Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html ^

[OWK]

...or to put it another way, "'Mostly free' is still 'somewhat enslaved'".

Exactly.

Once the idea that rights are absolute is dispensed with, the only argument left is the degree of enslavement.

[JohnGalt]

Ahh, an idealist. You disagree that the fall of the Berlin Wall is a precursor to the fall of his twin brother, the democratic welfare state? I hope your faith in American Exceptionalism will protect you, your wealth, and your posterity's pursuits of happiness; libertarians just aren't going to bet on it.

[Benson_Carter]

let me tell ya something, friend. It's intellectually small to post some obviously left-leaning garbage writings and then expect everyone to "prove it wrong".

YOU posted this crap, YOU prove to US why we should believe it. There have been plenty of people discredit this.

or do you just like the look of your own words? Either way you have no real arguement; it's just masterbatory drivel.

see, mommy! I can use big words too!

[The Green Goblin]

Why is an argument idiotic if it can apply to more than just libertarians??

If it applies to every politcal group in the US, then he has no business applying it to libertarians in the singularly negative manner that he does. It's nothing more more than a hypocritically cheap tactic

[Exnihilo]

Right! This is the author's entire point. The Libertarians refuse to define the outcome of a totally unregulated free market as 'coercion' upon some individuals. So on the one hand you are against coercion, but on the other hand you are totally fine with coercion. You arbitrarily pick the state as your boogey man because that's "unconstitutional". So your beef isn't really with coercion at all.

[Exnihilo]

If it applies to every politcal group in the US

But it doesn't.

[js1138]

Firstly, libertarianism is a legitimation of the existing order, at least in the United States.

If this is true, it is all you need to know about libertarianism in order to love it.

But the phrase "legitimation of the existing order" has the stink of 1960's Berkley collectivism about it. Some things just can't be perfumed.

[dagny taggert]

Exactly.

If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further. There is no attempt here to convert you: your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive, meaning that all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.

This, then the poster claims merely to have posted to stimulate discussion. Hmmm...

[Exnihilo]

Benson, I never claimed that the author's arguments are my arguments. I found his statements interesting, and I posted them. I have observed that nobody will refute them. They just call names. It's sad, but true.

[NittanyLion]

Once again, Reality: libertarians demand that the individual accept the outcome of market forces

The only logical reading of this statement is that the author feels the government should redistribute wealth. You could argue that I misinterpreted the author's statement, except for the passage where he states, "Redistribution of wealth is inherently good: in fact, it is a moral obligation of the state. Excessive wealth is there to be redistributed: the only issue is what is 'excessive'."

[The Green Goblin]

*yawn* He's a "liberal leftist" therefore his statements about Libertarians are wrong... oooookay.. great argument.

This leftist could use the same arguments against conservatism in general, so why attack libertarianism? I'll tell you why--because if these same attacks were directed against conservatism in this forum, the post would be immediately deleted

[steve-b]

libertarians legitimise economic injustice, by refusing to define it as coercion or initiated force

This trots out the old communist notion of "economic injustice" and redefines the success of one individual as an assault upon all less successful individuals.

Reality: libertarians demand that the individual accept the outcome of market forces

Nonsense. If I don't like the #1 brand, I can buy the #2 -- or #200 -- instead. This is the fundamental reason why the free market is not coercive (unlike politics, where everyone is stuck with what 50%+1 of the voters deserve).

Reality: some form of libertarian government, imposing libertarian policies on non-libertarians

More nonsense. People who want somebody else to tell them what to do, beyond the limited role of libertarian peace-keeping governance, can follow any personal, religious, social, etc. restrictions they like.

Reality: libertarians use the political process in existing states to implement their policies

Dismantling the abuses of existing states is obviously easier when using the existing mechanisms against them. Think of it as political judo.

Reality: libertarians claim the right to decide for others, what constitutes a 'benefit'

There's no meaningful assertion here to refute.

[Exnihilo]

Dagny, you are aware that I didn't write the article right?

[Exnihilo]

This trots out the old communist notion of "economic injustice"

And you deny that injustice can exist if it is the result of the economy!

[tacticalogic]

He's a "liberal leftist" therefore his statements about Libertarians are wrong... oooookay.. great argument.

He's evidently a socialist, and as such his objectivity about libertarians is very much in question. IMHO.

[steve-b]

The Libertarians refuse to define the outcome of a totally unregulated free market as 'coercion' upon some individuals.

Yes, and the Bush Administration refuses to define Israeli police and military actions against Palestinian criminals as "terrorism". In both cases, that definition would be quite convenient to certain political factions, but it must nevertheless be rejected because it simply cannot be squared with reality.

[NittanyLion]

I'm totally against Governmental redistribution of wealth in any form. It's theft, plain and simple.

So you're in favor of abolishing the income tax, social security, and welfare?

[OWK]

redistribution of wealth is not wrong: Libertarians argue as if it was self-evidently wrong, to steal the legitimately owned property of the rich, and give it to the poor. But it's not wrong, not wrong at all. Redistribution of wealth is inherently good: in fact, it is a moral obligation of the state. Excessive wealth is there to be redistributed: the only issue is what is 'excessive'. And of course this is coercion, and of course Bill Gates would scream 'Tyranny!' if the government gave his money to the poor of Africa. But it's still not wrong, not wrong at all.

THIS....?? This is the critique you think so highly of?

What a bunch of socialistic drivel.

[Exnihilo]

I support a sales tax, full privatisation, and welfare only for the mentally and physically handicapped.

[steve-b]

What are you babbling about? I pulled those quotes right from the core of his argument -- reject the assertions stated in these quotes, and his whole argument collapses like a house of cards.