Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
In reality, it's a hell hole on earth.
Really? Gay marriage seems pretty Libertarian to me. Ditto pot legalization. Socialism fails in practice, but there are some parts of it that do work.
Here's the simple failure of libertarianism; power will always fill a vacuum and then serve its own ends.
And it doesn't have to be lengthy. It could contain as many letter characters that appear on the the cover of avg issue of Rolling Stone.
let me assert, You are an authority, and I'm sure many of us commenters have different understandings of Libertarianism. So could you pleas level the playing ground, and spell it out for us. I believe this thread would benefit from your egalitarian wisdom.
At least understand your own theories if you want to make a point.
It's like saying, "In socialist idealism, there is no private property." It's a cartoon caricature.
I'm not a libertarian, but some of the most read libertarians in the country believe in government regulation and social safety nets.
I remember when growing up my mom taking us me to shop at Sears all the time. I've been wondering what happened to a store/company that I had such fond memories of. This article explains it all. Here's hoping that Crazy Eddie is soon deposed and is replaced by a competent management team.
Ayn Rand works her magic once again... I have a friend who is a libertarian and it is true - every time I point to examples of libertarianism failing or question how libertarianism could or would work given a real world context, he complains that if only libertarianism were applied universally and in a pure form, then it would work. He is a true believer and no facts will dissuade him.
Libertarianism calls for a non-aggressive foreign policy. But that can't work in the real world, right?
Libertarianism calls for the legalization of drugs. But that can't work in the real world, right? (Portugal is a totally made up country!)
Libertarianism opposes the kind of spying being done by the NSA. But that can't work in the real world, right?
Libertarianism opposes the idea of indefinite detainment without a trial. But that can't work in the real world, right?
Libertarianism opposes racial profiling and spying on ethnic groups, like the kind done by the fella Obama wants to head the DHS. But that can't work in the real world, right?
I'm not a libertarian. But at least I understand enough about the philosophies involved not to say something so ignorant as, "Libertarianism never works in the real world."
@8
Yes, the bastardizations have made it confusing.
Social safety nets? Which libertarians are you referring to?
Talk to a firefighter with experience in large metropolitan areas with lots of housing built pre-war when fire codes were lax or nonexistant. Those things are deathtraps- fire codes save lives. Full stop.
Ask a libertarian why, if the unfettered marketplace solves all problems, there were no accomodations for the disabled before the passage of the ADA.
Valid points but I'd argue that those positions are not exclusively libertarian. At various points in time they've been (or are) conservative positions and/or liberal/progressive positions. (and Obama is not a liberal/progressive, not by a long shot). What I notice most about your list though is there are no purely 'economic' positions included. Everybody likes to point out that libertarians are against drug laws (to the attraction of many a college student) but libertarianism is nothing if you do not also include the position of total deregulation of the economy into a survival of the fittest free- for- all. That is why libertarians are most likely gonna vote for a republican when a viable libertarian candidate is not on the ballot. A democrat may support every single positions on your list, but still most libertarians will vote for the candidate that promises to reduce taxes (starve the beast!) and free private enterprise from the shackles of onerous state regulations (i.e. the republican candidate).
What do you call a guy who doesn't hate liberals and hippies, but is also a conservative who is power-mad? That's close to what I am. I like power. This week I was at a luncheon and was seated next to a somewhat dick-ish fellow. I got a perverse feeling of power when I noticed he used the wrong fork for his salad. I like the voltage and amperage on top of telephone poles. I like being able to inch out an extra rep when I do my power arm curls at the gym. Maybe I'm not power-mad, I'd call it Power-corny.
Hey, thanks for completely misrepresenting my argument. I'll try again, and you can read slower this time.
Paul Constant titles this post, "Libertarianism Never Works in the Real World." I list a few libertarian ideas that do work in the real world (and which are more liberal than the positions taken by the leader of the Democratic party and POTUS). Thus, I clearly demonstrate that, contrary to Paul's assertion, libertarianism sometimes works in the real world. Nowhere do I imply that libertarianism would always work.
That's why I'm a "whateverworksian" and not a "libertarian."
Some would and some wouldn't.
A lot of libertarians voted for Obama in '08, so disgusted they were with Bush's foreign policy and civil rights record. Whether or not a libertarian will vote for the candidate who promises lower taxes depends entirely on the libertarian.
It's true that libertarians tend to embrace Hayek's ideas more than Keynes'. But, again, to what degree, depends on the person. There are liberal economists who think we should get rid of the income tax and conservative economists who don't.
Like I said, I'm not a libertarian, but if you put a gun to my head, I'd say that libertarianism is a belief in a smaller government and individual liberty.
