Debate Now Is Libertarianism UnAmerican?

[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?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

LP website admits as much.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Government does a better job than business on addressing specific poverty issues, but it can not do it all. Those are the facts, folks.

But business can bring poverty and blight to a community by removing the jobs.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Government does a better job than business on addressing specific poverty issues, but it can not do it all. Those are the facts, folks.

But business can bring poverty and blight to a community by removing the jobs.

Exactly. Government has a vested interest in reducing poverty. Corporations have no interest in areas that they blighted with poverty. They simply move on to plunder elsewhere.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

219

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.

That is what makes this thread so useless.

I don't have a position on this. I simply pointed out what your own facts said.

You've called Libertarianism Un-American. I really don't care what you think of Libertarianism as a philosophy. But it really is interesting to see someone put themselves in a position to pass judgement on something like a political philosophy and offer up no guidelines for the general classification that so adamantly defend.

Keep it up. I hope someone really gives a flying fig about what you have to say.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Government does a better job than business on addressing specific poverty issues, but it can not do it all. Those are the facts, folks.

But business can bring poverty and blight to a community by removing the jobs.

Exactly. Government has a vested interest in reducing poverty. Corporations have no interest in areas that they blighted with poverty. They simply move on to plunder elsewhere.

And before there was business there.....there was......prosperity ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

219

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.

That is what makes this thread so useless.

I don't have a position on this. I simply pointed out what your own facts said.

You've called Libertarianism Un-American. I really don't care what you think of Libertarianism as a philosophy. But it really is interesting to see someone put themselves in a position to pass judgement on something like a political philosophy and offer up no guidelines for the general classification that so adamantly defend.

Keep it up. I hope someone really gives a flying fig about what you have to say.

That you have to jump through hoops to gainsay the OP says volumes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Government does a better job than business on addressing specific poverty issues, but it can not do it all. Those are the facts, folks.

But business can bring poverty and blight to a community by removing the jobs.

Exactly. Government has a vested interest in reducing poverty. Corporations have no interest in areas that they blighted with poverty. They simply move on to plunder elsewhere.

And before there was business there.....there was......prosperity ?

Non sequitur!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Government does a better job than business on addressing specific poverty issues, but it can not do it all. Those are the facts, folks.

But business can bring poverty and blight to a community by removing the jobs.

Exactly. Government has a vested interest in reducing poverty. Corporations have no interest in areas that they blighted with poverty. They simply move on to plunder elsewhere.

And before there was business there.....there was......prosperity ?

Non sequitur!

Just so.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

219

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.

That is what makes this thread so useless.

I don't have a position on this. I simply pointed out what your own facts said.

You've called Libertarianism Un-American. I really don't care what you think of Libertarianism as a philosophy. But it really is interesting to see someone put themselves in a position to pass judgement on something like a political philosophy and offer up no guidelines for the general classification that so adamantly defend.

Keep it up. I hope someone really gives a flying fig about what you have to say.

That you have to jump through hoops to gainsay the OP says volumes.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

219

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.

That is what makes this thread so useless.

I don't have a position on this. I simply pointed out what your own facts said.

You've called Libertarianism Un-American. I really don't care what you think of Libertarianism as a philosophy. But it really is interesting to see someone put themselves in a position to pass judgement on something like a political philosophy and offer up no guidelines for the general classification that so adamantly defend.

Keep it up. I hope someone really gives a flying fig about what you have to say.

That you have to jump through hoops to gainsay the OP says volumes.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quite the opposite. Every single Libertarian response in this thread proves it.

I can, and have, made a sound conservative case for why government social programs are necessary and more effective than anything ever done by the private sector.

All that Libertarians have done are just denials, feeble deflections with semantics and attempts to derail this thread.

Not a single one of them has actually tried to defend the LP's stance on destroying all government social welfare programs.

Why is that?

Because they know that Americans wont' stand for it. Because that is not who We the People actually are. "Give me your poor, your huddled masses" is more than just a line of poetry, it speaks of a nation that is willing to help the less fortunate.

The Libertarian platform is centered on selfishness and greed. It is unAmerican because it seeks to destroy what made this nation great. It seeks to throw the less fortunate out on the streets to starve and suffer.

And not a single Libertarian can defend why they want to do this because they know that it is indefensible and yes, unAmerican to the very core.

So either prove that Libertarianism is a feasible and viable alternative that won't harm We the People or tacitly admit that you can't.

 

[Politico]

No

I'm sorry, can you shorten that response just a bit? You are getting windy, you know....



(ok, that was known as levity)

How can you shorten no? It is not unamerican. Just stupid

 

[dblack]

219

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.

That is what makes this thread so useless.

I don't have a position on this. I simply pointed out what your own facts said.

