Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?

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

[FreedomIsSimple]

Funny, I and the author both find that Libertarians consistantly do that.. hmm...

Example. I dare you. As of this post, the gloves come off.

[riley1992]

I say the state should tax those with more than an acceptable minimum income. But what if they are the creators of wealth, and they refuse to create when they are taxed? Well then let us all live in poverty, and let us imprison them, for trying to blackmail the state into lowering their taxes.

Good God. Did you even read any of this before you posted it?!

[Exnihilo]

I find it interesting that you refuse to address any of the author's points, but instead point out what "side" he is on, as if that automatically invalidates his points. That's what I call a short-cut to thinking.

[Captain Shady]

The Banneker Center For Economic Justice

Pretty interesting reading.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I found this quite illuminating.
libertarian image/libertarian reality
Image: non-coercion, no initiation of force
Reality: libertarians legitimise economic injustice, by refusing to define it as coercion or initiated force

Why one earth would anyone care that you found a communistic critique of Libertarianism to be "illuminating"?
The Free Market is not "economic injustice", it is the only possible Economic System which conforms to the Law of God.

Frankly, you Communists scare me. You have a nasty record of murdering Christians.
God willing, America will move in a Libertarian direction, and not go down the Christian-killing path of Communism that you find so "illuminating".

[steve-b]

99% of this essay falls into the category of, "I know all these words, but I just can't parse this." I have commented on the few statements I could find that appear to have some sort of comprehensible meaning:

Most other definitions of libertarianism borrow from those self-definitions, so I have avoided them.

If you want to write your own defintions of words, you should have asked your hero to help you.

A short pro-libertarian essay by David Friedman is about "bad trucks" - trucks made in the Soviet Union. As Friedman says, "The capitalist truck was built under a system of institutions in which people who build bad trucks are likely to lose money". So in the end, no more "bad trucks" will be built. There is no evidence that Friedman sees anything wrong with this. For him, and many other libertarians, it is self-evident that certain things are "bad": they deserve no existence, and society should be designed to punish them out of existence.

It is self-evident to any sane person that trucks that break down frequently, accelerate slowly to a low top speed, carry smaller passenger and cargo loads than other equally expensive trucks, etc. are "bad" and that it is desirable that resources not be wasted on producing them.

Of course, this argument won't be convincing to people like exnihilo, who reject the notion that there is such a thing as objective truth.

The syncretism of libertarianism is also best visible among cyber-libertarians.

At this point, he reaches the level of obfuscation where even the individual words don't mean anything, or at least they don't mean what he thinks they mean. Thus, I am forced to throw up my hands and quit.

[Exnihilo]

I posted it for his points on Libertarianism, not his personal opinions on other matters. I wish you guys would refute his points about Libertarians..

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Because there is a real distinction between moral good and evil that matters in more than a utilitarian way.

[cinciphil]

A libertarian is a conservative who smokes pot. Hardly a sufficient distinction to justify the animosity conservatives display for libertarians here on FR

Dude, dead on right, I'd be a hardcore rwer if weed was legal, but all the jesus stuff from the religious maniacs gets tiresome.

[E Rocc]

1. that they always want revolutionary change rather than baby steps (in an "all or nothing" game, they have too little power to get it all, and that leaves "nothing" everytime)

There's something to be said for this argument, IMO it's the difference between LPers and what I call "small l libertarians", which are much more numerous.

I predict that within 20 years, "conservative" and "liberal" will be less meaningful than "libertarian" and communitarian.

-Eric

[El Sordo]

Many do. As does everyone.

I usually pass them by as I will pass this guy as I stroll past the ash-heap of history.

[Exnihilo]

I'm a communist because I post something from someone with a different political view than I have?? Wow.. that's logic for ya!

[FreedomIsSimple]

I find it interesting that you refuse to address any of the author's points, but instead point out what "side" he is on, as if that automatically invalidates his points. That's what I call a short-cut to thinking.

The author's "points" are based on socialism, based on the idea that it is just fine for the government to redistribute income and regulate employer-employee relationships to an absurd degree. Therefore, your precious "points" mean nothing to Libertarians and I would dare say, most conservatives.

[narby]

redistribution of wealth is not wrong:

Oh, really?

I call it "theft".

[steve-b]

I don't care what "side" he's on.

You don't care that the article (to the small extent to which it conveys any comprehensible message at all) is an endorsement of communist philosophy?

[Sandy]

Why are you spending all morning attacking Libertarians?

It's a disease. He can't help himself. Every few months we get a new anti-libertarian lunatic posting the same old anti-libertarian rants that we've all seen dozens of times over the years. He'll be banned soon.

[Dakmar]

I say the state should tax those with more than an acceptable minimum income. But what if they are the creators of wealth, and they refuse to create when they are taxed? Well then let us all live in poverty, and let us imprison them, for trying to blackmail the state into lowering their taxes.

Why don't you just post from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book? It's not quite as socialist as this drivel.

[Noumenon]

Is it just me or does this article boil down to: "You need a ruling class to tell people what's what."

The will to power is a tough one to overcome. The paradox is, once having given up power, you realize that you never needed it in the first place.

The problem we have today is that far too many of us are willing to enforce our vision of what ought to be at the point of a gun. When and where rational me and women of good will disagree, each is free to shrog their shoulders and walk away and let reality be the fianl arbiter. The problem arises when either party seeks to 'improve' the others' judgement at gunpoint. Spiral-eyed liberal/marxist radicals and god-shouting fanatics occupy the same pew in the church of oppression and mass murder. They're worshipping the same set of death-oriented values, like it or not, know it or not.

[Southack]

Thank you.

[steve-b]

Many of the author's "points" about Libertarian thought depend entirely on how he chooses to define his terms.

And I would have sworn that Billzebubba had far too much ego to write under a nom de plume....