Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?

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

[Ben Ficklin]

Tell that to the ranchers in Nevada.

[Xenalyte]

As she demonstrated why some people find "Mensa" and all its works and all its empty promises silly, pretentious, and risible. ROFL!!!

Why is the fact that I was a smart child and am now a good editor silly, pretentious and risible? Further, of what promises do you speak? (I'd also be interested in knowing how my admittedly arrogant attitude reflects these "promises," whatever they be.)

(By the way, the organization's name is actually Mensa, so no need for quotation marks.)

[Exnihilo]

Steve, let me post this one more time.. and I request that you rebut each point, point for point.. okay? or find someone who can.. nobody's even tried yet..

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
Image: moral autonomy of the individual	Reality: libertarians demand that the individual accept the outcome of market forces
Image: political freedom	Reality: some form of libertarian government, imposing libertarian policies on non-libertarians
Image: libertarians condemn existing states as oppressive	Reality: libertarians use the political process in existing states to implement their policies
Image: benefits of libertarianism	Reality: libertarians claim the right to decide for others, what constitutes a 'benefit'

[NittanyLion]

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

Well, it really is pretty black and white isn't it? Either people accept the outcome of market forces, or the government acts to influence that outcome by using force. Government stepping into the equation is socialistic, is it not?

[tacticalogic]

We have a rather mixed system, so that is rather context sensetive.

Care to comment on the authors views on redistribution of wealth?

[The Green Goblin]

Most libertarians support competitive interaction in a Darwinist form -- Darwinist in the sense that some entities may disappear, in the process of competition. In the free market, products which fail to secure a market niche, are no longer produced.

Do conservatives believe that the government should subsidze the production of buggy whips in 2002? If not, then I guess they're Darwinists as well!!! This guy's arguments are so idiotic that they defy belief!!!

[steve-b]

Nonsense. His entire argument rests upon Communism:

The introduction of a free market in Russia after 1989, lead to an excess mortality of about 3 million people. [no evidence, just the absurd statement]

A plan in itself is a good idea. They are wide-ranging documents, shaping the future of 700 million people on 10 million square kilometres. Inevitably, some people will suffer compulsion, in the implementation of such a comprehensive plan. For instance, their land might be compulsorily acquired.

Redistribution of wealth is inherently good: in fact, it is a moral obligation of the state.

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.

[Exnihilo]

Because rights either exist, or they do not.

Non-sequitur. My premise had nothing to do with your conclusion. The point being that there can be totally unregulated free markets, marginally regulated, highly regulated, and fully centrally controlled market economies. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Exnihilo]

Sorry steve, his "entire" argument doesn't rest on anything but Libertarianism. I posted that table that summarizes his points. Refute them, or admit that you can't.

[Redcloak]

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

[Exnihilo]

Our government regulates the market. Are we 'socialist'? I expect I know what the answer to that would be from a Libertarian. As the author points out, to the Libertarian there is them and everyone else (the socialists/totalitarians).

[Exnihilo]

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

[The Green Goblin]

Some US employers require their employees to smile at all customers, or lose their job. I call that coercion: libertarians call it freedom of contract. There is no point in further discussion of these issues: they are examples of irreconcilable value conflicts.

Conservatives would also call it "freedom of contract." This guy is nothing more than a liberal leftist!!

[Exnihilo]

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

[Xenalyte]

What percentage of Mensas are females?

The latest published figures for American Mensa is 35% women, 65% men (although I'd question the omission of an "indeterminate" category). From my experience at Mensa gatherings, I'd say Houston fits that range.

[OWK]

My premise had nothing to do with your conclusion. The point being that there can be totally unregulated free markets, marginally regulated, highly regulated, and fully centrally controlled market economies.

And of the options you've suggested, the only one which respects the rights of individuals, is A) totally unregulated free markets.

Rights either exist, or they do not.

[Exnihilo]

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

[Tattooed Soul]

"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.

people are not absolutely entitled to keep the money they earned:
Labour creates no entitlement to property. The claim that is does is merely a culturally specific preference: the labour theory of value - ironically a pillar of Marxist theory. Other cultures might claim that God's grace, or piousness, or filial devotion, or patrilineal descent, or status, create the entitlement to property and wealth. There is no objective standard, by which these claims can be ranked. On this issue, you say what you choose to believe. 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."

And you call yourself a Conservative first, then a Republican.
Sorry, I don't buy it if you espouse these two points, Your a liberal plain and simple if you give either of these two paragraphs any credence whatsoever...
Now admit it, You really didn't even read this before you posted it, did you?

[tacticalogic]

Well, the author of this piece thinks it's just hunky-dory.

[Paradox]

Libertarian philosophy is self-contradicting. I have yet to see anyone attempt to rebut his points.

Because he "makes" no points, he merely chooses to defines terms as he wishes. How about you start by clarifying what you think he means, maybe you can put your spin on it. Until then, this essay of his is mostly rubbish. In the meantime, I'll refute the entire thing here, using his methods... "He is wrong and I am right!"