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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-445 next last
To: OWK
OWK, why do you feel that I'm back peddaling? I'd like to know why someone can't post something that one find's interesting without it representing what that person believes in full. I don't understand that, could you explain it to me? Perhaps it is you who needs to back pedal from your silly assumption.
151 posted on 02/01/2002 11:33:04 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
This guy's arguments are so idiotic that they defy belief!!!

Yep! I was wondering myself if this was one of those randomly generated essays. It makes no sense. I can't believe that we are actually wasting our time telling this guy its nonsense.

152 posted on 02/01/2002 11:33:09 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Steve, his statements about Libertarianism don't have anything to do with Communism! You're trying to make a connection that just isn't there.

They have to do with the premises from which he is examining libertarianism.

For example, when he says that libertarians wish to force their ideology upon non-libertarians, that may make you stand up and cheer, until you realize that what he means is simply that libertarians are not willing to be forced at gunpoint to pay for the leftist social experiments his "non-libertarians" are intent upon.

You see? Taking his argument out of its socialistic context and putting it in one that is more familiar to you makes it evaporate and drift away on the wind. Because he believes that it is socially unjust when people attempt to maintain control over the fruits of their labor, he sees it as coercion against the people who would otherwise benefit from the redistribution of those fruits. But that view is only possible in that context. If you are a supporter of property rights, then you cannot argue that libertarians wish to coerce non-libertarians into anything.

Another example is his oft-repeated "bad truck" analogy. He's talking about a situation where market forces led to people not buying a poorly-designed and -built product, meaning that its manufacturer went out of business. He sees this as a bad thing, because of his socialist context. What that must unavoidably mean is that he believes that somehow people should have been coerced to buy this inferior product in order to keep its incompetent manufacturer in business. Is that what you believe? If not, then all the attacks he mounts with this "bad-truck" analogy similarly evaporate and float away.

That's what people on this thread mean when they say that this writer's prejudices invalidate his points. They mean that all his attacks on libertarianism are founded upon the premise that his socialism leads him to hold different objective standards of good and bad than most Americans would. That means that any defense of libertarianism aimed at this article would perforce turn into an attack on socialism: and probably most of the people on this thread already agree that socialism is bad. Therefore, such an argument is a pointless waste of time.

If you disagree with me, please pick out what you think is his absolute best criticism of libertarians, and I'll have it out with you, and you'll see what I mean.

153 posted on 02/01/2002 11:33:15 AM PST by Barak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
Hmmm... somebody ought to post this article (or a link; they don't seem to be set up for long articles) on the DUmpster.... heh, heh, heh....
154 posted on 02/01/2002 11:33:52 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Benson_Carter
Benson, the only person to do so has been steve. Everyone else has said, essentially 'commie!'. My 'debating skills' are not 'weak' because I'm not debating. I'm just waiting for someone to refute the author's points about Libertarians and nobody but steve has done so.
155 posted on 02/01/2002 11:34:10 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Dakmar
I know you don't like libertarians, but please tell me you don't agree with the author. This whole article is nothing but anti-capitalist bolshie hog manure

As soon as you all(Libertarians) disagree with the ACLU.

156 posted on 02/01/2002 11:34:21 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
So tell us, what do YOU believe the legitimate role of government to be? Or are you just going to post mindless blather, then ignore the 8 people who have refuted it in favor of those who've called the writer a communist?
157 posted on 02/01/2002 11:35:16 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
"...welfare only for the mentally...handicapped."

Good news---you'll qualify, Mr DU disruptor.

158 posted on 02/01/2002 11:35:25 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Barak
But that view is only possible in that context.

And would not the opposing view only be possible in the Libertarian context? I think the question is better asked, why is one person's context better than another's and what gives the Libertarians the right to decide?
159 posted on 02/01/2002 11:35:36 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
But, as the Californian electricity crisis showed, if the experiment fails, its supporters will simply claim that it was not sufficiently neoliberal or libertarian. So even the evidence for the instrumental claims of libertarians is a matter of interpretation and preference: it would be futile to use it as a basis for discussion.

