Debate Now Is Libertarianism UnAmerican?

[gipper]

There was an article written on the Thom Hartmann website in 2011 called "Libertarianism - the Un-American Pipe Dream that Backfires".

It exposed the fundamental paradox of Libertarianism which can be summarized as having the ideal of absolute individual rights will always result in a complete loss of all of those rights.

None of the Libertarian ideals actually work in practice.

Remove all regulations on corporations and the subsequent pollution alone will end up destroying other corporations. For example if one state has a corporation that spews toxins into a river that runs downstream to a state where corporations depend upon fishing and tourism from that same river there is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents that from happening. The rights of the corporate owners to pump toxins into the river is absolute in a Libertarian Utopia. That it kills fish and destroys the livelihoods of others cannot be used to challenge those rights. There is not government regulation allowed to prevent that from happening. Those harmed, if still alive, might try to sue but since they don't have standing in the other state they probably won't even get a hearing from a judge.

Taxation is another Libertarian pipe dream. The refuse to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them. So when they refuse to pay taxes to repair roads there are accidents that not only cost lives but impact the efficiency of corporations to receive raw materials and deliver finished goods. There are countless examples along these lines.

Worst of all Libertarians hate democracy. They don't want to have to obey laws passed by a democratically elected majority and signed into law if they don't agree with them. Libertarians don't want any laws that would infringe upon their individual rights, period. (Just read their manifesto, er, platform on the Libertarian Party website.)

There is something fundamentally wrong with Libertarianism to the point of being unAmerican. Personal individual rights only exist because others are willing to stand up for those rights just as it is the duty of every American to stand up for the rights of others. Libertarians don't want to stand up for the right of gays to have wedding cakes baked for them by businesses that bake wedding cakes if it goes against their religious beliefs about gays.

Unfortunately Libertarians just don't understand how the Constitution and their rights actually work. Instead they want to tear it all down in a "constitutional convention" and throw out all of the rules and regulations and start from scratch.

That is why Libertarians are, to all intents and purposes, unAmerican.

The Question to be Debated in this Discussion:

Is Libertarianism unAmerican? ​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

To say something's un-American, you'd have to be able to define or demonstrate what "being American" is.

Would say the person who says something's un-Americans is the only one un-American. We tolerate all ideas here, wanna be an atheist communist anarchist you're just as American as the Baptist Democrat for law and order.

The OP says that dictionary definitions will prevail.

Here are two that you could have looked up for yourself;

Un-american Define Un-american at Dictionary.com

un-American

adjective
1.
not American; not characteristic of or proper to the U.S.; foreign or opposed to the characters,values, standards, goals, etc., of the U.S.

Un-American Definition of un-American by Merriam-Webster

un–American

adjective un–Amer·i·can \ˌən-ə-ˈmer-ə-kən\

: not agreeing with American values, principles, or traditions

So what are American values, principles, or traditions?

Every foreign national's un-American by the first standard. And any American at all could claim to be representative of American values, principals, and traditions. Was HUAC and McCarthy "American?"

The context is the OP question about whether Libertarianism is un-american.

Given that America has never embraced any of the stated Libertarian values or principles nor does it have any tradition of Libertarianism the answer should be obvious to anyone who wants to honestly address the OP question.

That has to be one of the most uninformed posts ever on this forum.

The USA was founded on principles today's Libertarians espouse. So to make the absurd claim that Libertarian ideas have never been embraced by America, is pure stupidity.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There was an article written on the Thom Hartmann website in 2011 called "Libertarianism - the Un-American Pipe Dream that Backfires".

It exposed the fundamental paradox of Libertarianism which can be summarized as having the ideal of absolute individual rights will always result in a complete loss of all of those rights.

None of the Libertarian ideals actually work in practice.

Remove all regulations on corporations and the subsequent pollution alone will end up destroying other corporations. For example if one state has a corporation that spews toxins into a river that runs downstream to a state where corporations depend upon fishing and tourism from that same river there is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents that from happening. The rights of the corporate owners to pump toxins into the river is absolute in a Libertarian Utopia. That it kills fish and destroys the livelihoods of others cannot be used to challenge those rights. There is not government regulation allowed to prevent that from happening. Those harmed, if still alive, might try to sue but since they don't have standing in the other state they probably won't even get a hearing from a judge.

Taxation is another Libertarian pipe dream. The refuse to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them. So when they refuse to pay taxes to repair roads there are accidents that not only cost lives but impact the efficiency of corporations to receive raw materials and deliver finished goods. There are countless examples along these lines.

