The question libertarians just can’t answer

[Oddball]

This is patently false. Many libertarians, including many anarcho-capitalists, hold the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1776-1787, with a certain fondness, and one could even argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is libertarian as well, though perhaps not as good as the Articles.

There's a reason that period only lasted 11 years. And it really only lasted a little over 5 years. From the end of the war in 1781 to the Convention of 1787.

There would not even be a United States today if we had continued on that path.

So to look back with a "certain fondness" on that period is to be willfully blind to the realities which necessitated the end of that foolish experiment. If there is one thing I have learned about Libertarians, it is they do not live in the real world and wear rose colored welder's glasses when viewing the past.

As noted in the Preamble, the Constitution was written and enacted to further perfect the Articles of Confederation, not repeal them.

Next ill-informed straw man argument, anyone?

 

[Oddball]

This is patently false. Many libertarians, including many anarcho-capitalists, hold the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1776-1787, with a certain fondness, and one could even argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is libertarian as well, though perhaps not as good as the Articles.

There's a reason that period only lasted 11 years. And it really only lasted a little over 5 years. From the end of the war in 1781 to the Convention of 1787.

There would not even be a United States today if we had continued on that path.

So to look back with a "certain fondness" on that period is to be willfully blind to the realities which necessitated the end of that foolish experiment. If there is one thing I have learned about Libertarians, it is they do not live in the real world and wear rose colored welder's glasses when viewing the past.

The Articles were not perfect, by any stretch, but the only way they "failed" is in the fact that they did not create a national government with enough power to satisfy the likes of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and their ilk. They were scrapped simply because they did not allow people to use the national government for their benefit, as Hamilton would later do under the Constitution.

When were the Articles of Confederation repealed?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Though I am a libertarian, I don't think honest objectivity and maturity are necessarily libertarian. One can be honestly objective and mature and not be a libertarian, and one can be deceitful and immature and be a libertarian.

I think he just was saying that people would have to be those things for libertarianism to work, not that those things make one a libertarian. I'm not arguing that's true, in fact I disagree with it. I'm just pointing out that isn't what he meant.

Entirely possible that I misread his post.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Slavery was also propped up by government in the first place. There never was any "nonintervention" when it came to the Great Depression, as Herbert Hoover was the first new dealer.

In fact without government, slavery could not have happened as slaves could have run away and could not have been forced back. ONLY government had that power. Government ended that which it did.

Which is why in fact the founders wrote the Constitution to limit government to enumerated powers. They were not trying to get liberty out of government, they were trying to protect liberty from government.

This was, in fact, one of the complaints of the southern states upon seceding, that the northern states were nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act and refusing to return escaped slaves.

 

[Avorysuds]

Lets get real. Would a racist treat black patients?

Would a Texas NAACP President (Nelson Linder) come out in the open in defense of a racist?

Ron Paul defends blacks - YouTube

That old stuff proves nothing. Paul is a master manipulator.

And your not, hence no one believes the crap you make up daily. You voted for an openly racist person, Obama... So you have no credibility.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There's a reason that period only lasted 11 years. And it really only lasted a little over 5 years. From the end of the war in 1781 to the Convention of 1787.

There would not even be a United States today if we had continued on that path.

So to look back with a "certain fondness" on that period is to be willfully blind to the realities which necessitated the end of that foolish experiment. If there is one thing I have learned about Libertarians, it is they do not live in the real world and wear rose colored welder's glasses when viewing the past.

The Articles were not perfect, by any stretch, but the only way they "failed" is in the fact that they did not create a national government with enough power to satisfy the likes of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and their ilk. They were scrapped simply because they did not allow people to use the national government for their benefit, as Hamilton would later do under the Constitution.

When were the Articles of Confederation repealed?

I don't know that any states actively repealed the Articles of Confederation, but they certainly ceased to have any relevance to the federal government upon the Constitution's going into effect. Except for those states which held out until the very end, like Rhode Island and North Carolina, I suppose.

 

[Oddball]

If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?

It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?

The question libertarians just can?t answer - Salon.com

Libertarian Tom Woods answers this question on his blog, by asking a series of other questions.



?The Question Libertarians Just Can?t Answer? | Tom Woods

However, there are a few comments I'd like to make regarding the article.



Here we see that the author doesn't really have a firm grasp on libertarianism. Privatized Social Security and school vouchers are not libertarian-approved policies. A libertarian would not privatize Social Security, a libertarian would abolish Social Security and let people prepare for their own retirements in any way that they choose to do so. A libertarian is also uninterested in school vouchers, and would rather privatize education completely and let schools compete for the business of children's parents by offering different rates and styles of education.



As for this, my question is: Can the author point out to us one absolutely liberal or progressive country, and one absolutely conservative country? There are no such countries. Governments are never purely one ideology or another for any sustained period of time. The Soviet Union was forced to enact certain market reforms even under Lenin, and even today China's "communist" government openly embraces the market in many instances.



This is patently false. Many libertarians, including many anarcho-capitalists, hold the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1776-1787, with a certain fondness, and one could even argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is libertarian as well, though perhaps not as good as the Articles.

The Heritage Foundation is free to define economic freedom however it likes, by its own formula weighting government size, freedom of trade, absence of regulation and so on. What about factors other than economic freedom that shape the quality of life of citizens?

How about education? According to the CIA World Fact book, the U.S. spends more than Mauritius—5.4 percent of GDP in 2009 compared to only 3.7 percent in Mauritius in 2010. For the price of that extra expenditure, which is chiefly public, the U.S. has a literacy rate of 99 percent, compared to only 88.5 percent in economically-freer Mauritius.

Infant mortality? In economically-more-free Mauritius there are about 11 deaths per 1,000 live births—compared to 5.9 in the economically-less-free U.S. Maternal mortality in Mauritius is at 60 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared to 21 in the U.S. Economic liberty comes at a price in human survival, it would seem. Oh, well—at least Mauritius is economically free!

The only response to this is that correlation does not equal causation. That Mauritius is allegedly more economically free does not mean that that is the reason that their infant mortality rate is higher than the U.S.'s. Rather, it's likely that, even if they technically have a freer economy, their economy is not as developed as the United States. Nor is the Heritage Foundation claiming that Mauritius is better than the U.S. in general. Their claim has only to do with economic freedom, not development as a whole.

So basically, what we have here is a poor attempt to discredit libertarianism, which is easily answered as evidenced by Tom Woods' response, a series of incorrect statements regarding libertarianism and history, and a few illogical extrapolations from economic freedom indicies from a few conservative, not even libertarian, think tanks.

Simply,it takes a fair measure of honest objectivity and maturity in all things to be a libertarian. Man hasn't matured enough yet.

Interesting argument.

So, if we're not honest, objective and mature enough to live in a free libertarian society, what the hell is going on with a federal gubmint that wields the kind of absolute power over the American peasants that it does?...Are those politicians and bureaucrats deemed to be "honest, objective and mature" for no better reason that they can manage to get elected or appointed to political office?

Are you serious?

 

[Oddball]

The Articles were not perfect, by any stretch, but the only way they "failed" is in the fact that they did not create a national government with enough power to satisfy the likes of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and their ilk. They were scrapped simply because they did not allow people to use the national government for their benefit, as Hamilton would later do under the Constitution.

When were the Articles of Confederation repealed?

I don't know that any states actively repealed the Articles of Confederation, but they certainly ceased to have any relevance to the federal government upon the Constitution's going into effect. Except for those states which held out until the very end, like Rhode Island and North Carolina, I suppose.

That they were rendered irrelevant(?) doesn't mean that they were repealed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When were the Articles of Confederation repealed?

I don't know that any states actively repealed the Articles of Confederation, but they certainly ceased to have any relevance to the federal government upon the Constitution's going into effect. Except for those states which held out until the very end, like Rhode Island and North Carolina, I suppose.

That they were rendered irrelevant(?) doesn't mean that they were repealed.

