Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[Intense]

kevin, libertarianism will continue an insignificant political modern-day phenomenon until your disparate comrades can create a coherent and consistent philosophy and platform.

I don't know about insignificant. When has libertarianism ever been more popular than it is right now? Never? That doesn't mean that libertarianism is dominating the conversation in the country, or anywhere close to it, of course, but it is certainly a part of the conversation at the highest levels.

Just a little anecdotal evidence, my American Political Theory professor, not a libertarian by any stretch, said he was considering adding Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" to his reading list in future semesters, obviously due to the popularity that libertarianism is gaining. Obviously nothing to write home about, but still a positive development I think.

Also, I think the trend for libertarianism at the moment is only upwards for the moment.

But that does not vault the hurdle: only when and if libertarians develops a consistent and coherent philosophy and platform will it become significant in the American narrative.

Jake, what is significant about Libertarian Principles in the process is having a voice, in stating what needs to be said, and otherwise wouldn't be said. That alone should give you pause. I know it's asking a lot, you are too driven by agenda to notice the casualties of out of balance policies, but one can only hope.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one said it better than Thomas Paine



"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." -
-- Thomas Paine

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Libertarians would not seek to tell France what they should do with their foreign policy. If they want to help the colonies that's their business.

I never said non-interventionism was blind indifference, but you're wrong about libertarians not wanting to sit out WWII. H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock are perfect examples of libertarians who would have preferred the U.S. actually adopt a policy of neutrality during that conflict.

>>>Libertarians would not seek to tell France what they should do with their foreign policy. If they want to help the colonies that's their business.
Libertarians, such as yourself, are hypocritical?

>>> I never said non-interventionism was blind indifference
Glad we agree.

>>> H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock are perfect examples of libertarians who would have preferred the U.S. actually adopt a policy of neutrality during that conflict.
Perfect to you maybe. Though I can see how many pacifists would trend to the libertarian ideal of limited government, not all libertarians are "pacifists" to a fault of refusing to defend one's neighbors from violent attack.

Neither Mencken nor Nock were pacifists.

Nor are most libertarians. Libertarians believe in the right to self preservation. The difference is in the initiation of force and violence. Again, libertarians adhere to the NAP, but most certainly believe in the right to engage in defense against such acts.

This is the type of constant false narrative that perpetuates discussions of libertarianism. Whether it be by ignorance, or by deliberately warping narrative.

 

[bripat9643]

Are you one of "those" people who don't understand the difference between a republic with a limited federal government and a simple majority led democracy?

(1) Are you aware the former is not libertarian and (2) unaware of our national narrative?

What the fuck is the "national narrative?" Is that an imaginary conversation you're having with yourself?

 

[bripat9643]

you talking to me?


LIBERTARIANS hate the government.

did you forget that?

They certainly hate the totalitarian monstrosity we currently all suffer under. It doesn't follow that they hate all government.

see Im right

So they hate the government. So what? Any decent human being hates the government we currently all suffer under.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

TM, you would do us all a favor by exiting the conversation. You do not add to it, you distract from it. Your game of repeater has been heard enough. There is no reason to taint every discussion on the board with your constant drivel.

 

[bripat9643]

they hate the govenment we have.

It is the government the founders left us.

they pretend it is not.

they are wrong.

not many americans agree with them

Our current government bares no resemblance to the one the Founders gave us. Lincoln destroyed that in 1861 when he invaded the Southern States. Our original government was a voluntary confederation of states where the federal government was limited to providing a defense against foreign aggressors and conducting international relations and trade negotiations.

 

[bripat9643]

Libertarians would not seek to tell France what they should do with their foreign policy. If they want to help the colonies that's their business.

I never said non-interventionism was blind indifference, but you're wrong about libertarians not wanting to sit out WWII. H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock are perfect examples of libertarians who would have preferred the U.S. actually adopt a policy of neutrality during that conflict.

>>>Libertarians would not seek to tell France what they should do with their foreign policy. If they want to help the colonies that's their business.
Libertarians, such as yourself, are hypocritical?

