Debate Now Is Libertarianism UnAmerican?

[dblack]

You have failed to provide any "logical analysis" to demonstrated any actual "inherent contradiction" either.

Ahh, you must have missed it. That's probably why you didn't respond to it. I bet you can find it if you look.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So as a Libertarian you want to see an impoverished America on a par with a 3rd world nation where the less fortunate have no social welfare except what pittance comes via inadequate donations.

Thanks for being honest enough to admit that.

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

Your facile responses are becoming tedious.

Links were made to the official Libertarian party website and their stated positions on ending all forms of welfare were quoted.

Ending all government social welfare programs will substantially increase poverty. That is evidenced by nations that do and don't have social welfare programs.

Unless you can provide substantive credible evidence proving that the Libertarians have a sound and feasible alternative you are just wasting the time of everyone in this thread.

So far you have offered nothing but puerile taunting. If you cannot provide anything else then you will disqualify yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread.

Again, as this thread itself was based on a meaningless premise, everybody is disqualified from meaningful participation in it. You want to mock libertarian positions be my guest, but don't try to pretend you're engaged in substantive discussion on the subject.

Agreed.

The left is so very tolerant until you disagree.

But the Unites States prides itself on being tolerant.

So, the only thing un-American here is the condemnation of a political philosophy by someone who does not agree with it.

I'd say the same thing if the right were here bagging on liberalism.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

KK, the hyperbole has always been on the side of he libertarians.

Come up with a program that non-libertarians can look at and say 'maybe.'

Pointing out that programs are unconstitutional, not worth the price, don't work, enrich cronies, etc... Is not the same as saying, "You oppose this program? Why do you want people dying in the streets?"

Point a program of yours that will eliminate all that and maintain a sustainable safety net.

Except the claim was hyperbole. Now you're changing the goal posts. That you don't agree with our ideas is not the same as saying our ideas are hyperbolic.

Correct.....

The entire context of this conversation is that the government can do it better (run poverty programs).

That is simply what this is about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The entire context of this OP is that libertarianism cannot be the political philosophy for a modern society.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The entire context of this OP is that libertarianism cannot be the political philosophy for a modern society.

Incorrect. The only thing this thread has done (besides waste a lot of bandwidth) is to produce a very clear position on the part of the OP that the government is better for handling social ills than anyone or anything else. The argument is that if the social programs (i.e. the vehicles for accomplishing government goals) are eliminated, people will die.

Third world countries are utilized as "proof" which is beyond apples and oranges.

Finally, the OP uses the word to describe libertarianism as unAmerican (as if the OP were in a position to judge what is and what isn't American). There is no criteria provided against which to measure libertarianism (or communism or capitalism) so the entire things has boiled down to a rant about anyone who would eliminate the so-called Safety Nets and defies anyone to present something better.

Once again...what does better mean. And at what level must it work ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

All those words, devil, and you missed the point.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The entire context of this OP is that libertarianism cannot be the political philosophy for a modern society.

Except that's not what it says at all. It says is libertarianism "un-American."

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The entire context of this OP is that libertarianism cannot be the political philosophy for a modern society.

Except that's not what it says at all. It says is libertarianism "un-American."

Yes, with no definition of what it means to be un-American.

Notice how DT decides who is libertarian and who is not ?

I agree with you comments about the meaningless OP.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Under what authority are we "required" to throw in to help others and to what extent. I am not saying we are not....I am asking a legitimate question.

Try reading the preamble to the constitution.

You first.

I noticed you glazed right over the fact that you blew it in your assertions.

Understandable given that both sides have their fair share of people who just accept that they've made a mistake.

I'll also consider this a deflection to other things you can't or won't answer.

The preamble sets goals for Americans to "form a more perfect union", "ensure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare" of We the People.

Your turn.

Wonderful....

And the metrics as outlined in the Constitution are ??????

Oh wait..they don't exist.

Of course YOUR view of a more perfect union is the one that is the RIGHT view. Nobody else matters. You've clearly shown that over and over again.

Ah, so instead you forfeit your turn because can't provide any substantive rebuttal.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You have failed to provide any "logical analysis" to demonstrated any actual "inherent contradiction" either.

Ahh, you must have missed it. That's probably why you didn't respond to it. I bet you can find it if you look.

I can't miss what you never posted. Onus is on you to prove that you did.

 

[Derideo_Te]

With hyperbole like this it's clear it's you who has no interest in a real discussion.

If you seriously wish to meaningfully participate in this structured discussion then I recommend that you provide a substantive rebuttal instead of just puerile kibitzing from the sidelines.

On the other hand if you persist with your current behavior you will be ignored.

Your choice.

Oh no, not ignored by Captain Hyperbole. The only structure you've provided is "libertarians are dumb." How do I meaningfully participate beyond pointing out that your premise is flawed? Maybe you should substantively and meaningfully defend your hyperbole.

Your facile responses are becoming tedious.

Links were made to the official Libertarian party website and their stated positions on ending all forms of welfare were quoted.

Ending all government social welfare programs will substantially increase poverty. That is evidenced by nations that do and don't have social welfare programs.

Unless you can provide substantive credible evidence proving that the Libertarians have a sound and feasible alternative you are just wasting the time of everyone in this thread.

So far you have offered nothing but puerile taunting. If you cannot provide anything else then you will disqualify yourself from any further meaningful participation in this thread.

