How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[JimBowie1958]

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.

But if Libertarians oppose welfare programs that have that impact, and support policies that have that impact, then they in effect do advocate that the poor be left to starve.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are an idiot. Two things:

1) All you make are sweeping accusations.

roflmao

 

[dblack]

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.

"Public policy built on altruistic beliefs of the majority" is delusion. It isn't altruism and it isn't a good thing. It's just bullying.

 

[dblack]

But if Libertarians oppose welfare programs that have that impact, and support policies that have that impact, then they in effect do advocate that the poor be left to starve.

This is a false dichotomy.

 

[kaz]

I don't see how you are offended by his question.

I'm not offended by the question, but the terms "evil", "loathsome" or "bold cockroaches" are hardly apt descriptors. That's what's offensive. It takes away from the substance of the question when people use such metaphors. It makes me not want to take the question, or the person who asked it, seriously.

Now, I don't like to try to speak for other people, and I could be incorrect - but if I am remembering correctly, Jim is a religious man, and I assume his issue with objectivism (and why he calls it "evil") is due objectivism's complete and utter rejection of religion in general, and Christian values of charity and compassion specifically.

Objectivism is one flavor of libertarian, generally liberarians support private charity and oppose coerced government "charity." But you're wrong about objectivism too. They don't reject charity, they just believe if you give to charity you should be doing it for your own interest.

For example. Say your parents died of heart disease and you give money because you feel you're doing something to help yourself as well as other's you identify with. Or you love dogs and give to the AKC because it makes you feel good to help other dogs. If you feel guilty for not giving to church fundraisers, they would think that's silly, but if you give because that's the only way to not feel guilty then you should do it. The reason would be up to you, it can be any reason, but it has to be in your interest.

What they reject is like all libertarians government coercing "charity" or say you just give because your church/parents, whatever, said you should but you don't really want to do it.

 

[whitehall]

Libertarianism used to be closely aligned with political conservatism until the libertarians were hijacked by the pot heads and assorted fringe druggies. Today's libertarianism is nothing but a pipe dream. It should be noted that the democrat party has drifted so far to the left that it is off the charts.

 

[Centinel]

But if Libertarians oppose welfare programs that have that impact, and support policies that have that impact, then they in effect do advocate that the poor be left to starve.

This is very black and white thinking. Just because someone opposes the idea of a government dole doesn't mean that they advocate that the poor be left to starve.

For example, I oppose a government dole because it violates libertarian principles. However, as a Catholic, I certainly don't advocate that people be left to starve. I hold that each of us should offer help to those in need.

It's not as black and white as you make it out to be.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Didn't affect them a bit during the Jim Crow era

In fact, the racists would boycott them if they allowed integrated bathrooms. It was the courts, not public opinion that forced the issue

 

[kaz]

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.

But if Libertarians oppose welfare programs that have that impact, and support policies that have that impact, then they in effect do advocate that the poor be left to starve.

Right, because government is the only solution to a problem, if we don't want government to do it, we don't want anyone to! I guess you know yourself, if government doesn't force charity from your stingy fingers you aren't going to help anyone. But not everyone is as cold hearted as you are, Americans are very generous

 

[rightwinger]

But if Libertarians oppose welfare programs that have that impact, and support policies that have that impact, then they in effect do advocate that the poor be left to starve.

This is very black and white thinking. Just because someone opposes the idea of a government dole doesn't mean that they advocate that the poor be left to starve.

For example, I oppose a government dole because it violates libertarian principles. However, as a Catholic, I certainly don't advocate that people be left to starve. I hold that each of us should offer help to those in need.

It's not as black and white as you make it out to be.

However, as a Catholic, I certainly don't advocate that people be left to starve. I hold that each of us should offer help to those in need.


What happens to those not worthy of your "help"?

 

[kaz]

Libertarianism used to be closely aligned with political conservatism until the libertarians were hijacked by the pot heads and assorted fringe druggies. Today's libertarianism is nothing but a pipe dream. It should be noted that the democrat party has drifted so far to the left that it is off the charts.

None of the libertarians I know smoke pot, though I'm sure there are some. But again, that we don't think pot should be legal means we think people should smoke pot is just flat out retarded.

As for being aligned, the only thing we're aligned on is fiscal policy. And we're not aligned there either because unlike conservatives, we mean it

 

[dblack]

But if Libertarians oppose welfare programs that have that impact, and support policies that have that impact, then they in effect do advocate that the poor be left to starve.

This is very black and white thinking. Just because someone opposes the idea of a government dole doesn't mean that they advocate that the poor be left to starve.

For example, I oppose a government dole because it violates libertarian principles. However, as a Catholic, I certainly don't advocate that people be left to starve. I hold that each of us should offer help to those in need.

It's not as black and white as you make it out to be.

However, as a Catholic, I certainly don't advocate that people be left to starve. I hold that each of us should offer help to those in need.


What happens to those not worthy of your "help"?

The same thing that happens to those not worthy of government's "help".

 

[Centinel]

What happens to those not worthy of your "help"?

Who are those people?

 

[Centinel]

Didn't affect them a bit during the Jim Crow era

In fact, the racists would boycott them if they allowed integrated bathrooms. It was the courts, not public opinion that forced the issue

This isn't the Jim Crow era any more. Do you seriously think that if McDonalds instituted colored bathrooms that they would continue to be in business?

 

[rightwinger]

What happens to those not worthy of your "help"?

Who are those people?

Depends on you....Might be those of a different race, different religion, immigrant family

 

[rightwinger]

Didn't affect them a bit during the Jim Crow era

In fact, the racists would boycott them if they allowed integrated bathrooms. It was the courts, not public opinion that forced the issue

This isn't the Jim Crow era any more. Do you seriously think that if McDonalds instituted colored bathrooms that they would continue to be in business?

Times change...the issues evolve

We are now obsessed with the bathroom habits of the transgendered

 

[dblack]

What happens to those not worthy of your "help"?

Who are those people?

Depends on you....Might be those of a different race, different religion, immigrant family

And if the government is in charge of where our charity goes, then it 'depends on government'. The difference is, if we're relying on individuals to make the call, and Centinel refuses to help, there are plenty of others who might. But there's only one government. If it's up to them and you don't qualify, you're out of luck.

 

[NightFox]

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.

Uh-huh, the path to "victory" for the conservative movement is DEFINITELY to conflate libertarianism with Randian objectivism and then make sure you set about to alienate both groups of people, heaven knows "conservatives" haven't alienated enough people yet.

..... Someone please ring the bell when a rational conservative shows up.

 

[Centinel]

What happens to those not worthy of your "help"?

Who are those people?

Depends on you....Might be those of a different race, different religion, immigrant family

Okay, so nobody then.

 

[Centinel]

Didn't affect them a bit during the Jim Crow era

In fact, the racists would boycott them if they allowed integrated bathrooms. It was the courts, not public opinion that forced the issue

This isn't the Jim Crow era any more. Do you seriously think that if McDonalds instituted colored bathrooms that they would continue to be in business?

Times change...the issues evolve

We are now obsessed with the bathroom habits of the transgendered

Yes, you appear to be. Why?

This seems like it should be the decision of the bathroom owner. Simple as that.