Debate Now Is Libertarianism UnAmerican?

[JakeStarkey]

Read the whole thread then.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Read the whole thread then.

10 pages of pointlessness. Pass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read the whole thread then.

10 pages of pointlessness. Pass.

OK.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Read the whole thread then.

10 pages of pointlessness. Pass.

OK.

Yeah, I suppose you don't want to waste your time looking through the thread either.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Libertarianism is not about absolutes. Libertarianism is about ensuring liberty, not ensuring anarchy. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take away someone else's liberty.

Libertarianism is about absolutes. It demands no government regulation of commerce. It demands no spending for welfare. Eliminating regulation for commerce and spending on welfare is a recipe for anarchy.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well since this is being structured as a "debate," somebody will have to give an objective definition of what exactly constitutes American in this sense. You're obviously not referring to nationality, but some ideal of Americanism. Since objectively defining such a thing is impossible the entire debate is moot.

Just read the preamble to the Constitution. Terms like a "more perfect union" and the "general welfare" are goals for "what exactly constitutes American in this sense".

 

[dblack]

Fair enough. RKM, why are libertarian unable to gain major traction in American politics?

That's a more interesting question that the strawmanning that makes up most of the thread.

First off, I'd say it's not established that libertarian ideas can't gain major traction in American politics. The libertarian influence seems to be growing, certainly if we go by the number of threads on the topic here. And I suspect that, as Democrats and Republicans reach for more and more authoritarian power (they can't seem to help themselves), we'll see move people getting fed up with the status quo.

But if you're wondering why no major libertarians candidates have achieved positions of power, well, it's because they don't want power. Certainly not as much as their D/R counterparts. They want to minimize the impact of government on society and those with a vested interest in government will never welcome them with open arms.

 

[RKMBrown]

Fair enough. RKM, why are libertarian unable to gain major traction in American politics?

Because once we let government take our income and beat us over the head with it, our voting system that was designed to keep two parties in power ended up being a system with two authoritarian parties that use our money to beat the "other" side so supposedly we can force the other side to do our bidding. That and the MSM has a vested interest in keeping it that way. Any talk of a third party is quickly laughed at by the media and both parties. You are told a vote for a third party is a vote for your worst enemy. FYI both republican and democrats started out with libertarian leaning views. Read the libertarian views I posted. They are not radical. They are about liberty.

Authoritarianism in a relatively new thing in American politics brought about by the folks who gave us great social improvements like segregation, bans on alcohol, drugs, and toilets that don't work.

 

[RKMBrown]

Libertarianism is not about absolutes. Libertarianism is about ensuring liberty, not ensuring anarchy. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take away someone else's liberty.

Libertarianism is about absolutes. It demands no government regulation of commerce. It demands no spending for welfare. Eliminating regulation for commerce and spending on welfare is a recipe for anarchy.

Liar.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well since this is being structured as a "debate," somebody will have to give an objective definition of what exactly constitutes American in this sense. You're obviously not referring to nationality, but some ideal of Americanism. Since objectively defining such a thing is impossible the entire debate is moot.

Just read the preamble to the Constitution. Terms like a "more perfect union" and the "general welfare" are goals for "what exactly constitutes American in this sense".

So objectively define "more perfect union" and "general welfare," and what if I disagree that we should look at the preamble to the Constitution to define this Americanism? Again, everything is too subjective. The term "anti-American" means absolutely nothing.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Libertarianism is not about absolutes. Libertarianism is about ensuring liberty, not ensuring anarchy. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take away someone else's liberty.

Libertarianism is about absolutes. It demands no government regulation of commerce. It demands no spending for welfare. Eliminating regulation for commerce and spending on welfare is a recipe for anarchy.

Liar.

Are you calling your own linked website a liar?

Poverty and Welfare Libertarian Party

1. End Welfare
None of the proposals currently being advanced by either conservatives or liberals is likely to fix the fundamental problems with our welfare system. Current proposals for welfare reform, including block grants, job training, and "workfare" represent mere tinkering with a failed system.

It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.

We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest.

2. Deregulate the healthcare industry.
We should repeal all government policies that increase health costs and decrease the availability of medical services. For example, every state has laws that mandate coverage of specific disabilities and diseases. These laws reduce consumer choice and increase the cost of health insurance. By making insurance more expensive, mandated benefits increase the number of uninsured American workers.

3. Remove barriers to safe, affordable medicines.
We should replace harmful government agencies like the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with more agile, free-market alternatives. The mission of the FDA is to protect us from unsafe medicines. In fact, the FDA has driven up healthcare costs and deprived millions of Americans of much-needed treatments. For example, during a 10-year delay in approving Propranolol (a heart medication for treating angina and hypertension), approximately 100,000 people died who could have been treated with this lifesaving drug. Bureaucratic roadblocks kill sick Americans.
​

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well since this is being structured as a "debate," somebody will have to give an objective definition of what exactly constitutes American in this sense. You're obviously not referring to nationality, but some ideal of Americanism. Since objectively defining such a thing is impossible the entire debate is moot.

Just read the preamble to the Constitution. Terms like a "more perfect union" and the "general welfare" are goals for "what exactly constitutes American in this sense".

So objectively define "more perfect union" and "general welfare," and what if I disagree that we should look at the preamble to the Constitution to define this Americanism? Again, everything is too subjective. The term "anti-American" means absolutely nothing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended.”

It is time to recognize that this is naïve and unwarranted, as is the case with much of libertarian dogma.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest.”