>>> I never said non-interventionism was blind indifference
Glad we agree.

>>> H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock are perfect examples of libertarians who would have preferred the U.S. actually adopt a policy of neutrality during that conflict.
Perfect to you maybe. Though I can see how many pacifists would trend to the libertarian ideal of limited government, not all libertarians are "pacifists" to a fault of refusing to defend one's neighbors from violent attack.

Neither Mencken nor Nock were pacifists.

Correct. Mencken simply believed we had no business taking sides in a European dispute.

 

[JWBooth]

From the posts quoted here it appears that the lair! known as Truthmatters has dipped into the sterno a little earlier today than usual.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Anyone who equates libertarianism with anarchy is a fucking idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't know about insignificant. When has libertarianism ever been more popular than it is right now? Never? That doesn't mean that libertarianism is dominating the conversation in the country, or anywhere close to it, of course, but it is certainly a part of the conversation at the highest levels.

Just a little anecdotal evidence, my American Political Theory professor, not a libertarian by any stretch, said he was considering adding Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" to his reading list in future semesters, obviously due to the popularity that libertarianism is gaining. Obviously nothing to write home about, but still a positive development I think.

Also, I think the trend for libertarianism at the moment is only upwards for the moment.

But that does not vault the hurdle: only when and if libertarians develops a consistent and coherent philosophy and platform will it become significant in the American narrative.

Comrade Starkiev, you and your ilk define a "coherent philosophy and platform" as once which supports the welfare/warfare state. Not gonna happen. .

SturmLeader Conty, that does not even make sense. You want to lead? You have to give the voter something worthwhile to vote for. You have not done that yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't know about insignificant. When has libertarianism ever been more popular than it is right now? Never? That doesn't mean that libertarianism is dominating the conversation in the country, or anywhere close to it, of course, but it is certainly a part of the conversation at the highest levels.

Just a little anecdotal evidence, my American Political Theory professor, not a libertarian by any stretch, said he was considering adding Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" to his reading list in future semesters, obviously due to the popularity that libertarianism is gaining. Obviously nothing to write home about, but still a positive development I think.

Also, I think the trend for libertarianism at the moment is only upwards for the moment.

But that does not vault the hurdle: only when and if libertarians develops a consistent and coherent philosophy and platform will it become significant in the American narrative.

Jake, what is significant about Libertarian Principles in the process is having a voice, in stating what needs to be said, and otherwise wouldn't be said. That alone should give you pause. I know it's asking a lot, you are too driven by agenda to notice the casualties of out of balance policies, but one can only hope.

Intense, of course you should have a voice. But your agenda driven arguments ignore the real facts: (1) you don't have a consistent philosophy and platform and (2) the voters think the Dems and the Pubs do.

That is your hurdle to vault.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you one of "those" people who don't understand the difference between a republic with a limited federal government and a simple majority led democracy?

(1) Are you aware the former is not libertarian and (2) unaware of our national narrative?

What the fuck is the "national narrative?" Is that an imaginary conversation you're having with yourself?

We are all aware that you don't comprehend, bripat.

 

[bripat9643]

But that does not vault the hurdle: only when and if libertarians develops a consistent and coherent philosophy and platform will it become significant in the American narrative.

Comrade Starkiev, you and your ilk define a "coherent philosophy and platform" as once which supports the welfare/warfare state. Not gonna happen. .

SturmLeader Conty, that does not even make sense. You want to lead? You have to give the voter something worthwhile to vote for. You have not done that yet.

We understand that the concept of freedom doesn't make sense to you. The servile can never understand it. In your view "something worthwhile to vote for" means the rights of your fellow Americans. That's what is being auctioned off in every American election.

 

[bripat9643]

(1) Are you aware the former is not libertarian and (2) unaware of our national narrative?

What the fuck is the "national narrative?" Is that an imaginary conversation you're having with yourself?

We are all aware that you don't comprehend, bripat.

