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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-445 next last
To: OWK
Tell that to the ranchers in Nevada.
101 posted on 02/01/2002 11:12:54 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
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.)
102 posted on 02/01/2002 11:12:57 AM PST by Xenalyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
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'

103 posted on 02/01/2002 11:13:10 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
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?

104 posted on 02/01/2002 11:13:50 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

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

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

105 posted on 02/01/2002 11:14:42 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
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!!!

106 posted on 02/01/2002 11:14:51 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
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.


107 posted on 02/01/2002 11:14:51 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: OWK
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?
108 posted on 02/01/2002 11:15:07 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
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.
109 posted on 02/01/2002 11:15:59 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: OWK
...or to put it another way, "'Mostly free' is still 'somewhat enslaved'".
110 posted on 02/01/2002 11:16:45 AM PST by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
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).
111 posted on 02/01/2002 11:17:05 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
Why is an argument idiotic if it can apply to more than just libertarians??
112 posted on 02/01/2002 11:17:45 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
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!!

113 posted on 02/01/2002 11:18:28 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I'm totally against Governmental redistribution of wealth in any form. It's theft, plain and simple.
114 posted on 02/01/2002 11:18:32 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
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.
115 posted on 02/01/2002 11:18:39 AM PST by Xenalyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
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.

116 posted on 02/01/2002 11:18:58 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
*yawn* He's a "liberal leftist" therefore his statements about Libertarians are wrong... oooookay.. great argument.
117 posted on 02/01/2002 11:19:03 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
"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?

118 posted on 02/01/2002 11:19:49 AM PST by Tattooed Soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Well, the author of this piece thinks it's just hunky-dory.
119 posted on 02/01/2002 11:20:11 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
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!"

120 posted on 02/01/2002 11:20:30 AM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

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

Exactly.

Once the idea that rights are absolute is dispensed with, the only argument left is the degree of enslavement.

121 posted on 02/01/2002 11:20:42 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Ahh, an idealist. You disagree that the fall of the Berlin Wall is a precursor to the fall of his twin brother, the democratic welfare state? I hope your faith in American Exceptionalism will protect you, your wealth, and your posterity's pursuits of happiness; libertarians just aren't going to bet on it.
122 posted on 02/01/2002 11:21:07 AM PST by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
let me tell ya something, friend. It's intellectually small to post some obviously left-leaning garbage writings and then expect everyone to "prove it wrong".

YOU posted this crap, YOU prove to US why we should believe it. There have been plenty of people discredit this.

or do you just like the look of your own words? Either way you have no real arguement; it's just masterbatory drivel.

see, mommy! I can use big words too!

123 posted on 02/01/2002 11:21:19 AM PST by Benson_Carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

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

If it applies to every politcal group in the US, then he has no business applying it to libertarians in the singularly negative manner that he does. It's nothing more more than a hypocritically cheap tactic

124 posted on 02/01/2002 11:21:23 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Right! This is the author's entire point. The Libertarians refuse to define the outcome of a totally unregulated free market as 'coercion' upon some individuals. So on the one hand you are against coercion, but on the other hand you are totally fine with coercion. You arbitrarily pick the state as your boogey man because that's "unconstitutional". So your beef isn't really with coercion at all.
125 posted on 02/01/2002 11:22:00 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
If it applies to every politcal group in the US

But it doesn't.
126 posted on 02/01/2002 11:22:28 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Firstly, libertarianism is a legitimation of the existing order, at least in the United States.

If this is true, it is all you need to know about libertarianism in order to love it.

But the phrase "legitimation of the existing order" has the stink of 1960's Berkley collectivism about it. Some things just can't be perfumed.

127 posted on 02/01/2002 11:22:44 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Exactly.

If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further. There is no attempt here to convert you: your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive, meaning that all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.

This, then the poster claims merely to have posted to stimulate discussion. Hmmm...

128 posted on 02/01/2002 11:23:13 AM PST by dagny taggert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Benson_Carter
Benson, I never claimed that the author's arguments are my arguments. I found his statements interesting, and I posted them. I have observed that nobody will refute them. They just call names. It's sad, but true.
129 posted on 02/01/2002 11:23:29 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Once again, Reality: libertarians demand that the individual accept the outcome of market forces

The only logical reading of this statement is that the author feels the government should redistribute wealth. You could argue that I misinterpreted the author's statement, except for the passage where he states, "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'."

130 posted on 02/01/2002 11:23:45 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

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

This leftist could use the same arguments against conservatism in general, so why attack libertarianism? I'll tell you why--because if these same attacks were directed against conservatism in this forum, the post would be immediately deleted

131 posted on 02/01/2002 11:23:49 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

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

This trots out the old communist notion of "economic injustice" and redefines the success of one individual as an assault upon all less successful individuals.

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

Nonsense. If I don't like the #1 brand, I can buy the #2 -- or #200 -- instead. This is the fundamental reason why the free market is not coercive (unlike politics, where everyone is stuck with what 50%+1 of the voters deserve).

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

More nonsense. People who want somebody else to tell them what to do, beyond the limited role of libertarian peace-keeping governance, can follow any personal, religious, social, etc. restrictions they like.

Reality: libertarians use the political process in existing states to implement their policies

Dismantling the abuses of existing states is obviously easier when using the existing mechanisms against them. Think of it as political judo.

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

There's no meaningful assertion here to refute.

132 posted on 02/01/2002 11:23:55 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: dagny taggert
Dagny, you are aware that I didn't write the article right?
133 posted on 02/01/2002 11:23:55 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
This trots out the old communist notion of "economic injustice"

And you deny that injustice can exist if it is the result of the economy!
134 posted on 02/01/2002 11:24:56 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
He's a "liberal leftist" therefore his statements about Libertarians are wrong... oooookay.. great argument.

He's evidently a socialist, and as such his objectivity about libertarians is very much in question. IMHO.

135 posted on 02/01/2002 11:26:13 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
The Libertarians refuse to define the outcome of a totally unregulated free market as 'coercion' upon some individuals.

Yes, and the Bush Administration refuses to define Israeli police and military actions against Palestinian criminals as "terrorism". In both cases, that definition would be quite convenient to certain political factions, but it must nevertheless be rejected because it simply cannot be squared with reality.

136 posted on 02/01/2002 11:26:18 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

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

So you're in favor of abolishing the income tax, social security, and welfare?

137 posted on 02/01/2002 11:26:33 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
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.

THIS....?? This is the critique you think so highly of?

What a bunch of socialistic drivel.

138 posted on 02/01/2002 11:26:40 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
I support a sales tax, full privatisation, and welfare only for the mentally and physically handicapped.
139 posted on 02/01/2002 11:27:47 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
What are you babbling about? I pulled those quotes right from the core of his argument -- reject the assertions stated in these quotes, and his whole argument collapses like a house of cards.
140 posted on 02/01/2002 11:28:20 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Dagny, you are aware that I didn't write the article right?

You were aware that you posted it, and asked why libertarians wouldn't address it's points... right?

And no sooner do they rebutt this piece of crap of an article, than you distance yourself from it.

141 posted on 02/01/2002 11:28:39 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: OWK
When did I say I thought so highly of it? I disagree with a large portion of the post. I do however find most of his observations about Libertarians to be fairly accurate. Just calm down, and stop assuming so much. Ask me if you want to know what I agree with. People post things all the time that they may not necessarily agree with completely.
142 posted on 02/01/2002 11:29:02 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: OWK
And no sooner do they rebutt this piece of crap of an article

Steve is the only person who's attempted to do so, and he did a good job in my opinion. The rest of you kids have played the name game, and it's really quite sad. Now, just settle down OWK.
143 posted on 02/01/2002 11:29:57 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
LOL! He makes specific points about Libertarians that are based in a simple observation of Libertarian rhetoric. I am getting a kick out of this.. I'll be waiting for your refutations

Yet again, and let me put this in bold so you actually read it:

THOSE POINTS ARE BASED ON A FAULTY, FAILED ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SYSTEM, COMMUNISM, AND THEREFORE MEAN NOTHING TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION

Get it yet?
144 posted on 02/01/2002 11:30:07 AM PST by FreedomIsSimple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I support a sales tax, full privatisation, and welfare only for the mentally and physically handicapped.

So tell us, what do YOU believe the legitimate role of government to be?

145 posted on 02/01/2002 11:30:10 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
The Libertarian Party of the United States, for instance, seeks to impose a libertarian system on the United States. It is an imposition, and can not be anything else. Unless they are prepared to accept the division of the country, they will have to deal with millions of anti-libertarians, who reject the regime entirely. They might call the riot police the Liberty Police, they might call the prisons Liberty Camps, but it's still not 'political freedom'.

According to this guy's idiotic argument, political freedom cannot exist anywhere, since every political system advocates itself. What an idiot.

146 posted on 02/01/2002 11:30:46 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
you need to stop jerking off and read the replies, about 8 people have discredited this garbage.

damn! your debating skills are weak.

147 posted on 02/01/2002 11:30:57 AM PST by Benson_Carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: riley1992
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.

======================================

Libertarian bashing threads are OK as long as we don't respond to the nasty baiting in kind.

IE, the obsessed can tell damn near any lie about us that they can dream up. We must accept these slurs with a semblance of grace, in order to be allowed to respond.

Isn't it great to be tolerated? I'm really amazed at the amount of liberty we're being given on FR, considering.

148 posted on 02/01/2002 11:31:00 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Benson, I never claimed that the author's arguments are my arguments. I found his statements interesting, and I posted them.

You're going to need to backpedal alot harder than that....

I'd get off that rickety miniature clown bicycle and run if I were you.

149 posted on 02/01/2002 11:31:18 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
No steve, his "entire argument" doesn't because it isn't a house of cards. Some of his assertions about Libertarians are totally isolated and not dependant on any of his other statements. Asserting that X is the image and Z is the reality doesn't depend upon his political ideology in any way though I cannot say how much his ideology may influence his thinking on such matters.
150 posted on 02/01/2002 11:32:03 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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