Worst of all Libertarians hate democracy. They don't want to have to obey laws passed by a democratically elected majority and signed into law if they don't agree with them. Libertarians don't want any laws that would infringe upon their individual rights, period. (Just read their manifesto, er, platform on the Libertarian Party website.)

There is something fundamentally wrong with Libertarianism to the point of being unAmerican. Personal individual rights only exist because others are willing to stand up for those rights just as it is the duty of every American to stand up for the rights of others. Libertarians don't want to stand up for the right of gays to have wedding cakes baked for them by businesses that bake wedding cakes if it goes against their religious beliefs about gays.

Unfortunately Libertarians just don't understand how the Constitution and their rights actually work. Instead they want to tear it all down in a "constitutional convention" and throw out all of the rules and regulations and start from scratch.

That is why Libertarians are, to all intents and purposes, unAmerican.

The Question to be Debated in this Discussion:

Is Libertarianism unAmerican? ​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

I am having a serious problem believing a poster with a clown avatar wants a real debate.

Please acquaint yourself with the OP rules.

TYIA

 

[Derideo_Te]

There was an article written on the Thom Hartmann website in 2011 called "Libertarianism - the Un-American Pipe Dream that Backfires".

It exposed the fundamental paradox of Libertarianism which can be summarized as having the ideal of absolute individual rights will always result in a complete loss of all of those rights.

None of the Libertarian ideals actually work in practice.

Remove all regulations on corporations and the subsequent pollution alone will end up destroying other corporations. For example if one state has a corporation that spews toxins into a river that runs downstream to a state where corporations depend upon fishing and tourism from that same river there is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents that from happening. The rights of the corporate owners to pump toxins into the river is absolute in a Libertarian Utopia. That it kills fish and destroys the livelihoods of others cannot be used to challenge those rights. There is not government regulation allowed to prevent that from happening. Those harmed, if still alive, might try to sue but since they don't have standing in the other state they probably won't even get a hearing from a judge.

Taxation is another Libertarian pipe dream. The refuse to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them. So when they refuse to pay taxes to repair roads there are accidents that not only cost lives but impact the efficiency of corporations to receive raw materials and deliver finished goods. There are countless examples along these lines.

Worst of all Libertarians hate democracy. They don't want to have to obey laws passed by a democratically elected majority and signed into law if they don't agree with them. Libertarians don't want any laws that would infringe upon their individual rights, period. (Just read their manifesto, er, platform on the Libertarian Party website.)

There is something fundamentally wrong with Libertarianism to the point of being unAmerican. Personal individual rights only exist because others are willing to stand up for those rights just as it is the duty of every American to stand up for the rights of others. Libertarians don't want to stand up for the right of gays to have wedding cakes baked for them by businesses that bake wedding cakes if it goes against their religious beliefs about gays.

Unfortunately Libertarians just don't understand how the Constitution and their rights actually work. Instead they want to tear it all down in a "constitutional convention" and throw out all of the rules and regulations and start from scratch.

That is why Libertarians are, to all intents and purposes, unAmerican.

The Question to be Debated in this Discussion:

Is Libertarianism unAmerican? ​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

To say something's un-American, you'd have to be able to define or demonstrate what "being American" is.

Would say the person who says something's un-Americans is the only one un-American. We tolerate all ideas here, wanna be an atheist communist anarchist you're just as American as the Baptist Democrat for law and order.

The OP says that dictionary definitions will prevail.

Here are two that you could have looked up for yourself;

Un-american Define Un-american at Dictionary.com

un-American

adjective
1.
not American; not characteristic of or proper to the U.S.; foreign or opposed to the characters,values, standards, goals, etc., of the U.S.

Un-American Definition of un-American by Merriam-Webster

un–American

adjective un–Amer·i·can \ˌən-ə-ˈmer-ə-kən\

: not agreeing with American values, principles, or traditions

So what are American values, principles, or traditions?

Every foreign national's un-American by the first standard. And any American at all could claim to be representative of American values, principals, and traditions. Was HUAC and McCarthy "American?"

The context is the OP question about whether Libertarianism is un-american.

Given that America has never embraced any of the stated Libertarian values or principles nor does it have any tradition of Libertarianism the answer should be obvious to anyone who wants to honestly address the OP question.

That has to be one of the most uninformed posts ever on this forum.