Oh, come on! Even conservatives and honest leftists will tell you that there was nothing libertarian about the California "deregulation" of the electric companies. To even call it "deregulation" was a horribly Clintonian murdering of the word's definition.

160 posted on 02/01/2002 11:35:42 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: OWK
talk about the debating skills of a 9 year old! if he posts this crap, it's his job to back it up, not our job to prove him wrong.

Damn, and this is coming from a 21 year old; this joker is probably about 5 years my senior...

161 posted on 02/01/2002 11:35:49 AM PST by Benson_Carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
#157's directed at you, Exnihilo.
162 posted on 02/01/2002 11:36:00 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
I'm a DU disruptor? LOL! Please, check my thread history knucklehead. hahahahah.. you made my day.. what a good laugh.
163 posted on 02/01/2002 11:36:20 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: palo verde
In practice, I can agree with a lot of what libertarians believe. But their principles are wrong.

One central belief of libertarianism seems to be that consenting adults have a "right" to do whatever they want to do. Clearly, God doesn't give anyone a right to do something that is evil.

Whether or not specific immoral acts should be illegal is a matter or prudential judgement. Aquinas' principle in outlawing vice was pretty simple. Is the amount of vice reduced by criminalization greater than the amount of vice caused by criminalization (corruption)?

164 posted on 02/01/2002 11:36:24 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I can't believe that he actually thinks these are good arguments!
165 posted on 02/01/2002 11:36:57 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
I agree with you on that point.
166 posted on 02/01/2002 11:37:00 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
Well gee golly whillickers, if'n ya jest jine up wit' dis-here Mensa club, why ya getsta show the world how sooperior ya are. Step right this way...

Seriously, most of the members I have met, whether in person or during the course of my centuries of internet dwelling, have been poor ambassadors for their organisation. I didn't say you were silly, pretentious and risible ... I said that of the organisation. I'd much rather hang out with the rednecks at the rifle range. (AB pulls his collar aside and checks: Yup! It's still red.) I've found that IQ (however defined) is a poor predictor of whether I will enjoy a person's company.

AB

167 posted on 02/01/2002 11:37:29 AM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
How can you possibly argue that the author does not incorporate Socialsim into his conclusions about Libertarians?

The author CHOOSES to use collectivist values, definitions and worldview in his misguided attempt to debunk Libertarian thought (both large and small 'L'). His whole arguement begins with the presumption that a ruling elite has the authority to direct the resources of society. In the end he concludes that libertarian ideals don't really get perfectly inplemented, and therefore ta-ta-rahhhh we need to have a government that micromanages everyone's lives.

He dismisses the issues discussed in voluminous writings by Classical Liberal authors such as Hayek, Friedman and Von Mises with a wave of his hand, calmly setting up straw-man arguments and briskly knocking them down without addressing the actual issues that have ben widely debated for hundreds of years.

I am hesitant to spend much effort to cite rank and file examples simply because I believe it would do no good. If you truly cared for such you'd read the Road to Serfdom, Capitalism and Freedom, or Human Action yourself and critique them accordingly.

Many here are frustrated with this article because they see the individual as owning themselves and as a consequence of that, owning the fruits of their labor. This is axiomatic to them. A large part of the frustration that we have with you is you are strolling in with an argument that a ruling elite can kill and destroy in order to buy themselves power and create a social picture that they find more pleasing. And that somehow to say otherwise is self contradictory because voluntary co-operation will result in a picture that someone else finds pleasing.

168 posted on 02/01/2002 11:37:52 AM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo, Doctor Doom
*yawn* Is this the best you people can come up with? "You're a commie!" Get real. I found his points about Libertarians illuminating.

Don't flatter yourself. You "found his points" illumninating only because he attacked libertarianism, not because He had anything worthwhile to say.

You are perfectly happy to throw in with a Commmunist, because you are more concerned with being "anti-libertarian" than with the criminal ideological mental sickness of anyone who would excuse the crimes of the Christian-killing Communists... which now includes you.

You and your friends have yet to refute ANY of his points about Libertarians. You point to his political ideology and then mention other things he says unrelated to Libertarianism. What are you afraid of??

Nothing.

