Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[JakeStarkey]

The zombie food speaketh.

 

[bripat9643]

Our constitutional republic operates for We the People in our elected legislatures and our federal judiciary.

You corrupt the terms "freedom" and "liberty". You can't even define them.

Yeah, defining "freedom" as absence of government coercion is the ultimate corruption!

You sure are an entertaining clown, Fakey.

Sorry, buddy. Some of us kill zombies, and your type is dinner for them.

You are degrading yourself and your friends now

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

You kill me, Fakey!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Proves my point.

 

[bripat9643]

Right...And those demonic qualities automatically vanish into thin air the moment you become politician or bureaucrat...Especially if you're a liberoidal.

Far better than letting a Rockefeller or Morgan or Contumacious run wild, Oddball

Exactly how were Rockefeller and Morgan allowed to "run wild?" What did this "running wild" consist of, producing the cheapest, highest quality kerosene on the market?

 

[bripat9643]

Proves my point.

You have a point?

 

[bripat9643]

Politicians can be voted out. How do you get rid of a monopolist, if there's no strong authority to keep them in check? It's not like they don't have demonic qualities themselves.

Simple, you get some investors together and start producing whatever product the so-called "monopolist" is producing. Presto-chango, no more monopoly!

What "demonic qualities" did Rockefeller have, being smarter than his competitors?

 

[bripat9643]

Care to give us the deaths from bad food from 1890 to 1905 in the country, Contumacious?

Fifteen to twenty thousand annually?

We have sanitary violations all the time in our cities' food establishments.

Why don't you give them to us, Fakey? Have you got any actual statistics on that subject?

Now tell us how many people died from bad food from 2000 to 2012. It wasn't zero, was it? Why didn't your vaunted FDA put an end to all the bad food with its miraculous regulations?

 

[occupied]

It sounds like you're just grasping at straws trying to come up with any reason at all to justify dismissing libertarianism. "Oh, you're not selling it good enough, you must not really believe in it." Get real.

No I am directly attacking the image I have of your pathetic little movement of sad, surly loners, so far you are doing nothing to change my mind and claim not to care. This attitude of yours and others strikes me as pretty odd for a political movement, most of them know instinctively that they get no following by acting exclusive and refusing to sell their ideology. so far you are demonstrating that American libertarianism is a refuge for political cowards who never want to ever be put on the defensive.

That's because I don't care about changing your mind, and that's because I know that I can't. You've already stated that libertarianism is an "inevitable failure." So what exactly am I supposed to say to convince you that it's not? And why should I bother to try? First you complain about libertarians because some Republican losers claim to be libertarians, which has nothing to do with actual libertarians at all. Now your complaint is that we're not adequately convincing you we're right, or something. I'm not even sure. Regardless, you're going to dismiss us no matter what we say or do, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't take you as seriously as you'd like.

I also like how you're sticking with your "American libertarianism" descriptor, as opposed to "European libertarianism." Of which you can't name a single adherent.

There it is, the centerpiece of libertarian dogma, forever misunderstood outsiders who get to play the victim of the two party system every single time the voters foolishly vote for more of the same never to be even slightly responsible for the terrible state of our political landscape. There are far harsher critics than I and like usual it's my fault for not understanding. I understand your politics better than you do, there is nothing noble about playing the perpetual too cool for the room political hipster.

 

[bripat9643]

Kevin, I wish to believe that, but when I read some of the so-called libertarian postings, I have the feeling some would be quite willing to force others to submit.

Yeah, some libertarians would force people to be free. They would use guns to protect your right to do whatever you want.

Those bastards!

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think this thread is evidence of anything libertarians have done wrong. All I'm seeing is demagoguery, straw men, and nonsense from people who don't understand libertarianism, or are simply interested in smearing it. Either way, that says nothing about us.

Well, I don't know whether they understand it, but they deliberately smear the libertarian position on various issues. This indicates they believe the truth is too dangerous for people to be exposed to.

It's hard to understand the mentality that fears freedom. That is, so lone as if they aren't some kind of toady in the government employ. It's obvious why people getting a check from the government fear freedom. It's the same reason a farmer doesn't want his cows or his hogs to be free.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No I am directly attacking the image I have of your pathetic little movement of sad, surly loners, so far you are doing nothing to change my mind and claim not to care. This attitude of yours and others strikes me as pretty odd for a political movement, most of them know instinctively that they get no following by acting exclusive and refusing to sell their ideology. so far you are demonstrating that American libertarianism is a refuge for political cowards who never want to ever be put on the defensive.

That's because I don't care about changing your mind, and that's because I know that I can't. You've already stated that libertarianism is an "inevitable failure." So what exactly am I supposed to say to convince you that it's not? And why should I bother to try? First you complain about libertarians because some Republican losers claim to be libertarians, which has nothing to do with actual libertarians at all. Now your complaint is that we're not adequately convincing you we're right, or something. I'm not even sure. Regardless, you're going to dismiss us no matter what we say or do, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't take you as seriously as you'd like.

I also like how you're sticking with your "American libertarianism" descriptor, as opposed to "European libertarianism." Of which you can't name a single adherent.

There it is, the centerpiece of libertarian dogma, forever misunderstood outsiders who get to play the victim of the two party system every single time the voters foolishly vote for more of the same never to be even slightly responsible for the terrible state of our political landscape. There are far harsher critics than I and like usual it's my fault for not understanding. I understand your politics better than you do, there is nothing noble about playing the perpetual too cool for the room political hipster.

