How Evil is Libertarianism anyway?

[SuperDemocrat]

i read Ayan Rand and I can tell you there is nothing further from the truth. The characters in her novels were quite charitable. The only difference is that they didn't feel guilty because they wanted more money in life. I don't see anywhere where she said other human beings could kill each other. That is an gross exaggeration of her thought. I liked Atlas Shrug because it was the first time corporations weren't portrayed as pure evil like they are in most movies. Rich people were portrayed as being normal with normal problems like everyone else. They were portrayed as human beings who deserved as much compassion as anyone else for the hardships in their own lives. Some people kind of think that everyone deserves sympayth minus rich people. That isn't something I agree with.

And she was an atheist...so what. It isn't a crime to be something that isn't christian in this country. I really don't like social conservatives that much. They really don't appeal to my sense of liberty which is why, by themselves, they can't appeal to most Americans. Most Americans are christians but they also think we should be free to choose what religion we are to be. I have never ever met one American who wanted to make church attendance mandatory and that would include the dreaded conservatives who, according to the left, are trying to impose their religion on others. I don't buy that either. The left are just irrational at times and stopped dealing with them as well.

I think the whole political divide is silly and petty at times. I have always considered myself a neither. I like Rush limbaugh and I don't mind watching The daily show either. I just wish their was a political ideology called normal in this country so I can avoid the abnormal shit that exist on either side.

 

[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

Yes, you appear to be. Why?

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

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

 

[kaz]

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?

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

 

[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.

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.

Jim isn't a conservative, he's feeling the Bern

 

[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.

Jim isn't a conservative, he's feeling the Bern

Ahhh.. that would explain the completely irrational arguments, thanks for clearing that up kaz.

 

[Centinel]

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?

 

[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

 

[rightwinger]

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?

We don't serve colored here

A libertarian ideal

 

[Centinel]

We don't serve colored here

A libertarian ideal

Not really.

Again, libertarianism is based on the principle that people have the right to be left alone unless/until they trespass against someone's person or property.

This means that as long as someone isn't trespassing against someone's person or property we don't have the right to initiate force against him, even if he's doing something we disagree with, such as preventing colored people from using his property.

You seem to be confusing the refusal to initiate force with agreement. I may not agree with your behavior, but as long as you're not trespassing against the person or property of someone, I have no ethical justification for using force against you.

 

[rightwinger]

We don't serve colored here

A libertarian ideal

Not really.

Again, libertarianism is based on the principle that people have the right to be left alone unless/until they trespass against someone's person or property.

This means that as long as someone isn't trespassing against someone's person or property we don't have the right to initiate force against him, even if he's doing something we disagree with, such as preventing colored people from using his property.

You seem to be confusing the refusal to initiate force with agreement. I may not agree with your behavior, but as long as you're not trespassing against the person or property of someone, I have no ethical justification for using force against you.

Exactly......

We don't serve colored here is a libertarian utopia

 

[Centinel]

Exactly......

We don't serve colored here is a libertarian utopia

It's actually not. In fact, every libertarian I know finds the idea reprehensible.

However, unlike authoritarians, a libertarian doesn't use force to make people act the way he wishes. To a libertarian, force is always unjustified unless/until someone trespasses against someone's person or property.

 

[Mac1958]

Libertarians are like economists - good to have around for reference now and then, but best when kept in their own lanes.

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly......

We don't serve colored here is a libertarian utopia

It's actually not. In fact, every libertarian I know finds the idea reprehensible.

However, unlike authoritarians, a libertarian doesn't use force to make people act the way he wishes. To a libertarian, force is always unjustified unless/until someone trespasses against someone's person or property.

Libertarian....none of my business if you don't want to serve negroes

 

[Centinel]

Libertarians are like economists - good to have around for reference now and then, but best when kept in their own lanes.

Why is that?

 

[Centinel]

Libertarian....none of my business if you don't want to serve negroes

Once again, wrong. (It's almost as if you're really trying to be wrong...)

A libertarian may certainly consider it his business if you don't want to serve negros. He may boycott you. He may argue with you. He may start up a competing firm to put your bigoted ass out of business.

The only thing he won't do is initiate violence against you. Unlike authoritarian right wingers, libertarians don't use violence to make people act the way they want them to.

 

[NightFox]

Libertarians are like economists - good to have around for reference now and then, but best when kept in their own lanes.

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

Preach it Comrade!

 

[Mac1958]

Libertarians are like economists - good to have around for reference now and then, but best when kept in their own lanes.

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

 

[Uncensored2008]

View attachment 72418

Ms Rand was buried upside down so motherfuckers like you can go by and kiss her ass.


.

Ayn Rand didn't found Libertarianism, Murray Rothbard did.

Rand was behind Objectivism.

JimBowie is simply ignorant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obviously we can have liberty, but we dont have to live in Chaos to do so.

So you want a heavily regulated liberty where all are free to obey the rulers?

We are a community of people, not a gaggle of assorted individuals with no impact on one another.

So each must live for the collective, then?