At this point, you might expect a definition of libertarianism. However, most definitions of libertarianism are written by libertarians themselves, and they are extremely propagandistic. "Libertarianism is freedom!' is a slogan, not a definition. Most other definitions of libertarianism borrow from those self-definitions, so I have avoided them. Instead, the values, claims, and effects listed below describe the reality of libertarianism.

By not defining Libertarianism by its self-professed creeds, the author herein arrogates to himself the privilege of defining Libertarianism however he sees fit.

But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

values ~~ The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded. It is a system of belief, a 'worldview'. 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.

Smear tactic. The fact of the matter is, I would submit that the author simply rejects libertarianism out-of-hand because he is afraid of having his logic savaged... I personally suspect that he has debated libertarians before, and knows he can't win.

So, if you can't win an argument... smear. But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

The libertarian belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most libertarians. Certainly, no libertarian rejects them all...

HILARIOUSLY stupid statement of deceptive illogic (though I'm not surprised that you "found it illuminating"). Why, by including "Conservatives practice Sodomy" and "Conservatives breathe Air" in the same group of points, the author could likewise say, the sodomizing Conservative belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most Conservatives. "Certainly, no Conservative rejects them all..."

But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

"process legitimises outcome" -- ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS must likewise believe that "Process legitimizes Outcome"; Christian Ethics are as rigidly deontological (that is, anti-Consequentialist) as any Libertarian's.

Non-Consequentialist Deontological Ethics (the above Communistic attack on which you find so illuminating) are fundamental to the Christian Faith. This Communist opposes Deontological Ethics.

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

revealing of order / perfection -- Also fundamental to Christian Ethics. Believing as we do that perfection is literally contained in Scripture, we believe that Presbyters and Magistrates who adhere to God's Law will thereby reveal the perfect purity of God's Law unto an imperfect world. "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it".

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

world of emergence -- The value attached to the outcome of process, is so central to libertarianism, that it defines the ideal libertarian world.... Inherently, it must then defend this world's existence. And if the absolute free-market had totally unexpected effects (such as a Bolshevik world government), then most libertarians would interfere with its workings, to reinstate their intended ideal world.

False. Libertarians would have no objection to the emergence of a Communal society, provided that it was a purely-voluntary Community... No Force, No Fruad.

Again, this mirrors Christian Ethics. In those areas where Christians have seen fit to establish certain holdings and economic activities in common, it has been a voluntary communalism: No Force, No Fraud.

Ergo, the Communist author of the above is just spitting lies.

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

I could go on... and on... and on...

This entire piece is a pig-swill of vomitous illogic, which is ""illuminating" only to fools.

But when I am done, if you are STILL going to just stand there and drool, "but libertarianism is bad", and defend the Christianity-killing Lies of the blasphemous Social Gospel... why should I bother?

169 posted on 02/01/2002 11:37:53 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Really? I'm shocked. Well, then, every point must be from divine inspiration.

The point was that someone wrote an article whose basis is that one cannot both comprehend the article's definitions and libertarianism. Now, I'm supposed to read an article written by someone who thinks I'm Satan incarnate, with an open mind, and logically refute his "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" rantings.

(Truthfully, I do intend to read the article, but I am starting with as closed a mind as the author's. If I chose to refute any of his rant, you'll be the first to know.)

170 posted on 02/01/2002 11:37:53 AM PST by dagny taggert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Benson_Carter
Why is it my job to back it up? I agree with parts of it, so in my opinion, it's only up to me to back up parts I agree with. I would not, for instance, back up his claims about deregulation.
171 posted on 02/01/2002 11:37:54 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
On the contrary, God from the beginning gave humans the choice -- and the consequence. This is clear from the Biblical account, from the apple story onwards.
172 posted on 02/01/2002 11:38:40 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I can't make other people do anything. As for myself, I curse the ACLU at least twice a day. Good enough?
173 posted on 02/01/2002 11:39:56 AM PST by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
which now includes you

I really don't understand your reasoning. If person A agrees with somethings that person B says, and person B supports policy X which person A totally disagrees with, then person A implicitly supports and agrees with policy X, and presumably everything person B says? And they say my debating skills are poor.. lol!!
174 posted on 02/01/2002 11:40:14 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
BUMP
175 posted on 02/01/2002 11:41:07 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

When did I claim to be Christian?? LOL!!!
176 posted on 02/01/2002 11:41:11 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally, The Green Goblin, Exnihilo
Yep! I was wondering myself if this was one of those randomly generated essays. It makes no sense. I can't believe that we are actually wasting our time telling this guy its nonsense. 152 posted on 2/1/02 12:33 PM Pacific by FreeTally

Sigh... see my #169. I decided to take the time to point that out.

