What's wrong with libertarianism.

[ZzzImAsleep]

http://zompist.com/libertos.html

It is a long read, but I am curious to hear some comments about it considering that it basically calls libertarians "crackpots", and tries to refute some of the basic ideas of Ron Paul. In fact I would wager this guy is very anti-Ron Paul.

:) ....waits patiently for replies.

[ZzzImAsleep]

bump for replies......

[2young2vote]

"On all these counts, libertarianism simply doesn't stack up. Once people are able to be rational about politics, I expect them to toss it out as a practical failure and a moral mess."

That is the last part of it. He talks about freedom then says libertarianism doesn't work. It sounds like his ideas of freedom are "government control over everything" and he actually calls it freedom. This sounds like DOUBLETHINK to me...

[theczar1776]

interesting, i say that yes government is bad, but still you need some government, i would say perhaps a "Night Watchman" state, maybe a bit more. But anarchism, which some Libertarians i know border on, is suicide the Corporate/Government/Elite/Whatever's can control you just as easily in an anarchy as in a Stalinist state. people should be free to make there government as they choose, still adhering to the constitution of course. Because why cant government be like anything else, let the market ***the people, i mean because there is no entity call a MARKET, it is just a bunch of people making choices.*** decide. let people make government to suit them not control them.

[Mesogen]

He's confusing liberatarianism with anarchism.

Libertarians don't believe that "all government is bad." I would very much like a government that protects my individual rights and then pretty much leaves it at that.

But to do that, you will have to be able to raise an army, adjudicate contracts, enforce the law (arrest and imprison violent criminals), and even things like protect the environment.

[Mesogen]

Wow! What country is this guy living in?


In the current libertarian climate...

Huh? ???

[BuddyRey]

The only critique of libertarianism I've ever read that I more or less agree with is this one.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article1598.html

[nebulous]

People confuse the Libertarian concept of freedom with anarchy and that is wrong. IMO the Libertarian views are that the personal responsiblity to protect oneself is the priority and certainly a community or local jurisdiction can work together for this task. When people depend on the government for protection than they lose touch for the personal responsibility to protect oneself and their community/jurisdiction!

[LibertyOfOne]

Way too many strawmen to address. I would like to make a long documented reply to it but I don't have all day to waste on something so trivial.

[snaFU]

He's confusing liberatarianism with anarchism.

Libertarians don't believe that "all government is bad." I would very much like a government that protects my individual rights and then pretty much leaves it at that.




Um, you can't speak for everyone.

[Truth-Bringer]

interesting, i say that yes government is bad, but still you need some government, i would say perhaps a "Night Watchman" state, maybe a bit more.

We do need a government - or some type of entity with authority to punish violations of rights. But that government should not have authority over the peaceful, honest, voluntary activities of adult individuals.

Government should only have authority regarding those who initiate force, fraud or coercion. That is it's ONLY legitimate role.

[LibertyOfOne]

We do need a government - or some type of entity with authority to punish violations of rights. But that government should not have authority over the peaceful, honest, voluntary activities of adult individuals.

Government should only have authority regarding those who initiate force, fraud or coercion. That is it's ONLY legitimate role.

You don't need anything you just prefer government. At least step outside that box.

[Truth-Bringer]

You don't need anything you just prefer government. At least step outside that box.

Ok, I prefer a government. But I don't believe government in and of itself is a solution to anything. (http://www.mind-trek.com/reports/misc/govrnmnt.htm)

[ZzzImAsleep]

Ok, I prefer a government. But I don't believe government in and of itself is a solution to anything. (http://www.mind-trek.com/reports/misc/govrnmnt.htm)

That website makes me want to run out into the street and shout...

THE GOVERNMENT IS MADE OF PEOPLE! IT'S MADE OF PEOPLE!

[kgiese]

As all politicians know words have associations, connotations, and meanings. Many nut jobs get labeled "Libertarian". Therefore, in the minds of people Libertarian=nut jobs.

That is why we don't have "chemicals" instead we have "solutions".

