Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

[Contumacious]

Exactly. The libertarian obsession with rugged individualism dismisses the dignity of the weak, sensitive, exposed, vulnerable, and thin-skinned.

If you're born on the fringe of society, libertarianism basically tosses you to the wolves.

Oh, I see. You are allegedly concern about the majorities' right to tyrannize and enslave minorities.

Yep, I disagree.

Thank god for my assault rifle and high capacity magazine.

.

No. I'm concerned that the majority will only care about the rugged. Anyone who's too weak to be bothered will be forgotten unless they conform to authority.

You do understand that the "weak" constitutes the majority and now control the domestic armies?!?!?

.

 

[Daktoria]

Oh, I see. You are allegedly concern about the majorities' right to tyrannize and enslave minorities.

Yep, I disagree.

Thank god for my assault rifle and high capacity magazine.

.

No. I'm concerned that the majority will only care about the rugged. Anyone who's too weak to be bothered will be forgotten unless they conform to authority.

You do understand that the "weak" constitute the majority and now control the domestic armies?!?!?

No, I don't. Weakness today means an inability to endure spam and politically correct humor while failing to be a yes-man suck-up. Rugged means an ability to crack inside jokes over culture while hiding behind feminism, multiculturalism, pragmatism, and professionalism.

If you're not willing to endure emotional self-regulation today while depreciating your sense of self-respect, you're called egotistical and outcast from society.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's clear you don't understand libertarianism, and have no interest in learning. Your demagogic arguments have nothing to do with my beliefs.

I actually used to be a libertarian.

Then I thought it through and realized it's a bad idea.

Oh? And what made you a libertarian before?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Real libertarianism is built around what some justice described as "the right to be let alone". Basically that means most of the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul set are some other kind of "libertarian".

Further, real libertarianism is fairly close to Jeffersonian, or classic liberalism, which holds that the rights of the individual are paramount. If someone feels like dancing it doesn't matter what others think. On the other hand no real libertarian believes anyone has a right to speed through stop signs or holler "fire" in a crowded theater.

What tickles me is how different what passes for "liberal" and "conservative" today is from what those words meant before 1980. Reagan tripled the national debt in peacetime, something not done before or since but is hailed by halfwits as a "conservative" while Clinton balanced the budget on the backs of the blue collar middle class and every credential hound fake-liberal fake-meritocrat cocksucker in America thinks he was a liberal.

Amusing, to say the least.

Based on what? How doesn't the "Ron Paul set" comply with wanting to be left alone?

 

[Daktoria]

It's clear you don't understand libertarianism, and have no interest in learning. Your demagogic arguments have nothing to do with my beliefs.

I actually used to be a libertarian.

Then I thought it through and realized it's a bad idea.

Oh? And what made you a libertarian before?

Rational choice.

Then, I realized everyone isn't rational. Some have more emotions than their thoughts can handle, and others only think for themselves instead of thinking about thoughtfulness.

The rule of law has to protect the rational from the irrational.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I actually used to be a libertarian.

Then I thought it through and realized it's a bad idea.

Oh? And what made you a libertarian before?

Rational choice.

Then, I realized everyone isn't rational. Some have more emotions than their thoughts can handle, and others only think for themselves instead of thinking about thoughtfulness.

The rule of law has to protect the rational from the irrational.

I'm not sure what you mean by protect the rational from the irrational, but there's no libertarian who doesn't believe in the rule of law.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Theoretical Libertarianism falls down for exactlty the same reason theoretical Communism does.

Both theories are based on the theory that human nature will change to fit into the needs of that system.

If you think, as one example, that the regulated will hire regulators who will play the game of regulating honestly?

then perhaps you truly do NOT understand what happened when the BANKS hired their own regulators MOODYS and STARDARD AND POOR to evaluate the RISK associated with derivatives.

THAT complete failure to regulate (assess risk) was a perfect example of why libertarianism will FAIL to serve a society well.

There is no connection whatever between libertarianism and the crash of ReagaNUTism in 2008.

The last people to base an important political theory on human nature died 200 years ago or more. Modern libertarianism before religious nutballs got involved was akin to Jeffersonian liberalism and the rights of the individual vis a vis the rights of the community.

The easiest elimination tests are these: if you believe zoning is good, then you cannot be a libertarian. If you believe government has a role in family planning, then you cannot be a libertarian. If you believe zoning breaches your property rights and you don't believe government has a legitimate role in your family's reproductive habits, then maybe you might be a libertarian.

 

[Daktoria]

Oh? And what made you a libertarian before?

Rational choice.

Then, I realized everyone isn't rational. Some have more emotions than their thoughts can handle, and others only think for themselves instead of thinking about thoughtfulness.

The rule of law has to protect the rational from the irrational.

I'm not sure what you mean by protect the rational from the irrational, but there's no libertarian who doesn't believe in the rule of law.

One, many libertarians are an-caps.

Two, everyone isn't a libertarian.

Libertarians don't account for non-libertarians in society.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Paulist fake-libertarians support states regulating family planning.

Real libertarians say "Bzzzt."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Rational choice.

Then, I realized everyone isn't rational. Some have more emotions than their thoughts can handle, and others only think for themselves instead of thinking about thoughtfulness.

The rule of law has to protect the rational from the irrational.

I'm not sure what you mean by protect the rational from the irrational, but there's no libertarian who doesn't believe in the rule of law.

One, many libertarians are an-caps.

Two, everyone isn't a libertarian.

Libertarians don't account for non-libertarians in society.

Anarcho-capitalists believe in the rule of law as well. They simply believe in what they refer to as private law.

Your second point is irrelevant, as we're discussing libertarians.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wow...this might be the STUPIDEST post ever made here.

wow! you just stole the brass ring.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They want the state to regulate family planning.

Real libertarians say "Bzzzt."

Who are you referring to?

 

[nitroz]

Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

A traveler ran out of a hotel, threw is bags into a cab. He then jumped into the cab and shouted “take me to the airport as fast as you can”!!

The driver pulled out from the curb and quickly accelerated. The cab reached 90+ and the driver made no effort to slow it down for intersections.

When the cab began running through red lights, the traveler cried out in terror,
“I’m in a hurry but don’t get us killed”!!!

The drive casually answered “relax; I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.
This continued one red light after another.
To all of the terrorized traveler’s cries, the driver’s answer was always the same; “I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.

That was until they reached a green light intersection where the driver executed a severe emergency stop.
The passenger lifted his bloody head off the cab’s floor and screamed, “You go through one red light after another at over 90MPH and when you’re doing more or less than 100MPH you then come to an immediate halt for a green light! WHY!!

The driver answered “We must stop here at this intersection. My brother drives on that other road”.

That’s the fault I find with your Libertarian contention that you and all others be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted individual good judgment. That strategy leaves all of us others dependent upon not encountering you or one of your brothers on some dark night.

That’s among the reasons most of us are not Libertarians or anarchists.

Respectfully, Supposn

Cool beans, broski.

 

[Daktoria]

I'm not sure what you mean by protect the rational from the irrational, but there's no libertarian who doesn't believe in the rule of law.

One, many libertarians are an-caps.

Two, everyone isn't a libertarian.

Libertarians don't account for non-libertarians in society.

Anarcho-capitalists believe in the rule of law as well. They simply believe in what they refer to as private law.

Your second point is irrelevant, as we're discussing libertarians.

An-caps don't have an explanation for how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies or affording polycentric law.

The second point pertains to non-libertarians victimizing libertarians, not merely libertarians interacting among themselves.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So you are not a Libertarian because you know nothing about the party or its platform...
OK, I get it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

One, many libertarians are an-caps.

Two, everyone isn't a libertarian.

Libertarians don't account for non-libertarians in society.

Anarcho-capitalists believe in the rule of law as well. They simply believe in what they refer to as private law.

Your second point is irrelevant, as we're discussing libertarians.

An-caps don't have an explanation for how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies or affording polycentric law.