Yes, it's your fault for not understanding, and then passing judgement while criticizing us for not being able to convince you or work with others. For not understanding, and then pretending to have some great understanding of the topic. Yes, those are your fault, and your problem. I'm more than willing to discuss libertarianism with anybody at any time, but when they start making ridiculous claims that they can't back up and continually dismiss what I'm trying to say then I start to lose interest.

 

[Contumacious]

Really? Don't you want the country ran in a certain way? That involves selling your ideas in ways that do not make you sound like self obsessed pricks, it's the vibe I get most from people who make a big deal of being a libertarian.

We are ALWAYS going to sound like self obsessed pricks when trying to convinced those who have been lobotomized by 12 years of indoctrination:

Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.

–Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

.

 

[occupied]

That's because I don't care about changing your mind, and that's because I know that I can't. You've already stated that libertarianism is an "inevitable failure." So what exactly am I supposed to say to convince you that it's not? And why should I bother to try? First you complain about libertarians because some Republican losers claim to be libertarians, which has nothing to do with actual libertarians at all. Now your complaint is that we're not adequately convincing you we're right, or something. I'm not even sure. Regardless, you're going to dismiss us no matter what we say or do, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't take you as seriously as you'd like.

I also like how you're sticking with your "American libertarianism" descriptor, as opposed to "European libertarianism." Of which you can't name a single adherent.

There it is, the centerpiece of libertarian dogma, forever misunderstood outsiders who get to play the victim of the two party system every single time the voters foolishly vote for more of the same never to be even slightly responsible for the terrible state of our political landscape. There are far harsher critics than I and like usual it's my fault for not understanding. I understand your politics better than you do, there is nothing noble about playing the perpetual too cool for the room political hipster.

Yes, it's your fault for not understanding, and then passing judgement while criticizing us for not being able to convince you or work with others. For not understanding, and then pretending to have some great understanding of the topic. Yes, those are your fault, and your problem. I'm more than willing to discuss libertarianism with anybody at any time, but when they start making ridiculous claims that they can't back up and continually dismiss what I'm trying to say then I start to lose interest.

Stop making ridiculous statements and maybe I will not be so skeptical. You are right I did reject this crap long ago because you guys tend to be all attack all the time on everything and are yet terribly pathetic on defending your belief system. I have to defend my beliefs every day of the week on this board and I know it's tough but it builds character and makes one constantly re-examine their opinions, have you ever done that? Are you afraid that you might be proven wrong if you actually choose a side in a discussion?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarians cannot create a coherent belief system because they cannot agree on (1) the role of government and on (2) the role of protection of minority rights and (3) on the role of the use of force by government.

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarians cannot create a coherent belief system because they cannot agree on (1) the role of government and on (2) the role of protection of minority rights and (3) on the role of the use of force by government.

Comrade Starkey, do you find that socialism is less complex?

The government controls everything and keeps your belly fool.

Remember, go down to Key West , Florida and swim to Havana. Send me a post card from Cuba.

Enjoy paradise,

.

 

[bripat9643]

Libertarians cannot create a coherent belief system because they cannot agree on (1) the role of government and on (2) the role of protection of minority rights and (3) on the role of the use of force by government.

ROFL! If there is any ideology that has a consistent view on all those things, it's the libertarian ideology. What is the "consistent view" of your liberal Komrades on the role of the use of force by government? Common, Fakey, I challenge you to state it in 2-3 sentences, or even a paragraph.

 

[occupied]

Libertarians cannot create a coherent belief system because they cannot agree on (1) the role of government and on (2) the role of protection of minority rights and (3) on the role of the use of force by government.

Yes they are a political junkpile of extreme positions without the conviction to actually attempt to implement them and lacking the simplest ability to create consensus.

 

[konradv]

Politicians can be voted out. How do you get rid of a monopolist, if there's no strong authority to keep them in check? It's not like they don't have demonic qualities themselves.

Simple, you get some investors together and start producing whatever product the so-called "monopolist" is producing. Presto-chango, no more monopoly!

What "demonic qualities" did Rockefeller have, being smarter than his competitors?

Do some research. It's no secret he drove competitors into the ground by making deals with monopolists in other businesses that made it impossible to function normally. They had two choices, sell out or go bankrupt. It had nothing to do with delivering a better product, just acquiring power and cash. Sounds demonic to me.

 

[g5000]

We could certainly use a lot less government intrusion into our lives, and so there is a fairly strong libertarian bent in me.

However, I've been around Libertarians for 35 years or so, and know exactly where they are coming from, and they are propellerheads.

The problem with the Libertarian platform is its extremism. They would eliminate the FDA, the FAA, the USDA, all federal environmental and safety regulations, and many other useful government agencies. They would also shrink our military down to about the size of a cub scout troop.

Many people also disagree with the Libertarian belief that all guns and all drugs should be legal.

There's a little bit of something for everyone to hate in the Libertarian philosphy.

And that is why more people are not Libertarians.


.

 

[Samson]

Libertarians cannot create a coherent belief system because they cannot agree on (1) the role of government and on (2) the role of protection of minority rights and (3) on the role of the use of force by government.

Yes they are a political junkpile of extreme positions without the conviction to actually attempt to implement them and the lacking the simplist ability to create consensus.

From what I've read in this tread, some do not even comprehend enough basic economic theory to define a monopoly.

This is especially concerning since the libertarian platform, which I have quoted, specifically supports unfettered free markets, which have, not in theory, but in reality, spawned market monopolies.