How small? How much liberty? If you go to different libertarian sites, you get different answers. I find the writers at http://reason.com/ to be honest and thorough, despite my disagreements with them. Reading their arguments is educational and they improve my understanding of opposing perspectives. Same for http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/
One thing that many SLOG readers seem to have trouble with is that an honest and considered difference of opinion on the proper role of government in a free society is a good thing. Those with differing opinions shouldn't be dismissed or condemned out of hand.
That is not true.
So true. But neither does any current conception of Marxism, Anarchism or any other "-ism" that depends on romanticized or idealized human behaviors.
They are all more wish fulfillment fantasies than workable ways to manage large complex modern political communities made of competing interests.
All are predicated on a silly conceit that:
"If only EVERYBODY in the word would change their entire social history and biases and act like ____________, then everything will be awesome!."
Soooo. What works, then? And, more importantly for whom does it work?
All you have demonstrated so far is that self identified libertarians don't what the fuck they are talking about most of the time. Quell surprise.
Every single book or article on Libertarian philosophy I have read is predicated on the absolute mistaken belief that under a libertarian system emphasizing individual self interest magically transmogrifies, once aggregated, into a universal good. And this is demonstrably poppycock.
It's called Feudalism.
If individual Libertarians believe in one kind of regulation or another is irrelevant. The underlying principle is childish and idiotic. And easy proven to be so by picking up a history book.
True Scots read all of Adam Smith's books and reject Mercantilism.
Also, socialists were really into manifestos, for everything. As you might know, if you happened to give any serious thought to the question.
37, yes, I suppose I should qualify my statement by saying "this is my belief according to those who I have met that identify w/ being libertarian." (My definition is 100% accurate among that group btw). Since this is the internet, I figured most people could extrapolate that for themselves. But the internet is also just the place to score cheap points thru equivocation, so... Good Job! Here's 5 Internet Points!
You think my limited understanding of libertarianism "demonstrates...that self identified libertarians don't what the fuck they are talking about most of the time?" You have to be really convinced of your own righteousness to make leaps of logic that large.
Every single book or article on Libertarian philosophy I have read is predicated on the absolute mistaken belief that under a libertarian system emphasizing individual self interest magically transmogrifies, once aggregated, into a universal good.
Please cite some prominent libertarian writers who have stated this belief. I could save you the trouble by pointing out that what you've written is dishonest, hyperbolic nonsense. But if you must search, please do.
As I've repeatedly said, the most popular libertarian writers in the country do not oppose government regulations and support social safety nets. Some of them even believe in public education. It would appear you're choosing to read only that which confirms your prejudices.
If individual Libertarians believe in one kind of regulation or another is irrelevant. The underlying principle is childish and idiotic. And easy proven to be so by picking up a history book.
Spot the difference in your statement and a similar statement, the kind of which is frequently found on sites like Free Republic and Red State:
If individual socialists believe in one kind of personal liberty or another is irrelevant. The underlying principle is childish and idiotic. And easy proven to be so by picking up a history book.
Same attitude. Different ideology.
The meat of your argument, like tkc's above, is basically, "Libertarianism Sucks!"
It's as flimsy as any faith based argument.
Sorry, I've had a hard day.
And people who claim to be socialists here (yes, there are still quite a few, actually) actively know this and will talk about it. But, do you know the difference between a Trotskyite and a Novotny socialist? Do you know what Hoxha's socialism had that differed from 19th century American socialism? How about Husak versus Dubcek? These policy decisions and views were discussed at length and recorded.
If you don't you can find out, because they're defined ideologies, not just some "I'm special because labels suck maaaaan" bullshit.
You want me to take Libertarianism seriously? Then define what the fuck it is, snowflake. None of your "No true scotsman" bullshit here.
When Crowley wrote that, the prevailing moral statement among the people he was hanging around was "An ye harm none, do as thou wilt", which is intentionally archaic language for "Just don't hurt anybody". Crowley was putting forward a more sophisticated idea that you have a very specific purpose, and once you discover it you should pursue it to your fullest. In other words, it's not about anarchy, or hedonism, but about finding your true self and expressing it.
It's commonly misinterpreted by people who haven't the slightest clue what they're talking about to mean "Yeah, I can drink and smoke and screw and rob and steal, and it's all morally OK!"
I know others whose belief in private property is so absolute that they want to repeal the Civil Rights Act. No joke.
I am libertarian and anarchist because I abhor violence and cannot ignore it just to get along with how our society is currently organized.
It's easy to be for increased government action and power (even if you call it "safety net" or "social contract") if you do ignore the violence inherent in the system. Libertarians are for cooperation over coercion and violence, and The State (at it's core and by definition) is force and violence.
That's a terrible tool to use in trying to solve complex social problems. We see the disastrous results of using a violent institution all around us today and for centuries behind us.
Peaceful cooperation is the answer.