Now, let's see whether or not "Exnihilo" is able to realize, for one fleeting second, "Oh, dear me, I've accidentally gone and posted a complete pile of Communist crap, which I mistakenly thought was 'illuminating'. Silly me.".

177 posted on 02/01/2002 11:41:42 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
The choice given me by the two major parties are marxism or fascism. I consider myself a strict constructionist so I will take the libertarian side almost every time. They are the only party that acknowledges goverment is limited by the Constitution.

Why these rants against the libertarians today, somebody lose your welfare check?

178 posted on 02/01/2002 11:41:57 AM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I don't have to check thread histories to know an enemy when I see one.

Your hostility to American principles of governance is obvious.

Either that, or you are too dim to understand the consequences of your inchoate views.

I will hunt you down, and smoke you out, disruptor.

179 posted on 02/01/2002 11:42:01 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
as I said, you have the debate and logic skills of a 9 year old.

take my advice, don't provoke OWK, he'll take you to school and back.

180 posted on 02/01/2002 11:42:01 AM PST by Benson_Carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: dagny taggert
Discussion of what?

Or is that 'disgust' of the article?

181 posted on 02/01/2002 11:42:39 AM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
So tell us, what do YOU believe the legitimate role of government to be? Or are you just going to post mindless blather, then ignore the 8 people who have refuted it in favor of those who've called the writer a communist?

You continue to steadfastly ignore this post. Are you afraid to lay out any of your beliefs? Your behavior is approaching that of a disrupter, if you cannot add anything other than communist articles to this forum.

182 posted on 02/01/2002 11:43:24 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Seriously, most of the members I have met, whether in person or during the course of my centuries of internet dwelling, have been poor ambassadors for their organisation. . . . I'd much rather hang out with the rednecks at the rifle range. (AB pulls his collar aside and checks: Yup! It's still red.) I've found that IQ (however defined) is a poor predictor of whether I will enjoy a person's company.

With that I will agree wholeheartedly. It's a lot better to have on a resume than on a social calendar.

I must confess that although I'm keeping my delicate English complexion as peaches-and-cream as I can, my family has red necks and dirt under the nails. Just gotta love Wranglers and Ropers and Stetsons . . .
183 posted on 02/01/2002 11:43:28 AM PST by Xenalyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Whoa, this is one of the best and most stylish posts I have ever read here on FR. Do you write for a living?
184 posted on 02/01/2002 11:43:46 AM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
From Treanor's site:

Fourth, and most important politically: the moral basis of social security payments should be redefined. Payment to the unemployed should be defined as compensation, for injustice and discrimination. In principle, an employer who refuses a job applicant, should compensate the applicant for loss of wages. The State can then take over this obligation, in the form of a fund for unemployment -open to anyone who has ever been refused a job.

True, this is a redefinition of the existing system. But it removes the pseudo-ethical claim, that the unemployed have an obligation to the employed. It is the other way round: those with jobs are guilty - guilty of competition for jobs. The free labour market is not a voluntary competition, like a marathon race. It is a race, created by the winners, to provide an opportunity to win. Any free market system is only morally acceptable, if participants can withdraw: and in reality they never can withdraw.

thoughts?

185 posted on 02/01/2002 11:43:55 AM PST by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
"...pig-swill of vomitous illogic..." Bump!
186 posted on 02/01/2002 11:44:21 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
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.

-------------------------------

Indeed, that line appears to have been lifted from 'Babblefish', or some other computer generated gibberish site.

187 posted on 02/01/2002 11:44:37 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
When did I claim to be Christian?? LOL!!! 176 posted on 2/1/02 12:41 PM Pacific by Exnihilo

I was merely pointing out that you could not claim to be a Christian -- or a religiously-devout Jew, for that matter.