Well I technically never said repealed, though I did say scrapped. The semantic argument notwithstanding, the Articles ceased to have any relevance, and it comes down to the same thing.

 

[g5000]

This is patently false. Many libertarians, including many anarcho-capitalists, hold the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States from 1776-1787, with a certain fondness, and one could even argue that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is libertarian as well, though perhaps not as good as the Articles.

There's a reason that period only lasted 11 years. And it really only lasted a little over 5 years. From the end of the war in 1781 to the Convention of 1787.

There would not even be a United States today if we had continued on that path.

So to look back with a "certain fondness" on that period is to be willfully blind to the realities which necessitated the end of that foolish experiment. If there is one thing I have learned about Libertarians, it is they do not live in the real world and wear rose colored welder's glasses when viewing the past.

As noted in the Preamble, the Constitution was written and enacted to further perfect the Articles of Confederation, not repeal them.

Next ill-informed straw man argument, anyone?

Nice try. The Constitution radically altered the government of the United States. Which is why the Convention in Philadelphia was held behind closed doors with utmost secrecy. Precisely because the participants were sent there to modity the Articles and instead chose to completely toss the Articles and draft an entirely new and different Constitution, which was a violation of the charter they had been tasked with.

Next historically ill-informed Libertarian argument, anyone?

 

[Bfgrn]

Uh huh. That's why the adult made a mountain of strawmen in the thread so big it would take two hours to rip apart. two hours Im certainly not going to spend trying to help you understand how much failure is in your understanding of free markets.

With that, you can kindly go fuck yourself. Twice.

OK. let's you and I discuss 'free markets' shall we? First of all that is a misnomer. There is no such thing as a 'free market' All markets are constructed and all markets have rules.

Do you understand the concept of stakeholders and the malfeasance created by absenteeism?

Markets are the construct of human action. That is, voluntary exchange of goods and services. Markets are not the construct of any other authority. All authoritarians do, is attempt to control human action by dictating rules through the use of force for compliance.

A free market means just that. People are allowed to enter into exchange with one another without interference or coercion from a thrid party.

Your giant post full of strawmen shows you dont understand this and believe that not only are thrid party interference and coercion good, but necessary.

A VERY, VERY immature view. The theory of a free market can work very well without a 3rd party or rules (what you call authority) under ideal (Utopian) circumstances. How? Where everyone is an equal 'stakeholder'. What does that mean? It means that your stakes serve as the 'authority'.

An example... a small community with a self sustaining local economy. Every member of that community is a stakeholder. They all contribute something to the economy and they all rely on others for what they don't produce. So, the blacksmith will not pollute the river, even though it would increase his profits to dump waste in the river instead of properly disposing of it. WHY? Because HE drinks from that river and he doesn't want to be ostracized and blackballed by other 'stakeholders' who he relies on for milk, meat, dry goods etc.

What is the malfeasance created by absenteeism?

Joe outsider builds a factory on that river. He doesn't drink from that river and he doesn't relies on 'stakeholders for milk, meat, dry goods etc.

He lives in another state, or another country. He is not a full stakeholder.

 

[g5000]

There's a reason that period only lasted 11 years. And it really only lasted a little over 5 years. From the end of the war in 1781 to the Convention of 1787.

There would not even be a United States today if we had continued on that path.

So to look back with a "certain fondness" on that period is to be willfully blind to the realities which necessitated the end of that foolish experiment. If there is one thing I have learned about Libertarians, it is they do not live in the real world and wear rose colored welder's glasses when viewing the past.

The Articles were not perfect, by any stretch, but the only way they "failed" is in the fact that they did not create a national government with enough power to satisfy the likes of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and their ilk. They were scrapped simply because they did not allow people to use the national government for their benefit, as Hamilton would later do under the Constitution.

When were the Articles of Confederation repealed?

Upon ratification of the Constitution. I thought Libertarians carried copies of the Constitution in their pockets?