You are "aware" of all manner of things that no one else can see.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Comrade Starkiev, you and your ilk define a "coherent philosophy and platform" as once which supports the welfare/warfare state. Not gonna happen. .

SturmLeader Conty, that does not even make sense. You want to lead? You have to give the voter something worthwhile to vote for. You have not done that yet.

We understand that the concept of freedom doesn't make sense to you. The servile can never understand it. In your view "something worthwhile to vote for" means the rights of your fellow Americans. That's what is being auctioned off in every American election.

bripat, you are a bootlicker, one of the worst here. That aside, you have to come up with a program Americans will vote for. The libertarians have not done that or have done it but not communicated it well.

 

[bripat9643]

But that does not vault the hurdle: only when and if libertarians develops a consistent and coherent philosophy and platform will it become significant in the American narrative.

Jake, what is significant about Libertarian Principles in the process is having a voice, in stating what needs to be said, and otherwise wouldn't be said. That alone should give you pause. I know it's asking a lot, you are too driven by agenda to notice the casualties of out of balance policies, but one can only hope.

Intense, of course you should have a voice. But your agenda driven arguments ignore the real facts: (1) you don't have a consistent philosophy and platform and (2) the voters think the Dems and the Pubs do.

That is your hurdle to vault.

what could be more hilarious than your belief that you have a consistent philosophy and platform? You don't even know what your philosophy is. You certainly couldn't state it in a single paragraph. Neither the Pubs nor the Dims have any kind of "consistent" philosophy - unless you count communism in the case of the Dims.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

But that does not vault the hurdle: only when and if libertarians develops a consistent and coherent philosophy and platform will it become significant in the American narrative.

Comrade Starkiev, you and your ilk define a "coherent philosophy and platform" as once which supports the welfare/warfare state. Not gonna happen. .

SturmLeader Conty, that does not even make sense. You want to lead? You have to give the voter something worthwhile to vote for. You have not done that yet.

In other words, what he said. You want libertarians to come up with a platform that perpetuates everything they stand against; the warfare/welfare state. I don't believe you understand the libertarian platform in any way shape or form. One must understand freedom for that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake, what is significant about Libertarian Principles in the process is having a voice, in stating what needs to be said, and otherwise wouldn't be said. That alone should give you pause. I know it's asking a lot, you are too driven by agenda to notice the casualties of out of balance policies, but one can only hope.

Intense, of course you should have a voice. But your agenda driven arguments ignore the real facts: (1) you don't have a consistent philosophy and platform and (2) the voters think the Dems and the Pubs do.

That is your hurdle to vault.

what could be more hilarious than your belief that you have a consistent philosophy and platform? You don't even know what your philosophy is. You certainly couldn't state it in a single paragraph. Neither the Pubs nor the Dims have any kind of "consistent" philosophy - unless you count communism in the case of the Dims.

None of which addresses the problem that you liberts can't put together a comprehensive platform and policy directive.

Hint: those opposed to your philosophy are not going to help you, bripat.

 

[Intense]

But that does not vault the hurdle: only when and if libertarians develops a consistent and coherent philosophy and platform will it become significant in the American narrative.

Jake, what is significant about Libertarian Principles in the process is having a voice, in stating what needs to be said, and otherwise wouldn't be said. That alone should give you pause. I know it's asking a lot, you are too driven by agenda to notice the casualties of out of balance policies, but one can only hope.

Intense, of course you should have a voice. But your agenda driven arguments ignore the real facts: (1) you don't have a consistent philosophy and platform and (2) the voters think the Dems and the Pubs do.

That is your hurdle to vault.

My philosophy and platform is consistent, it's based and rooted in Conscience. I do not subscribe to the all or nothing philosophy of any group. No construct is of more value than It's purpose, choosing between the two, in a conflict, is not a hard choice, when you have your bearings, Jake. I am not Libertarian, Jake. That is not to say that I don't value at least some of their platform. Again it is about Voice, which translates to knowledge, and a better informed decision. Take a break from trying to drown out so much, and you might benefit from it.