How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[JimBowie1958]

Libertarians have led the charge to legalize gay marriage and end the drug war. We support privacy rights and we're radically opposed to the police state. How do YOU spell 'reactionary'?

'Gay rights' and use of the term reactionary are pretty much give aways; useful tool.

Libertarians are social Marxists with a veneer of libertarianism on their political rhetoric.

??? Where are you getting this shit?

From YOUR statement that Libertarians support gay 'marriage', dude.

 

[Centinel]

I'm glad that you find nothing loathsome about the idea that we each should leave others alone unless/until they trespass against the person or property of their fellow man.

That simple principle is the defining characteristic of libertarianism.

Yes of small 'l' libertarianism, but not BIG 'L' Libertarianism, i.e. Randian Libertarianism or Objectivism which is what the hard core Libertarian leadership is composed of.

I will never forget the Libertarian Party meeting I attended where about a dozen people were there not counting myself. Twelve of us were Constitutionalist small 'l' libertarians, while the guy in charge was a Randian Objectivist who did not want anyone in the group if they wanted to keep Social Security.

That was when I realized even way back then, that Libertarians will never have power unless they engage in fraud to get it.


And they are.

Was your OP about the Libertarian party or about the political philosophy of libertarianism? Or was is about Rand's Objectivism?

 

[dblack]

Seeking to compel conformity through the force of law violates the libertarian principle that we should leave others alone unless/until they trespass against the person or property of their fellow man. Thus it's not a libertarian position.

There is a huge distinction between compelling conformity and having the public define what is acceptable in public behavior.

Really? And what is that distinction?

Hence Libertarianism is actually at war with Conservatism, not an ally of it or version of it.

That's the first true statement you've made in this thread.

 

[dblack]

I'm glad that you find nothing loathsome about the idea that we each should leave others alone unless/until they trespass against the person or property of their fellow man.

That simple principle is the defining characteristic of libertarianism.

Yes of small 'l' libertarianism, but not BIG 'L' Libertarianism, i.e. Randian Libertarianism or Objectivism which is what the hard core Libertarian leadership is composed of.

I will never forget the Libertarian Party meeting I attended where about a dozen people were there not counting myself. Twelve of us were Constitutionalist small 'l' libertarians, while the guy in charge was a Randian Objectivist who did not want anyone in the group if they wanted to keep Social Security.

That was when I realized even way back then, that Libertarians will never have power unless they engage in fraud to get it.


And they are.

Was your OP about the Libertarian party or about the political philosophy of libertarianism? Or was is about Rand's Objectivism?

The OP was a rambling screed trying to smear the Libertarian movement. It's the sort of thing we're used to from (both Democrat and Republican) authoritarians who don't like us interfering with their plans.

 

[Centinel]

Seeking to compel conformity through the force of law violates the libertarian principle that we should leave others alone unless/until they trespass against the person or property of their fellow man. Thus it's not a libertarian position.

There is a huge distinction between compelling conformity and having the public define what is acceptable in public behavior.

Yes, I support having a third bathroom available for transgender people instead of having mutilated males go into a womans restroom, but segregating the genders in restrooms is an example of forcing people to conform to the expectations of others. If you want to mutilate yourself, that is your twisted preference, but dont compel the rest of us to be exposed to your perversions.

Hence Libertarianism is actually at war with Conservatism, not an ally of it or version of it.

I think the libertarian position is that the owner of a restroom should be the one to determine the rules of its use.

And I agree that conservatism and libertarianism are two distinct political philosophies and that they are frequently in conflict.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm glad that you find nothing loathsome about the idea that we each should leave others alone unless/until they trespass against the person or property of their fellow man.

That simple principle is the defining characteristic of libertarianism.

Yes of small 'l' libertarianism, but not BIG 'L' Libertarianism, i.e. Randian Libertarianism or Objectivism which is what the hard core Libertarian leadership is composed of.

I will never forget the Libertarian Party meeting I attended where about a dozen people were there not counting myself. Twelve of us were Constitutionalist small 'l' libertarians, while the guy in charge was a Randian Objectivist who did not want anyone in the group if they wanted to keep Social Security.

That was when I realized even way back then, that Libertarians will never have power unless they engage in fraud to get it.


And they are.

Was your OP about the Libertarian party or about the political philosophy of libertarianism? Or was is about Rand's Objectivism?

It was about Objectivism which *IS* the ideology of Libertarian leadership today, and the various Libertarians who would rather see people starve rather than the government give them aid.

Got it yet?

 

[dblack]

There is a huge distinction between compelling conformity and having the public define what is acceptable in public behavior.

Reconsidering this, I'd have to agree. Compelling behavior is what government does. The public defining what is acceptable behavior is what we all do, voluntary, without resorting to coercion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The OP was a rambling screed trying to smear the Libertarian movement.

I admit I have posted such things before, but you wouldnt know as you are a closed minded ideological ass hat who doesnt read to grasp the authors intent but to assign it an ideological category to attack it as.

Which of course is irrational as most ideologues are.

It's the sort of thing we're used to from (both Democrat and Republican) authoritarians who don't like us interfering with their plans.

So I disagree with you therefore I must be an authoritarian; standard ideological extremism.

 

[Centinel]

It was about Objectivism which *IS* the ideology of Libertarian leadership today, and the various Libertarians who would rather see people starve rather than the government give them aid.

Got it yet?

I don't really know much or care about objectivism.

I thought your OP was about the political philosophy of libertarianism. If it's not, then I would say you probably mislabelled it. You should have titled it "How Evil is Randian Objectivism". Then libertarians could have ignored it.