The USA was founded on principles today's Libertarians espouse. So to make the absurd claim that Libertarian ideas have never been embraced by America, is pure stupidity.

Onus is on you to provide credible evidence to support your claim.

 

[Correll]

There was an article written on the Thom Hartmann website in 2011 called "Libertarianism - the Un-American Pipe Dream that Backfires".

It exposed the fundamental paradox of Libertarianism which can be summarized as having the ideal of absolute individual rights will always result in a complete loss of all of those rights.

None of the Libertarian ideals actually work in practice.

Remove all regulations on corporations and the subsequent pollution alone will end up destroying other corporations. For example if one state has a corporation that spews toxins into a river that runs downstream to a state where corporations depend upon fishing and tourism from that same river there is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents that from happening. The rights of the corporate owners to pump toxins into the river is absolute in a Libertarian Utopia. That it kills fish and destroys the livelihoods of others cannot be used to challenge those rights. There is not government regulation allowed to prevent that from happening. Those harmed, if still alive, might try to sue but since they don't have standing in the other state they probably won't even get a hearing from a judge.

Taxation is another Libertarian pipe dream. The refuse to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them. So when they refuse to pay taxes to repair roads there are accidents that not only cost lives but impact the efficiency of corporations to receive raw materials and deliver finished goods. There are countless examples along these lines.

Worst of all Libertarians hate democracy. They don't want to have to obey laws passed by a democratically elected majority and signed into law if they don't agree with them. Libertarians don't want any laws that would infringe upon their individual rights, period. (Just read their manifesto, er, platform on the Libertarian Party website.)

There is something fundamentally wrong with Libertarianism to the point of being unAmerican. Personal individual rights only exist because others are willing to stand up for those rights just as it is the duty of every American to stand up for the rights of others. Libertarians don't want to stand up for the right of gays to have wedding cakes baked for them by businesses that bake wedding cakes if it goes against their religious beliefs about gays.

Unfortunately Libertarians just don't understand how the Constitution and their rights actually work. Instead they want to tear it all down in a "constitutional convention" and throw out all of the rules and regulations and start from scratch.

That is why Libertarians are, to all intents and purposes, unAmerican.

The Question to be Debated in this Discussion:

Is Libertarianism unAmerican? ​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

I am having a serious problem believing a poster with a clown avatar wants a real debate.

Please acquaint yourself with the OP rules.

TYIA

My post seems covered by #8.

Every time you post, your avatar conveys a message of ridicule and bitter partisanship.

Am I supposed to pretend that isn't the reality of the situation while we have an high level intellectual debate?

Sounds like bs to me.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There was an article written on the Thom Hartmann website in 2011 called "Libertarianism - the Un-American Pipe Dream that Backfires".

It exposed the fundamental paradox of Libertarianism which can be summarized as having the ideal of absolute individual rights will always result in a complete loss of all of those rights.

None of the Libertarian ideals actually work in practice.

Remove all regulations on corporations and the subsequent pollution alone will end up destroying other corporations. For example if one state has a corporation that spews toxins into a river that runs downstream to a state where corporations depend upon fishing and tourism from that same river there is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents that from happening. The rights of the corporate owners to pump toxins into the river is absolute in a Libertarian Utopia. That it kills fish and destroys the livelihoods of others cannot be used to challenge those rights. There is not government regulation allowed to prevent that from happening. Those harmed, if still alive, might try to sue but since they don't have standing in the other state they probably won't even get a hearing from a judge.

Taxation is another Libertarian pipe dream. The refuse to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them. So when they refuse to pay taxes to repair roads there are accidents that not only cost lives but impact the efficiency of corporations to receive raw materials and deliver finished goods. There are countless examples along these lines.

Worst of all Libertarians hate democracy. They don't want to have to obey laws passed by a democratically elected majority and signed into law if they don't agree with them. Libertarians don't want any laws that would infringe upon their individual rights, period. (Just read their manifesto, er, platform on the Libertarian Party website.)

There is something fundamentally wrong with Libertarianism to the point of being unAmerican. Personal individual rights only exist because others are willing to stand up for those rights just as it is the duty of every American to stand up for the rights of others. Libertarians don't want to stand up for the right of gays to have wedding cakes baked for them by businesses that bake wedding cakes if it goes against their religious beliefs about gays.

Unfortunately Libertarians just don't understand how the Constitution and their rights actually work. Instead they want to tear it all down in a "constitutional convention" and throw out all of the rules and regulations and start from scratch.