And this exhibits libertarian naivete and ignorance not just of public assistance – such as the fact that food stamps are not 'welfare' – but of basic economic principles as well.

Libertarianism is ridiculous and utopian, it is fearful, reactionary dogma devoid of merit and not worthy of consideration.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well since this is being structured as a "debate," somebody will have to give an objective definition of what exactly constitutes American in this sense. You're obviously not referring to nationality, but some ideal of Americanism. Since objectively defining such a thing is impossible the entire debate is moot.

Just read the preamble to the Constitution. Terms like a "more perfect union" and the "general welfare" are goals for "what exactly constitutes American in this sense".

So objectively define "more perfect union" and "general welfare," and what if I disagree that we should look at the preamble to the Constitution to define this Americanism? Again, everything is too subjective. The term "anti-American" means absolutely nothing.

Can you give an objective definition of any of the terms you're asking us to discuss? You can try to put lipstick on this pig by pretending you want a "serious" discussion on the subject, but the simple fact is that you just want to insult libertarians. So I suppose going by your purposes we can say that yes, libertarianism is un-American, as long as we understand "un-American" to mean that which Derideo_Te doesn't like. But, frankly, that's a boring discussion and meaningless.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Well since this is being structured as a "debate," somebody will have to give an objective definition of what exactly constitutes American in this sense. You're obviously not referring to nationality, but some ideal of Americanism. Since objectively defining such a thing is impossible the entire debate is moot.

Just read the preamble to the Constitution. Terms like a "more perfect union" and the "general welfare" are goals for "what exactly constitutes American in this sense".

So objectively define "more perfect union" and "general welfare," and what if I disagree that we should look at the preamble to the Constitution to define this Americanism? Again, everything is too subjective. The term "anti-American" means absolutely nothing.

Can you give an objective definition of any of the terms you're asking us to discuss? You can try to put lipstick on this pig by pretending you want a "serious" discussion on the subject, but the simple fact is that you just want to insult libertarians. So I suppose going by your purposes we can say that yes, libertarianism is un-American, as long as we understand "un-American" to mean that which Derideo_Te doesn't like. But, frankly, that's a boring discussion and meaningless.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well since this is being structured as a "debate," somebody will have to give an objective definition of what exactly constitutes American in this sense. You're obviously not referring to nationality, but some ideal of Americanism. Since objectively defining such a thing is impossible the entire debate is moot.

Just read the preamble to the Constitution. Terms like a "more perfect union" and the "general welfare" are goals for "what exactly constitutes American in this sense".

So objectively define "more perfect union" and "general welfare," and what if I disagree that we should look at the preamble to the Constitution to define this Americanism? Again, everything is too subjective. The term "anti-American" means absolutely nothing.

Can you give an objective definition of any of the terms you're asking us to discuss? You can try to put lipstick on this pig by pretending you want a "serious" discussion on the subject, but the simple fact is that you just want to insult libertarians. So I suppose going by your purposes we can say that yes, libertarianism is un-American, as long as we understand "un-American" to mean that which Derideo_Te doesn't like. But, frankly, that's a boring discussion and meaningless.

[/QUOTE]
Well it's good that you've given up on the idea that this is a real discussion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Just read the preamble to the Constitution. Terms like a "more perfect union" and the "general welfare" are goals for "what exactly constitutes American in this sense".

So objectively define "more perfect union" and "general welfare," and what if I disagree that we should look at the preamble to the Constitution to define this Americanism? Again, everything is too subjective. The term "anti-American" means absolutely nothing.

Can you give an objective definition of any of the terms you're asking us to discuss? You can try to put lipstick on this pig by pretending you want a "serious" discussion on the subject, but the simple fact is that you just want to insult libertarians. So I suppose going by your purposes we can say that yes, libertarianism is un-American, as long as we understand "un-American" to mean that which Derideo_Te doesn't like. But, frankly, that's a boring discussion and meaningless.

Well it's good that you've given up on the idea that this is a real discussion.[/QUOTE]

Patently obvious that you weren't interested in having one in the first place.

Have a nice day.

 

[Dot Com]

Libertarianism is not about absolutes. Libertarianism is about ensuring liberty, not ensuring anarchy. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take away someone else's liberty.

Libertarianism is about absolutes. It demands no government regulation of commerce. It demands no spending for welfare. Eliminating regulation for commerce and spending on welfare is a recipe for anarchy.

thats why only dopey college repubs and low-info militia-types believe its anything > a pipe dream.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So objectively define "more perfect union" and "general welfare," and what if I disagree that we should look at the preamble to the Constitution to define this Americanism? Again, everything is too subjective. The term "anti-American" means absolutely nothing.

Can you give an objective definition of any of the terms you're asking us to discuss? You can try to put lipstick on this pig by pretending you want a "serious" discussion on the subject, but the simple fact is that you just want to insult libertarians. So I suppose going by your purposes we can say that yes, libertarianism is un-American, as long as we understand "un-American" to mean that which Derideo_Te doesn't like. But, frankly, that's a boring discussion and meaningless.

Well it's good that you've given up on the idea that this is a real discussion.

Patently obvious that you weren't interested in having one in the first place.

Have a nice day.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect. There's nothing I enjoy more than getting sucked into a discussion of the nuances of libertarianism. There are ample threads on this board that prove that. The idea that there could be a rational discussion over whether libertarianism measures up to some imaginary, subjective nonsense, however, makes no sense.