Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?

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

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

#203... ROTFL.

Thanks for the trenchant review of the thread, and for the Friday afternoon chuckle.

Symphony tonight, I'm outta here. Have a good weekend.

[MadameAxe]

there is some joy in seeing all of you go absolutely ape-sh@t when someone posts something that exposes your philosophy for what it is.

The opposite of communism? Thank you, Captain Obvious.

[Exnihilo]

Your support for Person B is grounded upon your mutual agreement that the State should have the Powers it requires for Policy X

Wrong. The state should have the powers it requires for some policies, sure. I support drug prohibition, for instance. I believe that drug traffickers should be executed, if convicted in a court of law. I don't pretend to hide this fact. There are some powers the state should not have. Taking my money in the form of taxes to give to someone else is a power the state should not have, for instance. It is true, I am fundamentally in opposition to Libertarianism. So what? Call me names! Oh no! Tell me how dumb I am, or how I'm a "commie"! oh no!

[Doctor Doom]

I've posted in many of these Libertarian threads in the past, explaining why I think the Libertarian Party is an irrelevant political force.

Does not compute.

[Exnihilo]

Oh gee, you're calling me dumb! Oh no, how disappointing. Libertarians are calling me dumb because I disagree with them! What ever will I do?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I suppose there is some joy in seeing all of you go absolutely ape-sh@t when someone posts something that exposes your philosophy for what it is. ~~ Exnihilo

ROFL. If you mean the libertarian philosophy is directly opposed to the communist ravings you posted, than I guess you've exposed us all. 218 posted on 2/1/02 1:00 PM Pacific by NittanyLion

Zing. That pretty well sums this whole thread up. Nicely done, Lion.

[OWK]

Again, I ask you, why am I back pedaling?

If I had to guess, I'd say you were backpedaling because you wanted to poke libertarians in the eye with a stick, and so you went to Jimmy-Joe's search engine, and typed in "I hate Libertarians". You subsequently posted the first thing that came out, without having bothered to read it. Now you expect us to believe that you intended all along to post this communistic excrement, and must backpedal to distance yourself from it, because you were too lazy to read it to begin with.

Just a guess.

[Exnihilo]

No, Libertarianism is contradictory. I think the author made that point quite well, whatever his political leanings. I also find it very telling that I have been personally attacked, insulted, etc., etc. by the Libertarians here. But, I've enjoyed it. You all expose the weakness of your own position by resorting to such juvenille tactics. This, among other things, is a reason that the Libertarian Party is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. I mean, are we surprised that no libertarian but Ron Paul (who's smart enough to join the GOP) can get elected to a major office? It makes me laugh, because you can attack me all day long, and call me names until you're blue in the face, but it still won't matter because your political views are impotent, meaningless, and pointless. Libertarianism is an ideological joke, so I am not surprised that the impotency is replaced by your table pounding, fire breathing rhetoric.

[NittanyLion]

Why do I get the feeling Exnihilo is frantically Freepmailing Dane, Kevin Curry, et al "Come help me! I'm getting butchered!"

[Xenalyte]

Several years ago, I gave Mrs. Bustard a shotgun for a Valentine's Day present.

I'm starting to think you and I might be related . . . got any kin in Texas?

[Exnihilo]

Nah, there are lots of great Anti-Libertarian resources on the web, many of which I read regularly. No need for a search engine. I posted this, never imagining that there was an imaginary rule that anything one posts must be defended in full.

[Exnihilo]

LOL! Is this what you call 'getting butchered'? I more or less expected to get called a bunch of names on this thread. If that is what is meant by 'getting butchered', keep butchering. It's pretty funny, and quite telling.

[NittanyLion]

Well, you've certainly gone from calm and collected to red-faced, screaming diatribe. Didn't even take all that long.

[Exnihilo]

Are you kidding me? Is this your usual approach? To tell me that I am 'screaming' and 'red-faced' ? I've been sitting here laughing for the past thirty minutes watching you guys get your panties in a bunch. If my face is red it's only from laughter at your antics. But, at least I accomplished one thing. I identified two intellectually honest, intelligent, and reasonable Libertarians. Sadly, you're not one of them. But I'm sure you knew that :)

[SW6906]

Off topic, but I need an answer for an ongoing argument: Does anyone here know if Cheney (actually Bush) has invoked Executive Privilege with regard to the info the GAO is sueing over? Or has he just refused to turn it over without invoking EP?

Thanks, and sorry for the interruption.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Wrong. The state should have the powers it requires for some policies, sure. I support drug prohibition, for instance. I believe that drug traffickers should be executed, if convicted in a court of law. I don't pretend to hide this fact. There are some powers the state should not have. Taking my money in the form of taxes to give to someone else is a power the state should not have, for instance. It is true, I am fundamentally in opposition to Libertarianism. So what? Call me names! Oh no! Tell me how dumb I am, or how I'm a "commie"! oh no!

Okay, I'll call you dumb.

That all because you just wanted to remind us all again,

"Um, guys, in case you'd forgotten, I want to have the power to bust down my neighbor's door to make sure that his basement study contains vodka, scotch, and brandy, but no pot. Oh, and, I want to be able to kill him over the matter if it comes to it. Just in case y'all forgot."

....you went to the trouble of posting an entire screed of Red Communist agit-prop, the fundamental premises of which are only consistent with a Marxist-Leninist world-view, then dropped your trousers and waved your hindquarters out your window declaring, "Look at me, look at me, I say that the Author's points are exactly right" -- points which could, in fact, only be "right" if you granted the Author's underlying Marxist-Leninist cosmological premises...

Yeah, I'd say that was pretty dumb.

[fourdeuce82d]

obligated to agree

Nope- just trying to get a feel for what you think. I personally think this guy is a raving loon- I think he is explicitly totalitarian-"...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.

This guy is a truly twisted (by my standards) nutcake.

Thoughts?

[Jhoffa_]

Most libertarians support competitive interaction in a Darwinist form - Darwinist in the sense that some entities may disappear, in the process of competition.

Well, with respect to their showing in the polls.. I guess Darwin won.

[El Sordo]

The author's claims that Libertarianism is self-condratictory rest on the author's belief that the free-market can some how be injust and initiates coercion. If you've really read those books, you'd know that the free-market can neither be just nor injust in the proper sense of the word, nor can it initiate coercion.

Image: non-coercion, no initiation of force Reality: libertarians legitimise economic injustice, by refusing to define it as coercion or initiated force

---The author CHOOSES to define market forces as injust and coercive. Libertarians know that they are not, thus no contradiction. If you find this "illuminating" and valid, then we are all inclinded to think that you agree that market forces are injust and initiate coercion.

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

--Libertarians demand that you don't try to distort the market at the point of a gun. Perhaps because it would be somehow immoral? The author thinks it is not only moral but mandatory that markets be distorted (as he sees it as being injust and coercive). Therefor he CHOOSES to call this contradictory when it is not. Libertarinas know that free-markets are not injust, nor do they initiate coercion. There is no contradiction involved in their lack of desire to monkey with the results. If you think the author is correct in his assesment, then we are lead to the conclusion that you too believe that distorting the market is jim-dandy

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

--This is just silly. What's it supposed to mean? In some conceptions of a Libertarian government those that want to forcibly redistribute the funds would be out of luck in getting government coercion. Is the author implying that those who want to direct the affairs of others by imposing their will on them would be prevented from doing so by those darn libertarians who would be directing their affairs by preventing them from doing so? If you agree with the author...well, you get the point (but I doubt it)

Image: libertarians condemn existing states as oppressive Reality: libertarians use the political process in existing states to implement their policies

--The author again CHOOSES to see this a a contradiction, and while in a small sense he may have a glimmer of a point here, what does it really prove? If anything it would show them to be less reactionary than they were protrayed elsewhere. Besides, libertarian thought is generally towards smaller and more limited government. Not a total absence of government. Again, there's no contradiction here other than one you choose to create.

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

--This is just stupid. The whole idea of free-markets and limited government is that the individual decides for themselves what are benefits to them and what benefits they want. The author again CHOOSES to look through his red glasses at the issue.

The vast majority here recgonized the so-called points in this artcile for the collectivist claptrap that they are. You apparently have not. I'm inclined to understand why you're un-employed.

[Smile-n-Win]

No, Libertarianism is contradictory. I think the author made that point quite well, whatever his political leanings.

Libertarianism may be contradictory, but the author is contradictory too! If you say that the author made his point well, you aren't a Conservative. PLS stop giving us a bad name!