Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?

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

[OWK]

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

You were aware that you posted it, and asked why libertarians wouldn't address it's points... right?

And no sooner do they rebutt this piece of crap of an article, than you distance yourself from it.

[Exnihilo]

When did I say I thought so highly of it? I disagree with a large portion of the post. I do however find most of his observations about Libertarians to be fairly accurate. Just calm down, and stop assuming so much. Ask me if you want to know what I agree with. People post things all the time that they may not necessarily agree with completely.

[Exnihilo]

And no sooner do they rebutt this piece of crap of an article

Steve is the only person who's attempted to do so, and he did a good job in my opinion. The rest of you kids have played the name game, and it's really quite sad. Now, just settle down OWK.

[FreedomIsSimple]

LOL! He makes specific points about Libertarians that are based in a simple observation of Libertarian rhetoric. I am getting a kick out of this.. I'll be waiting for your refutations

Yet again, and let me put this in bold so you actually read it:

THOSE POINTS ARE BASED ON A FAULTY, FAILED ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SYSTEM, COMMUNISM, AND THEREFORE MEAN NOTHING TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION

Get it yet?

[NittanyLion]

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

So tell us, what do YOU believe the legitimate role of government to be?

[The Green Goblin]

The Libertarian Party of the United States, for instance, seeks to impose a libertarian system on the United States. It is an imposition, and can not be anything else. Unless they are prepared to accept the division of the country, they will have to deal with millions of anti-libertarians, who reject the regime entirely. They might call the riot police the Liberty Police, they might call the prisons Liberty Camps, but it's still not 'political freedom'.

According to this guy's idiotic argument, political freedom cannot exist anywhere, since every political system advocates itself. What an idiot.

[Benson_Carter]

you need to stop jerking off and read the replies, about 8 people have discredited this garbage.

damn! your debating skills are weak.

[tpaine]

Central Scrutiniser:

"I'm sure it will get pulled."

No, that only seems to apply to the Libertarians questioning Republicans threads. This one is likely an untouchable.

======================================

Libertarian bashing threads are OK as long as we don't respond to the nasty baiting in kind.

IE, the obsessed can tell damn near any lie about us that they can dream up. We must accept these slurs with a semblance of grace, in order to be allowed to respond.

Isn't it great to be tolerated? I'm really amazed at the amount of liberty we're being given on FR, considering.

[OWK]

Benson, I never claimed that the author's arguments are my arguments. I found his statements interesting, and I posted them.

You're going to need to backpedal alot harder than that....

I'd get off that rickety miniature clown bicycle and run if I were you.

[Exnihilo]

No steve, his "entire argument" doesn't because it isn't a house of cards. Some of his assertions about Libertarians are totally isolated and not dependant on any of his other statements. Asserting that X is the image and Z is the reality doesn't depend upon his political ideology in any way though I cannot say how much his ideology may influence his thinking on such matters.

[Exnihilo]

OWK, why do you feel that I'm back peddaling? I'd like to know why someone can't post something that one find's interesting without it representing what that person believes in full. I don't understand that, could you explain it to me? Perhaps it is you who needs to back pedal from your silly assumption.

[FreeTally]

This guy's arguments are so idiotic that they defy belief!!!

Yep! I was wondering myself if this was one of those randomly generated essays. It makes no sense. I can't believe that we are actually wasting our time telling this guy its nonsense.

[Barak]

Steve, his statements about Libertarianism don't have anything to do with Communism! You're trying to make a connection that just isn't there.

They have to do with the premises from which he is examining libertarianism.

For example, when he says that libertarians wish to force their ideology upon non-libertarians, that may make you stand up and cheer, until you realize that what he means is simply that libertarians are not willing to be forced at gunpoint to pay for the leftist social experiments his "non-libertarians" are intent upon.

You see? Taking his argument out of its socialistic context and putting it in one that is more familiar to you makes it evaporate and drift away on the wind. Because he believes that it is socially unjust when people attempt to maintain control over the fruits of their labor, he sees it as coercion against the people who would otherwise benefit from the redistribution of those fruits. But that view is only possible in that context. If you are a supporter of property rights, then you cannot argue that libertarians wish to coerce non-libertarians into anything.

Another example is his oft-repeated "bad truck" analogy. He's talking about a situation where market forces led to people not buying a poorly-designed and -built product, meaning that its manufacturer went out of business. He sees this as a bad thing, because of his socialist context. What that must unavoidably mean is that he believes that somehow people should have been coerced to buy this inferior product in order to keep its incompetent manufacturer in business. Is that what you believe? If not, then all the attacks he mounts with this "bad-truck" analogy similarly evaporate and float away.

That's what people on this thread mean when they say that this writer's prejudices invalidate his points. They mean that all his attacks on libertarianism are founded upon the premise that his socialism leads him to hold different objective standards of good and bad than most Americans would. That means that any defense of libertarianism aimed at this article would perforce turn into an attack on socialism: and probably most of the people on this thread already agree that socialism is bad. Therefore, such an argument is a pointless waste of time.

If you disagree with me, please pick out what you think is his absolute best criticism of libertarians, and I'll have it out with you, and you'll see what I mean.

[steve-b]

Hmmm... somebody ought to post this article (or a link; they don't seem to be set up for long articles) on the DUmpster.... heh, heh, heh....

[Exnihilo]

Benson, the only person to do so has been steve. Everyone else has said, essentially 'commie!'. My 'debating skills' are not 'weak' because I'm not debating. I'm just waiting for someone to refute the author's points about Libertarians and nobody but steve has done so.

[Dane]

I know you don't like libertarians, but please tell me you don't agree with the author. This whole article is nothing but anti-capitalist bolshie hog manure

As soon as you all(Libertarians) disagree with the ACLU.

[NittanyLion]

So tell us, what do YOU believe the legitimate role of government to be? Or are you just going to post mindless blather, then ignore the 8 people who have refuted it in favor of those who've called the writer a communist?

[headsonpikes]

"...welfare only for the mentally...handicapped."

Good news---you'll qualify, Mr DU disruptor.

[Exnihilo]

But that view is only possible in that context.

And would not the opposing view only be possible in the Libertarian context? I think the question is better asked, why is one person's context better than another's and what gives the Libertarians the right to decide?

[The Green Goblin]

But, as the Californian electricity crisis showed, if the experiment fails, its supporters will simply claim that it was not sufficiently neoliberal or libertarian. So even the evidence for the instrumental claims of libertarians is a matter of interpretation and preference: it would be futile to use it as a basis for discussion.

Oh, come on! Even conservatives and honest leftists will tell you that there was nothing libertarian about the California "deregulation" of the electric companies. To even call it "deregulation" was a horribly Clintonian murdering of the word's definition.