Again, as this thread itself was based on a meaningless premise, everybody is disqualified from meaningful participation in it. You want to mock libertarian positions be my guest, but don't try to pretend you're engaged in substantive discussion on the subject.

Agreed.

The left is so very tolerant until you disagree.

But the Unites States prides itself on being tolerant.

So, the only thing un-American here is the condemnation of a political philosophy by someone who does not agree with it.

I'd say the same thing if the right were here bagging on liberalism.

Libertarianism condemns itself. Just read the LP platform with an open mind and ask how it would impact each segment of the population.

 

[Derideo_Te]

KK, the hyperbole has always been on the side of he libertarians.

Come up with a program that non-libertarians can look at and say 'maybe.'

Pointing out that programs are unconstitutional, not worth the price, don't work, enrich cronies, etc... Is not the same as saying, "You oppose this program? Why do you want people dying in the streets?"

Point a program of yours that will eliminate all that and maintain a sustainable safety net.

Except the claim was hyperbole. Now you're changing the goal posts. That you don't agree with our ideas is not the same as saying our ideas are hyperbolic.

Correct.....

The entire context of this conversation is that the government can do it better (run poverty programs).

That is simply what this is about.

Facts prove that it does a better job than anything else.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The entire context of this OP is that libertarianism cannot be the political philosophy for a modern society.

Except that's not what it says at all. It says is libertarianism "un-American."

You left out the question mark at the end.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The entire context of this OP is that libertarianism cannot be the political philosophy for a modern society.

Except that's not what it says at all. It says is libertarianism "un-American."

Yes, with no definition of what it means to be un-American.

Notice how DT decides who is libertarian and who is not ?

I agree with you comments about the meaningless OP.

So letting the less fortunate starve in poverty is what being "American" means to Libertarians?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The entire context of this OP is that libertarianism cannot be the political philosophy for a modern society.

Except that's not what it says at all. It says is libertarianism "un-American."

You left out the question mark at the end.

Oh no.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The entire context of this OP is that libertarianism cannot be the political philosophy for a modern society.

Except that's not what it says at all. It says is libertarianism "un-American."

Yes, with no definition of what it means to be un-American.

Notice how DT decides who is libertarian and who is not ?

I agree with you comments about the meaningless OP.

So letting the less fortunate starve in poverty is what being "American" means to Libertarians?

Captain Hyperbole saves the day again!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

KK, the hyperbole has always been on the side of he libertarians.

Come up with a program that non-libertarians can look at and say 'maybe.'

Pointing out that programs are unconstitutional, not worth the price, don't work, enrich cronies, etc... Is not the same as saying, "You oppose this program? Why do you want people dying in the streets?"

Point a program of yours that will eliminate all that and maintain a sustainable safety net.

Except the claim was hyperbole. Now you're changing the goal posts. That you don't agree with our ideas is not the same as saying our ideas are hyperbolic.

Correct.....

The entire context of this conversation is that the government can do it better (run poverty programs).

That is simply what this is about.

Facts prove that it does a better job than anything else.

Facts prove nothing to that effect...even your own quotes say poverty has not been aleviated....never mind all the backpeddling that follows.

But since you, at least, admit this is the thrust of your OP, one has to question what you hoped to accomplish by creating a Kanard like the OP.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The entire context of this OP is that libertarianism cannot be the political philosophy for a modern society.

Except that's not what it says at all. It says is libertarianism "un-American."

Yes, with no definition of what it means to be un-American.

Notice how DT decides who is libertarian and who is not ?

I agree with you comments about the meaningless OP.

So letting the less fortunate starve in poverty is what being "American" means to Libertarians?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The entire context of this OP is that libertarianism cannot be the political philosophy for a modern society.

Except that's not what it says at all. It says is libertarianism "un-American."

Yes, with no definition of what it means to be un-American.

Notice how DT decides who is libertarian and who is not ?

I agree with you comments about the meaningless OP.

So letting the less fortunate starve in poverty is what being "American" means to Libertarians?

Captain Hyperbole saves the day again!

It is just hysterical how something like this gets translated.

The entire context of this OP is that libertarianism cannot be the political philosophy for a modern society.

Except that's not what it says at all. It says is libertarianism "un-American."

Yes, with no definition of what it means to be un-American.

Notice how DT decides who is libertarian and who is not ?

I agree with you comments about the meaningless OP.

So letting the less fortunate starve in poverty is what being "American" means to Libertarians?

Still no definition.......

Got it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Pointing out that programs are unconstitutional, not worth the price, don't work, enrich cronies, etc... Is not the same as saying, "You oppose this program? Why do you want people dying in the streets?"

Point a program of yours that will eliminate all that and maintain a sustainable safety net.

Except the claim was hyperbole. Now you're changing the goal posts. That you don't agree with our ideas is not the same as saying our ideas are hyperbolic.

Correct.....

The entire context of this conversation is that the government can do it better (run poverty programs).

That is simply what this is about.

Facts prove that it does a better job than anything else.

Facts prove nothing to that effect...even your own quotes say poverty has not been aleviated....never mind all the backpeddling that follows.

But since you, at least, admit this is the thrust of your OP, one has to question what you hoped to accomplish by creating a Kanard like the OP.

Yet another facile response that does not provide any facts to support your position.