Image is everything in America, and most people realize this. I think you might as well.

Many people are not educated on our political process in America. It is that you have a choice. Republican or Democrat now pick. While that isn't much of a choice that is reality.

It looks something like this:
Left Right
Liberal Conservative
Democrat Republican

What most people don't know is that most U.S. presidents are Freemasons, so really you just get a Freemason each time. I am not saying Freemasons are bad. I am just pointing out a fact.

History has shown that most people view themselves as fitting into one of these two camps, Republican or Democrat. It is the only path to Presidency in this country. Dr. Paul falls into the Republican camp, although he has choosen to serve the Republican party they have failed to serve him on his bid for the Presidency. Now what I would ask is why?

[SeanEdwards]

That article is obviously biased, but it's also fallacious at many points. The author endlessly resorts to making broad statements about libertarian belief by mentioning individuals and using quotiations out of context.

According to him, libertarians are aspiring nietschze supermen, interested only in glorifying their will, and quite willing to abuse other people in the pursuit of their selfish goals.

This is a peculiar take on the idea of liberty. The author clearly does not trust his fellow man, and believes that if his neighbor is truly free it is a threat to himself. This guy honestly wants the community to restrain everyone, confine everyone to a rigid standard of acceptable attitudes. According to him, the state has to make sure people don't exhibit unacceptable beliefs, such as greed, or self-interest, or self-ownership.

It boils down to this: Do you want a rigid societal authority that spells out acceptable opinion and behavior, and enforces its will with the overwhelming force of the state? Or do you want a more organic society, that allows the individual units of society to decide for themselves what is best for them? Do you want a government that focuses it's attention on ensuring justice and lawful commerce, and stays out of social engineering and issue advocacy? Or do you want a government that seeks to mold the whole world according to some utopian project plan cooked up by the unqualified cronies of the current media darling stooge squatting in the oval office?

Do you trust individuals to to do the right thing, or do you believe that there must be an "authority" to make sure individuals don't turn themselves into supermen and in doing so discomfort their community?

I'm not scared of my neighbor becoming a superbeing. In fact, I think its those few superbeings throughout history that have done the most to move our species forward. I think a person like Albert Einstein did more to advance society than an infinite number of big government projects.

[..PAUL4PRES..]

Nothing. But Paul isnt a Libertarian he a REPUBLICAN.

[SeanEdwards]

Nothing. But Paul isnt a Libertarian he a REPUBLICAN.

Paul is a libertarian (note lower case L). That is a statement of philosophical belief. He is also a member of the Republican party. These are not mutually exclusive labels, because they refer to different things. One is about belief, the other is about political party membership.

[..PAUL4PRES..]

Paul is a libertarian (note lower case L). That is a statement of philosophical belief. He is also a member of the Republican party. These are not mutually exclusive labels, because they refer to different things. One is about belief, the other is about political party membership.

Both are political parties.

[Truth Warrior]

Libertarian Party is an oxymoron.<IMHO>

[Truth-Bringer]

That article is obviously biased, but it's also fallacious at many points. The author endlessly resorts to making broad statements about libertarian belief by mentioning individuals and using quotiations out of context.

According to him, libertarians are aspiring nietschze supermen, interested only in glorifying their will, and quite willing to abuse other people in the pursuit of their selfish goals.

This is a peculiar take on the idea of liberty. The author clearly does not trust his fellow man, and believes that if his neighbor is truly free it is a threat to himself.

I don't see where you come away with this. If you put it in context of all the author's other articles, (http://www.buildfreedom.com/dirbas.htm) you clearly see that he does not advocate individuals having the right to use force, fraud, or coercion against others. He is only in favor of individuals having the freedom to engage in peaceful, honest, voluntary activities.

[Fox McCloud]

Paul is a libertarian (note lower case L). That is a statement of philosophical belief. He is also a member of the Republican party. These are not mutually exclusive labels, because they refer to different things. One is about belief, the other is about political party membership.

yup! Look at Bary Goldwater; he was a major libertarian who ran as a Republican.