That is why Libertarians are, to all intents and purposes, unAmerican.

The Question to be Debated in this Discussion:

Is Libertarianism unAmerican? ​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

I am having a serious problem believing a poster with a clown avatar wants a real debate.

Please acquaint yourself with the OP rules.

TYIA

My post seems covered by #8.

Every time you post, your avatar conveys a message of ridicule and bitter partisanship.

Am I supposed to pretend that isn't the reality of the situation while we have an high level intellectual debate?

Sounds like bs to me.

You are deliberately deflecting from the OP topic and verging on ad homs.

Either address the topic or start your own thread about avatars.

 

[Correll]

There was an article written on the Thom Hartmann website in 2011 called "Libertarianism - the Un-American Pipe Dream that Backfires".

It exposed the fundamental paradox of Libertarianism which can be summarized as having the ideal of absolute individual rights will always result in a complete loss of all of those rights.

None of the Libertarian ideals actually work in practice.

Remove all regulations on corporations and the subsequent pollution alone will end up destroying other corporations. For example if one state has a corporation that spews toxins into a river that runs downstream to a state where corporations depend upon fishing and tourism from that same river there is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents that from happening. The rights of the corporate owners to pump toxins into the river is absolute in a Libertarian Utopia. That it kills fish and destroys the livelihoods of others cannot be used to challenge those rights. There is not government regulation allowed to prevent that from happening. Those harmed, if still alive, might try to sue but since they don't have standing in the other state they probably won't even get a hearing from a judge.

Taxation is another Libertarian pipe dream. The refuse to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them. So when they refuse to pay taxes to repair roads there are accidents that not only cost lives but impact the efficiency of corporations to receive raw materials and deliver finished goods. There are countless examples along these lines.

Worst of all Libertarians hate democracy. They don't want to have to obey laws passed by a democratically elected majority and signed into law if they don't agree with them. Libertarians don't want any laws that would infringe upon their individual rights, period. (Just read their manifesto, er, platform on the Libertarian Party website.)

There is something fundamentally wrong with Libertarianism to the point of being unAmerican. Personal individual rights only exist because others are willing to stand up for those rights just as it is the duty of every American to stand up for the rights of others. Libertarians don't want to stand up for the right of gays to have wedding cakes baked for them by businesses that bake wedding cakes if it goes against their religious beliefs about gays.

Unfortunately Libertarians just don't understand how the Constitution and their rights actually work. Instead they want to tear it all down in a "constitutional convention" and throw out all of the rules and regulations and start from scratch.

That is why Libertarians are, to all intents and purposes, unAmerican.

The Question to be Debated in this Discussion:

Is Libertarianism unAmerican? ​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

I am having a serious problem believing a poster with a clown avatar wants a real debate.

Please acquaint yourself with the OP rules.

TYIA

My post seems covered by #8.

Every time you post, your avatar conveys a message of ridicule and bitter partisanship.

Am I supposed to pretend that isn't the reality of the situation while we have an high level intellectual debate?

Sounds like bs to me.

You are deliberately deflecting from the OP topic and verging on ad homs.

Either address the topic or start your own thread about avatars.

I am not deliberately deflecting from the OP topic.

I am interested in libertarianism, which is why I clicked on the thread.

But, your avatar's message of ridicule and partisanship raised it's head as I attempted to read the thread.

I may return later to try again.

 

[dblack]

There was an article written on the Thom Hartmann website in 2011 called "Libertarianism - the Un-American Pipe Dream that Backfires".

It exposed the fundamental paradox of Libertarianism which can be summarized as having the ideal of absolute individual rights will always result in a complete loss of all of those rights.

None of the Libertarian ideals actually work in practice.

Remove all regulations on corporations and the subsequent pollution alone will end up destroying other corporations. For example if one state has a corporation that spews toxins into a river that runs downstream to a state where corporations depend upon fishing and tourism from that same river there is nothing in Libertarianism that prevents that from happening. The rights of the corporate owners to pump toxins into the river is absolute in a Libertarian Utopia. That it kills fish and destroys the livelihoods of others cannot be used to challenge those rights. There is not government regulation allowed to prevent that from happening. Those harmed, if still alive, might try to sue but since they don't have standing in the other state they probably won't even get a hearing from a judge.

Taxation is another Libertarian pipe dream. The refuse to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them. So when they refuse to pay taxes to repair roads there are accidents that not only cost lives but impact the efficiency of corporations to receive raw materials and deliver finished goods. There are countless examples along these lines.