 

[boilermaker55]

Or something like this from a lying republican
Reagan’s Racially-tinged Narratives
Reagan’s bogus tales of food stamps chiselers and welfare queens tended to employ racial imagery and often outright racist references to blacks (e.g., in telling a tale about food stamp fraud to a Southern audience, Reagan referred to a “young buck” (“buck” is a derogatory term used in the South to denote an African-American man) using his food stamps to buy T-bone steaks and to northern audiences he spoke of the apocryphal story of the “Cadillac-driving” Chicago welfare queen (Reagan's anecdotes were a wild distortion of the welfare fraud case involving a Chicago woman named Linda Taylor. These bogus stories were a double whammy: 1. They worked to break off a significant chunk of the white working class (the “Reagan Democrats”) by appealing to their worst instincts and fears; and 2. They served as a justification for Reagan’s economically regressive policies (also see the addendum)
If you dare read more but of course you are closed minded tea party insulting individual.
Ronald Reagan: Racism and Racial Politics
What made these narratives particularly toxic is that this race-baiting was justified by the argument that Reagan and his allies were trying to better the situation of racial minorities. Reagan repeated these fabrications years after they were debunked. Having been a Hollywood star, Reagan knew that stories are more powerful persuaders than facts.

Lets get real. Would a racist treat black patients?

Would a Texas NAACP President (Nelson Linder) come out in the open in defense of a racist?

Ron Paul defends blacks - YouTube

 

[Oddball]

The Articles were not perfect, by any stretch, but the only way they "failed" is in the fact that they did not create a national government with enough power to satisfy the likes of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and their ilk. They were scrapped simply because they did not allow people to use the national government for their benefit, as Hamilton would later do under the Constitution.

When were the Articles of Confederation repealed?

Upon ratification of the Constitution. I thought Libertarians carried copies of the Constitution in their pockets?

Where in the ratification process was the repeal of the Articles of Confederation enacted?

 

[Oddball]

OK. let's you and I discuss 'free markets' shall we? First of all that is a misnomer. There is no such thing as a 'free market' All markets are constructed and all markets have rules.

Do you understand the concept of stakeholders and the malfeasance created by absenteeism?

Markets are the construct of human action. That is, voluntary exchange of goods and services. Markets are not the construct of any other authority. All authoritarians do, is attempt to control human action by dictating rules through the use of force for compliance.

A free market means just that. People are allowed to enter into exchange with one another without interference or coercion from a thrid party.

Your giant post full of strawmen shows you dont understand this and believe that not only are thrid party interference and coercion good, but necessary.

A VERY, VERY immature view. The theory of a free market can work very well without a 3rd party or rules (what you call authority) under ideal (Utopian) circumstances. How? Where everyone is an equal 'stakeholder'. What does that mean? It means that your stakes serve as the 'authority'.

An example... a small community with a self sustaining local economy. Every member of that community is a stakeholder. They all contribute something to the economy and they all rely on others for what they don't produce. So, the blacksmith will not pollute the river, even though it would increase his profits to dump waste in the river instead of properly disposing of it. WHY? Because HE drinks from that river and he doesn't want to be ostracized and blackballed by other 'stakeholders' who he relies on for milk, meat, dry goods etc.

What is the malfeasance created by absenteeism?

Joe outsider builds a factory on that river. He doesn't drink from that river and he doesn't relies on 'stakeholders for milk, meat, dry goods etc.

He lives in another state, or another country. He is not a full stakeholder.

Wow....Where did you score the staggering payload of straw that you're tossing all over the place today?

 

[Ravi]

There's a reason that period only lasted 11 years. And it really only lasted a little over 5 years. From the end of the war in 1781 to the Convention of 1787.

There would not even be a United States today if we had continued on that path.

So to look back with a "certain fondness" on that period is to be willfully blind to the realities which necessitated the end of that foolish experiment. If there is one thing I have learned about Libertarians, it is they do not live in the real world and wear rose colored welder's glasses when viewing the past.

As noted in the Preamble, the Constitution was written and enacted to further perfect the Articles of Confederation, not repeal them.

Next ill-informed straw man argument, anyone?