 

[rightwinger]

Seeking to compel conformity through the force of law violates the libertarian principle that we should leave others alone unless/until they trespass against the person or property of their fellow man. Thus it's not a libertarian position.

There is a huge distinction between compelling conformity and having the public define what is acceptable in public behavior.

Yes, I support having a third bathroom available for transgender people instead of having mutilated males go into a womans restroom, but segregating the genders in restrooms is an example of forcing people to conform to the expectations of others. If you want to mutilate yourself, that is your twisted preference, but dont compel the rest of us to be exposed to your perversions.

Hence Libertarianism is actually at war with Conservatism, not an ally of it or version of it.

I think the libertarian position is that the owner of a restroom should be the one to determine the rules of its use.

And I agree that conservatism and libertarianism are two distinct political philosophies and that they are frequently in conflict.

I think the libertarian position is that the owner of a restroom should be the one to determine the rules of its use.

So you agree with "Colored" restrooms if that is what the owner wants?

 

[dblack]

If what you're after is to separate Libertarians from the Republican party, then we're on the same page - albeit different sides of that page. Go Trump!

 

[dblack]

Seeking to compel conformity through the force of law violates the libertarian principle that we should leave others alone unless/until they trespass against the person or property of their fellow man. Thus it's not a libertarian position.

There is a huge distinction between compelling conformity and having the public define what is acceptable in public behavior.

Yes, I support having a third bathroom available for transgender people instead of having mutilated males go into a womans restroom, but segregating the genders in restrooms is an example of forcing people to conform to the expectations of others. If you want to mutilate yourself, that is your twisted preference, but dont compel the rest of us to be exposed to your perversions.

Hence Libertarianism is actually at war with Conservatism, not an ally of it or version of it.

I think the libertarian position is that the owner of a restroom should be the one to determine the rules of its use.

And I agree that conservatism and libertarianism are two distinct political philosophies and that they are frequently in conflict.

I think the libertarian position is that the owner of a restroom should be the one to determine the rules of its use.

So you agree with "Colored" restrooms if that is what the owner wants?

It's not the same thing. Defending someone's right to do something isn't the same as approving of that something. Is that too subtle for you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The libertarian position is nonetheless subject to necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, including that of public accommodations

 

[Centinel]

So you agree with "Colored" restrooms if that is what the owner wants?

If a business is stupid enough to decide that, sure.

But I'd like to know beforehand so I can sell my house and put all the proceeds into shorting that company's stock.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't really know much or care about objectivism.

I thought your OP was about the political philosophy of libertarianism. If it's not, then I would say you probably mislabelled it. You should have titled it "How Evil is Randian Objectivism". Then libertarians could have ignored it.

The leadership cadre of Libertarianism = Randian Objectivism.

Objectivism is a full philosophy that has Libertarian implications and it is thus highly popular with Libertarians like Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, David Boaz and John Hospers the first Libertarian Party Presidential nominee.

The central concept I am addressing, that the poor and starving can starve, and have a knee jerk reflex to blame the victim in almost any economic fiasco, is generally held by both groups.

 

[dblack]

The central concept I am addressing, that the poor and starving can starve, and have a knee jerk reflex to blame the victim in almost any economic fiasco, is generally held by both groups.

If you haven't been to Libertarian meeting since "way back then", you might be surprised by what's actually going on. Most libertarians (and Libertarians) that I know wholly reject Rand's notion that altruism is a bad thing. I think altruism is among man's greatest virtues. But government can't do altruism.

 

[Centinel]

The leadership cadre of Libertarianism = Randian Objectivism.

Objectivism is a full philosophy that has Libertarian implications and it is thus highly popular with Libertarians like Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, Rand Paul, David Boaz and John Hospers the first Libertarian Party Presidential nominee.

The central concept I am addressing, that the poor and starving can starve, and have a knee jerk reflex to blame the victim in almost any economic fiasco, is generally held by both groups.

The political philosophy of libertarianism is based on the principle that people should be left alone unless/until they trespass against the person or property of someone else. That's what actually makes one a libertarian.

Blaming the victim and holding that poor people ought to starve is not a tenet of libertarian political philosophy. It might be a tenet of Rand's Objectivism, but I don't know/care about Objectivism, which isn't libertarianism.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's not the same thing. Defending someone's right to do something isn't the same as approving of that something. Is that too subtle for you?

In private behavior that is true, but with public behavior it is not, hence the division between public and private behavior.

Smoking pot, jacking off to porn and eating raw Pop Tarts are private behavior. Thank Gawd.

Discriminating against a racial minority, calling for an end to welfare and blaming victims of discrimination for their loss is public behavior that makes you into an ass hat.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If you haven't been to Libertarian meeting since "way back then", you might be surprised by what's actually going on. Most libertarians (and Libertarians) that I know wholly reject Rand's notion that altruism is a bad thing. I think altruism is among man's greatest virtues. But government can't do altruism.

Well 'way back' was in Maryland around 1998, so you might have a point about hte membership changing.

But the leadership of the Libertarian Party I doubt has changed much based on the people I know who have feet in both the Libertarian movement and the GOP.

And while the government cant do altruism, it can implement public policy built on altrusitic beliefs of the majority and we have done that in the USA, mostly.

 

[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.

You are an idiot. Two things:

1) All you make are sweeping accusations. You keep whiffing on my question of what policies we have you disagree with. You can't name them

2) For you and other government educated readers, when you capitalize "Libertarian," that is a specific reference to the Libertarian Party. The capitalization makes it a proper noun. I'll let you google what a proper noun is. I'm guessing you hate the rest of us too, not just the ones atually in the Libertarian Party