Worst of all Libertarians hate democracy. They don't want to have to obey laws passed by a democratically elected majority and signed into law if they don't agree with them. Libertarians don't want any laws that would infringe upon their individual rights, period. (Just read their manifesto, er, platform on the Libertarian Party website.)

There is something fundamentally wrong with Libertarianism to the point of being unAmerican. Personal individual rights only exist because others are willing to stand up for those rights just as it is the duty of every American to stand up for the rights of others. Libertarians don't want to stand up for the right of gays to have wedding cakes baked for them by businesses that bake wedding cakes if it goes against their religious beliefs about gays.

Unfortunately Libertarians just don't understand how the Constitution and their rights actually work. Instead they want to tear it all down in a "constitutional convention" and throw out all of the rules and regulations and start from scratch.

That is why Libertarians are, to all intents and purposes, unAmerican.

The Question to be Debated in this Discussion:

Is Libertarianism unAmerican? ​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism including the OP.

I am having a serious problem believing a poster with a clown avatar wants a real debate.

Yeah. That's what a strawman does. Creates an "onus". Rather than play that game, I'll keep it positive. I agree with this part of the OP:

Personal individual rights only exist because others are willing to stand up for those rights just as it is the duty of every American to stand up for the rights of others.

My apologies for clipping it out of context, but it was necessary for it to make any sense.

 

[thanatos144]

Smoking drugs renting hookers and open borders is not the reason our founders made this country and this with no taxes is all libertarians really care about.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[gipper]

To say something's un-American, you'd have to be able to define or demonstrate what "being American" is.

Would say the person who says something's un-Americans is the only one un-American. We tolerate all ideas here, wanna be an atheist communist anarchist you're just as American as the Baptist Democrat for law and order.

The OP says that dictionary definitions will prevail.

Here are two that you could have looked up for yourself;

Un-american Define Un-american at Dictionary.com

un-American

adjective
1.
not American; not characteristic of or proper to the U.S.; foreign or opposed to the characters,values, standards, goals, etc., of the U.S.

Un-American Definition of un-American by Merriam-Webster

un–American

adjective un–Amer·i·can \ˌən-ə-ˈmer-ə-kən\

: not agreeing with American values, principles, or traditions

So what are American values, principles, or traditions?

Every foreign national's un-American by the first standard. And any American at all could claim to be representative of American values, principals, and traditions. Was HUAC and McCarthy "American?"

The context is the OP question about whether Libertarianism is un-american.

Given that America has never embraced any of the stated Libertarian values or principles nor does it have any tradition of Libertarianism the answer should be obvious to anyone who wants to honestly address the OP question.

That has to be one of the most uninformed posts ever on this forum.

The USA was founded on principles today's Libertarians espouse. So to make the absurd claim that Libertarian ideas have never been embraced by America, is pure stupidity.

Onus is on you to provide credible evidence to support your claim.

It is rather simple, my poor deluded leftist.

The Founding Fathers were libertarians as the term is understood today. They were not progressives like you. They were not conservatives...or marxists like Big Ears, or Neocons like most of the candidates running for POTUS...they were not socialists like Bernie.

They most fit the definition of Libertarian. The USA essentially was operating under libertarian policies for many of it's early years.

 

[SAYIT]

However from the pragmatic aspect if Libertarianism were to be implemented it would effectively destroy America as we know it today and that fits the definition of unAmericanism IMO.

It may not destroy America but it would certainly "fundamentally transform" it, much as out current Prez has tried to do.
That said, you and your article note many of the problems inherent in any absolute system ... no room for adjustments. I find most of your arguments would be just as effective in critiquing Socialism ... a noble idea (we should all take care of each other) that in practice, just doesn't work. I certainly see Socialism as un-American.

 

[Derideo_Te]

However from the pragmatic aspect if Libertarianism were to be implemented it would effectively destroy America as we know it today and that fits the definition of unAmericanism IMO.

It may not destroy America but it would certainly "fundamentally transform" it, much as out current Prez has tried to do.
That said, you and your article note many of the problems inherent in any absolute system ... no room for adjustments. I find most of your arguments would be just as effective in critiquing Socialism ... a noble idea (we should all take care of each other) that in practice, just doesn't work. I certainly see Socialism as un-American.

I agree that the problem is absolutism.

Libertarianism is the mirror opposite of Communism and is just as likely to collapse in practice because it is an absolute system without any room for adjustments.