Nice try. The Constitution radically altered the government of the United States. Which is why the Convention in Philadelphia was held behind closed doors with utmost secrecy. Precisely because the participants were sent there to modity the Articles and instead chose to completely toss the Articles and draft an entirely new and different Constitution, which was a violation of the charter they had been tasked with.

Next historically ill-informed Libertarian argument, anyone?

I guess we've never actually had transparency in government. Who would have thought.

 

[Bfgrn]

Or something like this from a lying republican
Reagan’s Racially-tinged Narratives
Reagan’s bogus tales of food stamps chiselers and welfare queens tended to employ racial imagery and often outright racist references to blacks (e.g., in telling a tale about food stamp fraud to a Southern audience, Reagan referred to a “young buck” (“buck” is a derogatory term used in the South to denote an African-American man) using his food stamps to buy T-bone steaks and to northern audiences he spoke of the apocryphal story of the “Cadillac-driving” Chicago welfare queen (Reagan's anecdotes were a wild distortion of the welfare fraud case involving a Chicago woman named Linda Taylor. These bogus stories were a double whammy: 1. They worked to break off a significant chunk of the white working class (the “Reagan Democrats”) by appealing to their worst instincts and fears; and 2. They served as a justification for Reagan’s economically regressive policies (also see the addendum)
If you dare read more but of course you are closed minded tea party insulting individual.
Ronald Reagan: Racism and Racial Politics
What made these narratives particularly toxic is that this race-baiting was justified by the argument that Reagan and his allies were trying to better the situation of racial minorities. Reagan repeated these fabrications years after they were debunked. Having been a Hollywood star, Reagan knew that stories are more powerful persuaders than facts.

Lets get real. Would a racist treat black patients?

Would a Texas NAACP President (Nelson Linder) come out in the open in defense of a racist?

Ron Paul defends blacks - YouTube

Reagan was the most divisive president in modern history. He came across as very likeable, but his message was toxic. He created a whole religion-like group of haters of anything 'government'.

This is one of the most telling videos for anyone who doesn't know Reagan was a puppet of his handlers.

Thank You Mr. President - 49 second video

Reagan and the press...

When President Reagan first took over the oval office, we would throw questions at President Reagan, and he would answer them.

Well, his three top aides were apoplectic. They didn’t know what was coming out of his mouth. They taught the president to say “this is not a press conference”, and they had him quite trained on that.

And one day we asked him what was happening, and he said to us: “I can’t answer that”. We said ‘why’?

“Because they won’t let me”, he pointed to Baker, Meese and Deaver standing behind, very grim.

“They won’t let me”…I said, ‘but you’re the President’…


"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

 

[dblack]

Reagan has about as much to do with liberty as you do, Bf.

 

[Oddball]

There's a reason that period only lasted 11 years. And it really only lasted a little over 5 years. From the end of the war in 1781 to the Convention of 1787.

There would not even be a United States today if we had continued on that path.

So to look back with a "certain fondness" on that period is to be willfully blind to the realities which necessitated the end of that foolish experiment. If there is one thing I have learned about Libertarians, it is they do not live in the real world and wear rose colored welder's glasses when viewing the past.

As noted in the Preamble, the Constitution was written and enacted to further perfect the Articles of Confederation, not repeal them.

Next ill-informed straw man argument, anyone?

Nice try. The Constitution radically altered the government of the United States. Which is why the Convention in Philadelphia was held behind closed doors with utmost secrecy. Precisely because the participants were sent there to modity the Articles and instead chose to completely toss the Articles and draft an entirely new and different Constitution, which was a violation of the charter they had been tasked with.

Next historically ill-informed Libertarian argument, anyone?

Radically altered is not the same as outright repeal.

Even though progressives have radically altered the nation with everything from the Federal Reserve to the NDAA, the Constitution is still, albeit terribly usurped, the law of the land.

 

[Dot Com]

libertarians? where are they? Other than Kevin_Kennedy and maybe one or two others, all we have here are Repub apologists

As to the OP, Tom Woods seems to have answered a question with a question which is a deflection