The second point pertains to non-libertarians victimizing libertarians, not merely libertarians interacting among themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies..." How are people now respected before they call the police? As for them not having an explanation, apparently you've never read Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Murray Rothbard.

Murray N. Rothbard :: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

That book goes into great detail regarding nearly every aspect of the anarcho-capitalist idea of how society would function.

As non-libertarians would be held to the same standards as libertarians, it's still an irrelevant point.

 

[Oddball]

An-caps don't have an explanation for how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies or affording polycentric law.

The second point pertains to non-libertarians victimizing libertarians, not merely libertarians interacting among themselves.

Fake ex-libertarian collectivist authoritarians don't have an explanation for how waving a gun in someone's face demanding respect is respectful.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why I Ain’t a Libertarian

A traveler ran out of a hotel, threw is bags into a cab. He then jumped into the cab and shouted “take me to the airport as fast as you can”!!

The driver pulled out from the curb and quickly accelerated. The cab reached 90+ and the driver made no effort to slow it down for intersections.

When the cab began running through red lights, the traveler cried out in terror,
“I’m in a hurry but don’t get us killed”!!!

The drive casually answered “relax; I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.
This continued one red light after another.
To all of the terrorized traveler’s cries, the driver’s answer was always the same; “I’m an expert driver. I learned from my brother”.

That was until they reached a green light intersection where the driver executed a severe emergency stop.
The passenger lifted his bloody head off the cab’s floor and screamed, “You go through one red light after another at over 90MPH and when you’re doing more or less than 100MPH you then come to an immediate halt for a green light! WHY!!

The driver answered “We must stop here at this intersection. My brother drives on that other road”.

That’s the fault I find with your Libertarian contention that you and all others be permitted to exercise their own unrestricted individual good judgment. That strategy leaves all of us others dependent upon not encountering you or one of your brothers on some dark night.

That’s among the reasons most of us are not Libertarians or anarchists.

Respectfully, Supposn

What in the world are you talking about?

He is talking about how liberals believe no one should work, everyone should have at least 1 abortion and Government should run everything. Also that Conservatives want no regulations on markets, everyone should be required to buy a gun and everyone who does not accept God should be stoned to death.

Libertarianism has more in common with liberalism than conservatism. Just because a bunch of necons and other nitwits didn't want to be viewed as conservatives and decided to hide behind a misuse of Federalism and Libertarianism doesn't make them Federalists or Libertarians in nature or in reality.

It may be easier for fiscal conservatives who are uncomfortable with the conservative movement to rebrand themselves with the great masses, but I for one never bought into the bullshit.

Now we have social conservative running away from the conservative label and insisting they are libertarian as if that means NOT liberal.

wtf?

We even have Randian Nitwits, followers of Ayn fucking-nuts Rand claiming to be libertarian.

 

[Daktoria]

Anarcho-capitalists believe in the rule of law as well. They simply believe in what they refer to as private law.

Your second point is irrelevant, as we're discussing libertarians.

An-caps don't have an explanation for how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies or affording polycentric law.

The second point pertains to non-libertarians victimizing libertarians, not merely libertarians interacting among themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies..." How are people now respected before they call the police? As for them not having an explanation, apparently you've never read Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Murray Rothbard.

Murray N. Rothbard :: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

That book goes into great detail regarding nearly every aspect of the anarcho-capitalist idea of how society would function.

As non-libertarians would be held to the same standards as libertarians, it's still an irrelevant point.

I'm not going to read a whole book. If you have a citation to make, go for it. The fact remains that you're being an elitist over affordability. People cannot afford private security agencies or polycentric law by default from being born unless they inherited some estate.

You haven't proven how non-libertarians would be held to standards either. That's literally my point here. Without taxes and police, there is no guaranteed holding of standards. You're forcing people to assume the risk.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

An-caps don't have an explanation for how people are respected in advance of contracting private security agencies or affording polycentric law.

The second point pertains to non-libertarians victimizing libertarians, not merely libertarians interacting among themselves.

Fake ex-libertarian collectivist authoritarians don't have an explanation for how waving a gun in someone's face demanding respect is respectful.

the convoluted world of an Oddball Dude