The political systems that do work the best are hybrids IMO. There are positives and negatives to all of them and the answer is to find the happy medium.

Libertarianism fails because it trashes all regulations and all forms of social welfare thereby moving society back into feudalism where he who had the most gold made the rules and everyone else just had to suffer.

America is succeeding because it grants the power to We the People instead. The Constitution gives We the People the power to decide for ourselves what we need. Almost every regulation is there because someone or some corporation has tried to exploit the system and cause harm to others.

Without those regulations that Libertarians want to trash we would have anarchy.

 

[dblack]

Without those regulations that Libertarians want to trash we would have anarchy.

Incorrect.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Without those regulations that Libertarians want to trash we would have anarchy.

Incorrect.

Meaningless response.

 

[dblack]

Without those regulations that Libertarians want to trash we would have anarchy.

Incorrect.

Meaningless response.

Means your statement was factually wrong. As in not true. Like many of the claims you keep holding up as givens.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Without those regulations that Libertarians want to trash we would have anarchy.

Incorrect.

Meaningless response.

Means your statement was factually wrong. As in not true. Like many of the claims you keep holding up as givens.

The Libertarian party platform states that they want to deregulate and trash all forms of social welfare.

So is the Libertarian Party "factually wrong" about what they are posting as their stated platform?

 

[dblack]

Without those regulations that Libertarians want to trash we would have anarchy.

Incorrect.

Meaningless response.

Means your statement was factually wrong. As in not true. Like many of the claims you keep holding up as givens.

The Libertarian party platform states that they want to deregulate and trash all forms of social welfare.

So is the Libertarian Party "factually wrong" about what they are posting as their stated platform?

No. YOU are wrong in stating that "without those regulations that Libertarians want to trash we would have anarchy."

 

[Derideo_Te]

Without those regulations that Libertarians want to trash we would have anarchy.

Incorrect.

Meaningless response.

Means your statement was factually wrong. As in not true. Like many of the claims you keep holding up as givens.

The Libertarian party platform states that they want to deregulate and trash all forms of social welfare.

So is the Libertarian Party "factually wrong" about what they are posting as their stated platform?

No. YOU are wrong in stating that "without those regulations that Libertarians want to trash we would have anarchy."

So what is your Libertarian alternative that doesn't constitute anarchy?

 

[dblack]

Incorrect.

Meaningless response.

Means your statement was factually wrong. As in not true. Like many of the claims you keep holding up as givens.

The Libertarian party platform states that they want to deregulate and trash all forms of social welfare.

So is the Libertarian Party "factually wrong" about what they are posting as their stated platform?

No. YOU are wrong in stating that "without those regulations that Libertarians want to trash we would have anarchy."

So what is your Libertarian alternative that doesn't constitute anarchy?

Removing the regulations libertarians want to trash wouldn't constitute anarchy. So I'm not sure what you're fishing for.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Meaningless response.

Means your statement was factually wrong. As in not true. Like many of the claims you keep holding up as givens.

The Libertarian party platform states that they want to deregulate and trash all forms of social welfare.

So is the Libertarian Party "factually wrong" about what they are posting as their stated platform?

No. YOU are wrong in stating that "without those regulations that Libertarians want to trash we would have anarchy."

So what is your Libertarian alternative that doesn't constitute anarchy?

Removing the regulations libertarians want to trash wouldn't constitute anarchy. So I'm not sure what you're fishing for.

Explain exactly how your deregulated Libertarian Utopia will work in reality.

Give examples of how everything that is deregulated is going to be just hunky dory in your Libertarian Utopia.

Surely you must have figured out how it all works, right?

So what is stopping you from explaining how it actually works?

 

[dblack]

Means your statement was factually wrong. As in not true. Like many of the claims you keep holding up as givens.

The Libertarian party platform states that they want to deregulate and trash all forms of social welfare.

So is the Libertarian Party "factually wrong" about what they are posting as their stated platform?

No. YOU are wrong in stating that "without those regulations that Libertarians want to trash we would have anarchy."

So what is your Libertarian alternative that doesn't constitute anarchy?

Removing the regulations libertarians want to trash wouldn't constitute anarchy. So I'm not sure what you're fishing for.

Explain exactly how your deregulated Libertarian Utopia will work in reality.

I don't know exactly how it would work. But unless the government collapses, it wouldn't be anarchy. Your claim was ridiculous hyperbole.