You've called Libertarianism Un-American. I really don't care what you think of Libertarianism as a philosophy. But it really is interesting to see someone put themselves in a position to pass judgement on something like a political philosophy and offer up no guidelines for the general classification that so adamantly defend.

Keep it up. I hope someone really gives a flying fig about what you have to say.

That you have to jump through hoops to gainsay the OP says volumes.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quite the opposite. Every single Libertarian response in this thread proves it.

I can, and have, made a sound conservative case for why government social programs are necessary and more effective than anything ever done by the private sector.

"Sound"? Maybe. Moral, no. Every single argument you've made for government social programs could be, and often was, used to justify slavery.

All that Libertarians have done are just denials, feeble deflections with semantics and attempts to derail this thread.

Not a single one of them has actually tried to defend the LP's stance on destroying all government social welfare programs.

Bullshit. That's been my position consistently. And you've consistently ignored it, claiming that it's the equivalent of a desire to "let 'em die". It's not.

The Libertarian platform is centered on selfishness and greed. It is unAmerican because it seeks to destroy what made this nation great. It seeks to throw the less fortunate out on the streets to starve and suffer.

No, that's your delusion. (Arguably, 'delusion' is a generous appraisal. All evidence indicates you know damn well it isn't true and are merely spinning a lie to defeat a political opponent).

Libertarianism isn't based on selfishness and greed. It's based on a sincere rejection of violence as a way to get what we want out of other people. In a truly civilized society violence is reserved for defense, not for pushing people around - regardless of the excuse.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarian fail.

CBO and CEA state that poverty would be 28% of the population instead of almost half that without government programs.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

219

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.

That is what makes this thread so useless.

I don't have a position on this. I simply pointed out what your own facts said.

You've called Libertarianism Un-American. I really don't care what you think of Libertarianism as a philosophy. But it really is interesting to see someone put themselves in a position to pass judgement on something like a political philosophy and offer up no guidelines for the general classification that so adamantly defend.

Keep it up. I hope someone really gives a flying fig about what you have to say.

That you have to jump through hoops to gainsay the OP says volumes.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quite the opposite. Every single Libertarian response in this thread proves it.

I can, and have, made a sound conservative case for why government social programs are necessary and more effective than anything ever done by the private sector.

Only in your dreams.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Libertarian fail.

CBO and CEA state that poverty would be 28% of the population instead of almost half that without government programs.

Instead it is at 26%. Wow.

That is success.

Not that I doubt the effectiveness of some programs. I've already stated that I understand that there are people who can use a helping hand. Statistics, from what I recall, show that most do not stay in poverty or on programs very long. Hence, they must be doing something good.

My biggest (and growing) concern is that people like you have feeble arguments that really carry no weight whatsoever.

The CBO and CEA are meaningful thought exercises that can provide some good direction.

They, nevertheless are just estimating the way things should be.

The real causes of poverty are rarely addressed and it seems like if a government (Austrailia comes to mind) is interested in reducing poverty, they work at the root as well as helping people out.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The line between libertarianism and anarchism can be a bit too fine at time for my tastes. Too many so-called libertarians are little more than disgruntled misanthropes who seem to think that their sociopathy is actually a political movement. Others strike me as children who have found religion and the words they read at lewrockwell dot com are gospel.

There are some aspects of libertarian ideology I do find attractive, though, as there are with conservative or liberal ideology, and I have met some libertarians who are very intelligent and mature, and who aren't in the least bit like the perpetually pissed or the childish. I have a friend who I respect greatly who is libertarian, so I refuse to paint all with the same brush.

In general, though, I find precious few libertarians who understand that no man is an Island. They go through life imagining themselves as rugged individualists even as they drive on roads built by society, use electricity provided for them by society, are protected by a military paid for by society and who blather away on an internet that would not exist were it not for the collaboration of countless people and institutions. It is the disconnect between how they imagine themselves and how they actually live that undermines the positions they take.

Very well stated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

False data, sundevil, try again. My arguments are unassailable by concrete learner like you, who is allied to wide eyed in the sky ideology that is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Wry Catcher]

When the figured out the first one was not working, they did it again.

Not sure what you are referring to here. Care to elucidate?

They created the Articles of Confederation.....

Then scrapped it.

Why they did so seems to belie the theory behind Libertarianism.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

When the figured out the first one was not working, they did it again.

Not sure what you are referring to here. Care to elucidate?

They created the Articles of Confederation.....

Then scrapped it.

Why they did so seems to belie the theory behind Libertarianism.

I would say that is a legitimate statement in general.

However, the question was asked about throwing out governments and I simply pointed out that the founders did it twice (just for context).

I don't defend libertarianism as a philosophy. I do not agree with the idea that libertarianism (or any other philosophy that does not advocate a fascist state) is un-American.

 

[thanatos144]

Pull legal drugs out of the libertarian platform and most would return to the democrat party.