, a desire for fairness and also perceived value.

All Eminent Domain is obligated to pay is the market value.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Laws are enforced with the threat, and execution, of violence. How do you convince yourself otherwise?

Most people obey the law the vast majority of their lives because they know that obeying the law is the right moral thing to do.

Only jack asses and Libertarians have to have the threat of force to get them to obey the law.

 

[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

Laws are enforced with the threat, and execution, of violence. How do you convince yourself otherwise?

Do you follow the speed limit because you are afraid of being beaten up?

 

[P@triot]

Libertarianism is not at all practical on an administrative level.

One of the reasons why there are no world governments based on it.

Well there is some "vintage logic" for you. History is completely filled with murderous dictators due to the evil of human nature for power and control over others (such as Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Saddam Hussien, etc.) all of which have been spectacular failures.

Now, a normal, rational person would do the complete opposite of those failed dictators to get the complete opposite results (i.e. what America did in 1776 - libertarianism). But not Synthy here. Nope! He wants to copy the failed centralized planning of those failed murderous dictators.

Two paragraphs of noise to deflect from telling us which world governments are libertarian. Hint - none.

This idiot horseshit? Again?

Here's the real answer: all of them, to some degree.

Libertarianism is advocating liberty. It's not an on/off switch. It's just of how much a given government respects liberty. Some governments respect it very little (North Korea). Some take it on as their nominal purpose (USA). This question is the has been enshrined at Democratic Headquarters as the go-to monkey poo, to fling at the wall when talking to libertarians. But it's tiresome and shows lack of imagination (as well as sheer stupidity). Get some new material.

I think the ultimate litmus test is this: for all of their propaganda and mindless yammering about "the wonders" of government control and centralized planning, not one of these idiots ever denounce their U.S. citizenship, leave the United States, and go experience "the wonders" of government control and centralized planning in North Korea.

Because at the end of the day, it's about two things for these people. Power and control over others, and mooching off of us. Liberals vehemently opposed ending slavery in the 1860's and more than 150 years later, they still cannot accept that slavery is outlawed. They want people to be forced to labor on their behalf.