Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-445 next last

1 posted on 02/01/2002 10:21:47 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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

I think that if everything that conservatives and libertarians agree on became law in the US today, all of us here would be VERY pleased.

Then we could debate the fringe differences at our leisure.

2 posted on 02/01/2002 10:25:08 AM PST by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad, Kevin Curry, Southack, sinkspur, Jhoffa_
bump
3 posted on 02/01/2002 10:25:10 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Exnihilo
Is it just me or does this article boil down to: "You need a ruling class to tell people what's what."
6 posted on 02/01/2002 10:27:35 AM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Gee...wasnt it you that posted the (now pulled) 'what is with all of the libertrian conservative threads here' thread?

What is wrong with you...are you bipolar?

7 posted on 02/01/2002 10:27:55 AM PST by francisandbeans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nopardons, malcolm, khepera, jim scott
bump
8 posted on 02/01/2002 10:30:06 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: francisandbeans
Just a post to stimulate discussion. Nobody seemed to have a problem with it after I asked. Enjoy!
10 posted on 02/01/2002 10:30:44 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo

No, no, no. I do not care to spend my time arguing with libertarians. Those people love the sound of the last word far too much for my tastes.

But if there were a couple of tangible problems with them, I'd place:

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),
2. they consistently misinterpret the Constitution (e.g., they think that the phrase "general welfare" has ZERO meaning),
3. they constantly cry wolf about nebulous, unnamed freedoms that they think they've lost

at the top of my list of problems with them.

They are idealists. They argue for a perfect world, and I find that pursuit unrealistic.

11 posted on 02/01/2002 10:31:18 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
I posted this to stimulate a lively discussion, since that's what people seem to enjoy. Enjoy!
12 posted on 02/01/2002 10:31:46 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
No, they'll wait until I type up 16 paragraphs of analysis and pull it in between the preview and post page.
13 posted on 02/01/2002 10:32:21 AM PST by francisandbeans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
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
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'

14 posted on 02/01/2002 10:33:27 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
The central problem with libertarianism is that God doesn't give anyone the "right" to do anything intrinsically evil.
15 posted on 02/01/2002 10:34:03 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: francisandbeans
Libertarians is liberalism redressed as a flair--cloak with anarchy under the skirt!
16 posted on 02/01/2002 10:35:03 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: francisandbeans
"No, they'll wait until I type up 16 paragraphs of analysis and pull it in between the preview and post page."

Tell me about it. If there is ONE THING that Free Republic admins could improve upon, it would be to post a WARNING on a thread in ADVANCE of it being pulled.

That way, people could Save the thread (for those who already made the effort to comment) and others would know not to invest too much into further thoughtful comments on the thread.

17 posted on 02/01/2002 10:36:44 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Libertarians say they are against coercion, but they support the free market. The introduction of a free market in Russia after 1989, lead to an excess mortality of about 3 million people. I call that force (and not defensive or retaliatory force): libertarians do not. 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.

Well, this shows what side of the political spectrum this moron is writing from. I suppose he would have preferred that Russia stayed with their oh-so-lovely command economic system. Socialism is always wrong and a socialist state always oppresses and kills its citizens - something this statist author would do well to remember. And requring an employee to smile somehow being force? I suppose that this author would prefer that a government committee decide every aspect of the employer-employee relationship.

Is this the best mindless libertarian bashing article you can manage? Come on, at least don't post critiques from communists!!
18 posted on 02/01/2002 10:36:51 AM PST by FreedomIsSimple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Nothing wrong with that.

I checked out some of the author's other writings. Now some of that stuff would really make for a violent thread!

19 posted on 02/01/2002 10:37:06 AM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
"economic injustice"

You typed in the wrong URL. Your DUmpster home is over here.

20 posted on 02/01/2002 10:40:27 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I dont think any political philosophy is perfect. Libertarianism, however, is probably the most consistent of the "western" philosophies. I see it as more of a guidepost, an ideal, which one should strive for, wherever possible.
21 posted on 02/01/2002 10:41:39 AM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
More relevant links:

Democratic Freedom Caucus

Republican Liberty Caucus

The Progress Report

22 posted on 02/01/2002 10:41:48 AM PST by Captain Shady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomIsSimple
Is that your rebutle to the author's points about Libertarians? I don't care what "side" he's on. His points about the inconsistancies of Libertarianism are exactly right.
23 posted on 02/01/2002 10:42:13 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
yeah, I found it illuminating that you chose a socialist's arguements against libertarianism. That's much like selecting a harlot's assault on chastity.
24 posted on 02/01/2002 10:42:21 AM PST by WindMinstrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
I checked out some of the author's other writings.

Same here. I found this little snippet interesting:

``For every principled minority, for every oppressed minority, for all who suffer injustice, democracy is a nightmare without end, and every year more intense. Democracy destroys hope. Above all, it destroys the hope of change.'' (Paul Treanor, April 15, 1996)

25 posted on 02/01/2002 10:43:37 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Then start by refuting the author's points which demonstrate repeated inconsistancies in Libertarian thinking.
26 posted on 02/01/2002 10:43:47 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
While this is clearly a well crafted post, and it makes many a valid point, I wonder at the wisdom of investing so much energy in such an attack. I consider myself a libertarian even though my political beliefs may not fall precisely on the tradtitional libertarian line. None the less, it's a political stance with which I find the most agreement. In my experience, I have far more in common with my freinds who call themselves conservative, than I do with any lefties. So while I think debating the "pure" virtue of a political belief is valid, I really have to wonder if our energies wouldn't be better spent promoting those areas where we agree.
27 posted on 02/01/2002 10:43:49 AM PST by tcostell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Reality: libertarians legitimise economic injustice, by refusing to define it as coercion or initiated force

Economic injustice? What, the rain in NYC keep you from marching with your communist, anti-capitalist breatheren, so all you have to do all day is bash Libertarians? And bashing us with this collectivist crap? Shouldn't you be trolling DU?
28 posted on 02/01/2002 10:44:07 AM PST by FreedomIsSimple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 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.

29 posted on 02/01/2002 10:44:07 AM PST by riley1992
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
Hi Aquinas
I was just thinking God gave us free will
and probably man-made law which reflects it
is the most sensible one

libertarianism makes common sense to me --
it carries out the Constitution in spirit and letter
and allows as much free will as possible
Love, Palo
30 posted on 02/01/2002 10:44:31 AM PST by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #31 Removed by Moderator

To: Exnihilo
Is that your rebutle to the author's points about Libertarians? I don't care what "side" he's on. His points about the inconsistancies of Libertarianism are exactly right

It's hard to argue with someone who comes from the standpoint that it's the government's job to solve "economic injustice", which is merely a code word for "giving the tax dollars of hard-working citizens to worthless, lazy parasites". It's so completely opposite of my ideology there is no common ground to argue from.
32 posted on 02/01/2002 10:47:09 AM PST by FreedomIsSimple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Well said. They definitely are defensive and love to get the last word in. They seem to be out of touch with the reality of how to really make any changes. "Either remove the whole tax code or just forget it". I've also noticed an alarming number of them are mensas. This shows that they are extreme elitists and simply don't want to be involved in a normal party because they can't stand out in a crowd well enough that way.
33 posted on 02/01/2002 10:47:17 AM PST by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Libertarianism is anything but an argument for a perfect world. Libertarianism denies the folly of perfection imagined by those who would control others.
34 posted on 02/01/2002 10:47:58 AM PST by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
For the most part, he simply _disagrees_ with libertarians, even down to the level of word definitions.

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.

I think this sums it up pretty much.

35 posted on 02/01/2002 10:48:07 AM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Whoa now!!

Many of the author's "points" about Libertarian thought depend entirely on how he chooses to define his terms. His apparent definition of "coercion" being chief among them.

I find that the aurhtor is flagrantly using logical fallacies and selectively defining his terms in order to make a specious argument.

36 posted on 02/01/2002 10:48:12 AM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
I find that the aurhtor is flagrantly using logical fallacies and selectively defining his terms in order to make a specious argument

Funny, I and the author both find that Libertarians consistantly do that.. hmm...
37 posted on 02/01/2002 10:49:17 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I and the founders would agree. That's why we have a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.
38 posted on 02/01/2002 10:50:22 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Bookmarked and bumped! However, I titled it a study of libertarianism. LOL! I tried not to offend. I must be too liberal.
39 posted on 02/01/2002 10:50:24 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
If minarchy means minimal outside influence, on the life of the individual, then libertarians are not minarchists. By the same token, they can certainly not be anarchists.

Notice that the only way that he can make the argument that libertarians are not minarchists is by changing the definition of minarchy from "limited government" to "minimal outside influence." In doing this, the author is guilty of the classic strawman argument.

40 posted on 02/01/2002 10:50:34 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
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.
41 posted on 02/01/2002 10:50:53 AM PST by FreedomIsSimple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
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?!

42 posted on 02/01/2002 10:51:17 AM PST by riley1992
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WindMinstrel
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.
43 posted on 02/01/2002 10:51:27 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Glasser
The Banneker Center For Economic Justice

Pretty interesting reading.

44 posted on 02/01/2002 10:51:32 AM PST by Captain Shady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo, Doctor Doom
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".

45 posted on 02/01/2002 10:52:23 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
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.

46 posted on 02/01/2002 10:52:29 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: riley1992
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..
47 posted on 02/01/2002 10:52:41 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Because there is a real distinction between moral good and evil that matters in more than a utilitarian way.
48 posted on 02/01/2002 10:52:46 AM PST by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
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.

49 posted on 02/01/2002 10:53:08 AM PST by cinciphil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Southack
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

50 posted on 02/01/2002 10:53:21 AM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-445 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson