Skip to comments.
Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html ^
Posted on 02/01/2002 10:21:47 AM PST by Exnihilo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 441-445 next last
To: Southack
2. they consistently misinterpret the Constitution (e.g., they think that the phrase "general welfare" has ZERO meaning)So what meaning does it have?
Comment #262 Removed by Moderator
To: Ben Ficklin
when they could be electing mental masturbating libertarians. Perhaps your point would have been better illustrated, had you chosen a more robust criticism, like "all libertarians are doo-doo-heads".
263
posted on
02/01/2002 12:53:57 PM PST
by
OWK
To: OWK
Well then, are there any libertarian Governers?
To: Ben Ficklin
Well then, are there any libertarian Governers? Of course not.
As I stated earlier...
The majority of Americans have decided that they value socialist redistribution programs more than liberty.
So they keep electing republicans and democrats.
265
posted on
02/01/2002 12:56:29 PM PST
by
OWK
To: OWK
If all republicans were like Ron Paul, I'd vote republican every election.
Yeah, I actually have very few complaints with Ron Paul.
But, point being he didn't make it on the Libertarian ticket. What are you guy's going to do?
To use a free market analogy: No one is buying the McLibertarian sandwich. Should McLibertariandonnalds:
1) Work on the marketing, present the product in a different light. Redefine it to the consumer.
2) Work on the product itself, try to add some value there.
3) Improve service, perhaps consumers like the advertising, like the product itself, enter to purchase.. only to be turned off by the representatives.
4) Just give up because the patrons are too dumb to realize how wonderful your product is.
Honestly, no shot.. Ross Perot (who ran on absolutely massive, HUGE tax hikes of all things.. and during a recession at that.) and Ralp Nader (affectionately known as "Little Stalin") both had a better showing than the LP, right out of the box.
If you guy's were a company instead of a political party, something would change drastically.. and soon.
What should it be?
266
posted on
02/01/2002 12:58:24 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
To: Exnihilo
I posted this, never imagining that there was an imaginary rule that anything one posts must be defended in full. Not imaginary, dude. There are basically two kinds of posts of FR, the kind the poster agrees with and the kind that are posted to be torn apart.
You have posted a straw man essay -- in case you're from Rio Linda, that means it starts with a phoney defnition of your opponent's postion and then tears it apart. You then proceeded to defend the essay.
What the kind people of FR have been gently and politely calling to your attention is the fact that the essay lies about what libertarians believe.
Now when a political essay is full of crude lies about an opponent's position, it is worth asking about motive. In this case, the motive sings out like a Marine recruit to his sargent -- "I am a Marxist".
267
posted on
02/01/2002 12:59:02 PM PST
by
js1138
To: Central Scrutiniser
Since taking office, Jeff has been active on a number of different issues. One of his top priorities has been tax relief. Consequently, several of his first pieces of legislation were efforts to maximize President Bushs tax relief package. Jeff believes that the $1.35 trillion tax relief package should be looked upon only as the beginning. His next challenge is working to decrease taxes on capital gains in order to spur investment and fuel economic growth. Yep, he sounds like a good one.
To: OWK
Are the majority of Americans out of step with the libertarians, or is it that the libertarians are out of step with the majority of Americans?
To: Jhoffa_
Honestly, no shot.. Ross Perot (who ran on absolutely massive, HUGE tax hikes of all things.. and during a recession at that.) and Ralp Nader (affectionately known as "Little Stalin") both had a better showing than the LP, right out of the box. Doesn't say much for the prospects of long-term survival for the republic... does it?
270
posted on
02/01/2002 1:01:27 PM PST
by
OWK
To: L,TOWM
I didn't think his brush was broad, he was describing a particular subset of Christians, who think that it's just fine to use government coercion, to force their behavioral preferences upon others who disagree.
You'll find that many libertarians actually agree with you on the abortion issue; most all the ones I know here on FR do, including myself.
To: Exnihilo; RNmomof7; the_doc; Jerry_M
Great Post! I really enjoyed it. This is what makes Free Republic so valuable....tons of information.
Oh, by the way, to answer your question: Why is Libertarianism Wrong?
Because it doesn't put Christ in the first place.
To: Ben Ficklin
Are the majority of Americans out of step with the libertarians, or is it that the libertarians are out of step with the majority of Americans? I don't base my political philosophy on the whims of the majority. I base it on morally justifiable and rationally sustainable principles.
Many of history's butchers have enjoyed the support of majorities. That doesn't justify their actions.
273
posted on
02/01/2002 1:03:31 PM PST
by
OWK
To: OWK
Doesn't say much for the prospects of long-term survival for the republic... does it?
Granted..
But, you have to admit they will both be in a better position to affect that outcome than will the LP if these trends continue.
274
posted on
02/01/2002 1:03:39 PM PST
by
Jhoffa_
To: OWK
This is not hard to understand. Most Americans think they have a net gain from taxes, because the rich pay most of them. A fact that no one wants to admit.
275
posted on
02/01/2002 1:03:40 PM PST
by
js1138
To: Ben Ficklin
Regardless of who's out of step with whom, 'modern' government is out of step with the Constitution, and more importantly, with the philosophy that lies behind it.
The 'popularity' of any particular violation of 'rights' is neither here nor there in determining its legitimacy.
To: L,TOWM; MadameAxe
The only difference I have with the Libertarian Party platform is in the area of Abortion. One of government's legitimate powers is protection of its citizens lives, and a preborn person is still a person. I agree wholeheartedly, although I'm only a "little-l" libertarian. Matter of fact, I've only seen 1-2 libertarians on FR who disagreed.
To: Aggressive Calvinist
Great Post! I really enjoyed it. The post is an essay on how wonderful communism is, and how horrible libertarians are by contrast.
You either didn't read the post, or you're a communist.
278
posted on
02/01/2002 1:05:27 PM PST
by
OWK
To: Aggressive Calvinist
Because it doesn't put Christ in the first place.
As opposed to all those communist propagandists who are big on Jesus, eh?
To: Aggressive Calvinist
"Oh, by the way, to answer your question: Why is Libertarianism Wrong? Because it doesn't put Christ in the first place." And exactly which political party does? Please name them so I can join.
280
posted on
02/01/2002 1:06:48 PM PST
by
Bob Mc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260, 261-280, 281-300 ... 441-445 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson