Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[JakeStarkey]

Which is it, Fakey? Do you need a consistent philosophy or one the voters will approve? Do you maintain the two things are the same?

False dilemma, and it is yours, bootlicker. If you can't put a consistent philosophy to the voters that they approve, then you will continue to be a loser.

So a "consistent philosophy" is whatever the voters approve. Thanks for admitting that you're a moron, Fakey.

You are a Henry Clay type of guy, who said something to the effect that "I would rather be right than President." You will never be successful and right unless you change.

It appears you prefer to be wrong. Thanks for admitting it.

You make this too easy, Fakey.

And the bootlicker continues to lick the boots of inanity. You are simply wrong because you simply cannot create a consistent position.

 

[bripat9643]

False dilemma, and it is yours, bootlicker. If you can't put a consistent philosophy to the voters that they approve, then you will continue to be a loser.

So a "consistent philosophy" is whatever the voters approve. Thanks for admitting that you're a moron, Fakey.

You are a Henry Clay type of guy, who said something to the effect that "I would rather be right than President." You will never be successful and right unless you change.

It appears you prefer to be wrong. Thanks for admitting it.

You make this too easy, Fakey.

And the bootlicker continues to lick the boots of inanity. You are simply wrong because you simply cannot create a consistent position.

ROFL! You mean, I refuse to adopt a position simply because it's popular with the voters. A "consistent position" would be precisely the opposite of that.

You have continued to avoid answering the question: is a "consistent philosophy" the same as one that is popular with the voters? If not, then why do you attack any position that isn't popular as "inconsistent?"

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are too easy, for sure. Pull your dress down, please, and pay attention, bripat

You equate "consistent philosophy" = popular with voters

No. No. No. First, you develop a consistent philosophy, which you don't have, then, second, you submit it to the voters. If it fails, then you figure out why.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oh, goodie! A link!

Oh goodie, another post lacking substance. BTW, have you ever taken a college/university course wherein a paper was required? I suspect not - though you might have written one and gotten an "F" - for without sources your writing would be all opinion with no foundation. You may think, err ... believe, you're clever, but fantasy is not reality and idiotgrams are not substantive.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The upwards trend is why the authoritarian led media and authoritarian bloggers are out to smear anyone with a reasoned approach to anything domestic and/or geopolitical.

This I agree with. If libertarianism wasn't on the upward trend then nobody would bother talking about it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Well I don't see how libertarianism itself isn't consistent or coherent, unless you're referring to some libertarians individually not being consistent or coherent, which I may be as guilty of as anybody.

 

[bripat9643]

You are too easy, for sure. Pull your dress down, please, and pay attention, bripat

You equate "consistent philosophy" = popular with voters

No. No. No. First, you develop a consistent philosophy, which you don't have, then, second, you submit it to the voters. If it fails, then you figure out why.

Once again, you failed to answer the question: Is a "consistent philosophy" automatically one that is popular with the voters? Are the two things synonymous, or is it possible to have a "consistent philosophy" that isn't popular with the voters?

I realize you will weasel around answering the question again. What else can you do when answering it honestly means admitting you're an irrational moron?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Well I don't see how libertarianism itself isn't consistent or coherent, unless you're referring to some libertarians individually not being consistent or coherent, which I may be as guilty of as anybody.

Jake thinks the definition of "consistent philosophy" means whatever is popular. Of course, he won't admit that. Getting him to state what he actually believes is like trying to catch a greased pig.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Link to follow:

PREAMBLE

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

How does one ban "forece and fraud ... from human relationships"?

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

IMO the Libertarian Platform is little different than that of Utopian Socialists in terms of practicality; Human Nature cannot be changed by platitudes.

Platform | Libertarian Party

It's not a platitude. It simply means that libertarians do not believe that aggression is a legitimate means to attain your ends in society, and the state, which can only use aggression, must therefore be entirely antisocial. What it does not say is that "We believe we can make all people good and decent." It merely means that libertarians do not believe in centralizing power so that people, who are imperfect, can then abuse it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Well I don't see how libertarianism itself isn't consistent or coherent, unless you're referring to some libertarians individually not being consistent or coherent, which I may be as guilty of as anybody.

Jake thinks the definition of "consistent philosophy" means whatever is popular.
.

Some think that popular is intrinsically 'bad', but that is very immature and naïve. Profit, in business, for instance, depends on what is popular.

What some really mean by 'popular' is their elitist disdain for constitutional, republican democracy, which our Founders supported.

Such folks in their anti-popular philosophy would follow a Mussolini or a Hitler or a Lenin.

 

[bripat9643]

Well I don't see how libertarianism itself isn't consistent or coherent, unless you're referring to some libertarians individually not being consistent or coherent, which I may be as guilty of as anybody.

Jake thinks the definition of "consistent philosophy" means whatever is popular.
.

Some think that popular is intrinsically 'bad', but that is very immature and naïve. Profit, in business, for instance, depends on what is popular.

What some really mean by 'popular' is their elitist disdain for constitutional, republican democracy, which our Founders supported.

Such folks in their anti-popular philosophy would follow a Mussolini or a Hitler or a Lenin.

The question is not whether popularity is bad or good. The question is whether the term "consistent philosophy" depends on popularity. You have said that it does numerous times. In other words, in your world view, you can't have a "consistent philosophy" that isn't popular. The two things are synonymous. If you deny they are the same, then why do you continue to blather about the supposed unpopularity of libertarianism as if that's some kind of fatal defect in the philosophy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is merely a poor interp by bripat. A consistent philosophy for success in politics does depend on popularity. The libertarian may have a consistent philosophy for himself, but he must submit it in our democracy to the electorate. The electorate so far has said that libertarianism is not the type of crap with which it wishes to be associated.

bripat, why do you hate American democracy?

 

[bripat9643]

That is merely a poor interp by bripat. A consistent philosophy for success in politics does depend on popularity. The libertarian may have a consistent philosophy for himself, but he must submit it in our democracy to the electorate. The electorate so far has said that libertarianism is not the type of crap with which it wishes to be associated.

"Philosophy for success in politics" is just another way of saying "popular." We aren't discussing "popular philosophies." We are discussing "consistent philosophies. If you believe "popular philosophies" are the same as "consistent philosophies" then just admit it. If you believe otherwise, then admit it. There is no third option, Fakey. Either you believe 'A,' or you don't believe 'A.'

Once again you have tried to have your cake and eat it too. You are trying to avoid admitting that you believe popularity is the same as "consistency," but that's exactly what you're saying with every post.

Do you actually believe you're fooling anyone, Fakey?

bripat, why do you hate American democracy?

I hate democracy because it allows even obvious morons like you so have a say in how this country is governed.

 

[MarcATL]

Libertarianism boils down to a nation of nomads.

That just. doesn't. make. sense.

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarianism boils down to a nation of nomads.

That just. doesn't. make. sense.

But why do you subscribe to socialism when it boils down to a nation of retards?

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Libertarianism boils down to a nation of nomads.

That just. doesn't. make. sense.

Right. Your straw-man didn't make sense.

 

[dblack]

Libertarianism boils down to a nation of nomads.

That just. doesn't. make. sense.

No, it doesn't. It also doesn't reflect real libertarian attitudes toward community. Too often people misconstrue our distaste for the welfare state as a general rejection of altruism. That's one of the most significant areas where modern libertarians part ways with Ayn Rand. We're quite enthusiastic about altruism and community. We just don't believe in forcing it on people or telling them how to go about it. Indeed, forcing it on people isn't altruism at all - it's just theft.

Libertarianism is a rejection of the initiation of force to get your way - even if that 'way' is (by your reckoning) noble and just. It's not, in any way, a rejection of communal responsibility.

 

[RKMBrown]

Libertarianism boils down to a nation of nomads.

That just. doesn't. make. sense.

Lies. Freedom from tyranny does not equate to nomadic life, nor anarchy, nor everyone heading back to the caves/trees.

WOW What the hell is wrong with you folks that you can't imagine a life without someone holding your hand when you go to the bathroom.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That is merely a poor interp by bripat. A consistent philosophy for success in politics does depend on popularity. The libertarian may have a consistent philosophy for himself, but he must submit it in our democracy to the electorate. The electorate so far has said that libertarianism is not the type of crap with which it wishes to be associated.

"Philosophy for success in politics" is just another way of saying "popular." We aren't discussing "popular philosophies." We are discussing "consistent philosophies. If you believe "popular philosophies" are the same as "consistent philosophies" then just admit it. If you believe otherwise, then admit it. There is no third option, Fakey. Either you believe 'A,' or you don't believe 'A.'

Once again you have tried to have your cake and eat it too. You are trying to avoid admitting that you believe popularity is the same as "consistency," but that's exactly what you're saying with every post.

Do you actually believe you're fooling anyone, Fakey?

bripat, why do you hate American democracy?

I hate democracy because it allows even obvious morons like you so have a say in how this country is governed.

I know, right? He talks of having a consistent philosophy while blathering on inconsistently about the meaning of consistent as equaling popular.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarianism boils down to a nation of nomads.

That just. doesn't. make. sense.

But why do you subscribe to socialism when it boils down to a nation of retards?

.

Your straw man does not make any sense.