You could in no sense claim to be an adherent of any aspect of Mosaic Law whatsoever if you prefer the arguments of a Communist to those of Libertarians.

Now, if you are just a Totalitarian atheist... well, I did say that I felt that your sympathies lie with the Communists, didnt I?

188 posted on 02/01/2002 11:44:47 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
two words: human nature
189 posted on 02/01/2002 11:45:45 AM PST by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Oh man.. you really crack me up. I own The Road to Serfdom and Capitalism & Freedom, and I love and agree with both of them. Hayek and Friedman are brilliant. I also enjoy Bastiat and De Tocqueville. So what? Does that mean I can't also be a Russell Kirk Conservative? Of course not. Again, I never- and I repeat never- said that I agreed with everything, or even most of what the author said. Some have claimed an invisible rule that one is not allowed to post anything unless he or she is willing to defend every shred of the post. That's a joke, and I feel no reason to follow it. I agree with his claims that Libertarianism is inherantly contradictory, and I agree with the image/reality table he laid out. Other than that, I posted this to stimulate debate, and that it did! I love how angry the Libertarians get when someone dares to challenge them. It's really just a fun time for me because I know that trying to discuss anything with a Libertarian is like talking to a brick wall. They are right, and if you disagree, you are wrong and that's all there is to it. It's amusing really.
190 posted on 02/01/2002 11:45:57 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
The section entitled values</> begins:

"The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded."Is there a political philosophy whose values and/or premises can be rationally grounded?

191 posted on 02/01/2002 11:46:34 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Whoa, this is one of the best and most stylish posts I have ever read here on FR. Do you write for a living? 184 posted on 2/1/02 12:43 PM Pacific by Paradox

Erm... no....

People keep telling me that I should.

I retail mutual funds for a living. (OP sheepishly turns head away from FR and gets back to work...)...

192 posted on 02/01/2002 11:46:42 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
and I agree with the image/reality table he laid out.

I thought you said you're against all redistribution of wealth. How can you agree with the table? By the way, when will you be adding to the forum instead of posting communist articles?

193 posted on 02/01/2002 11:47:36 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
The section entitled values begins:

"The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded."

Is there a political philosophy whose values and/or premises can be rationally grounded?

194 posted on 02/01/2002 11:47:44 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d
I disagree with those statements, although I can see where he arrives at his conclusion. It may seem to many people that they cannot withdraw from the 'race' of the free market, because they must survive and to do so one must have a job and consume goods. On the other hand, one could retreat into the woods build a cabin and live off the land. I really find it hilarious that I am some how obligated to agree with everything the author says simply because I post something written by him that I happen to agree with on a few points. This kind of logic amazes me.
195 posted on 02/01/2002 11:48:26 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Please, see my thread history and don't make idiotic accusations when you clearly haven't.
196 posted on 02/01/2002 11:49:15 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Libertarian hyperspastic individualism will destroy "culture".

The (welfare) nation state is in its dying stage, and you are lashing out, at the perceived threats you see for the state you are trying to 'conserve.'

197 posted on 02/01/2002 11:49:24 AM PST by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

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

121 posted on 2/1/02 12:20 PM Pacific by OWK

Once the idea that rights(responsibility) are absolute---invioiable...

wouldn't the lack/abuse of responsibility/rights be criminal--tyranny?

I have said from the beginning...means--methodology--behavior--action--example is critical(determines results)---

. . . . ends/philosophy/ideology/words ultimately are drivel-irrelevant!

...the only argument left is the degree of enslavement.

...the only argument left is the degree of responsibility--reality--freedom(sobriety) vs. rhetoric(lies-bias-pretense)!

The "means(sincerity)" predetermine the ends(Truth-love)---

everything else is smoke--mirrors--hype--hypocrisy(slobovia--lower)!

198 posted on 02/01/2002 11:50:05 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
To: El Sordo Oh man.. you really crack me up. I own The Road to Serfdom and Capitalism & Freedom, and I love and agree with both of them. Hayek and Friedman are brilliant. I also enjoy Bastiat and De Tocqueville. So what? Does that mean I can't also be a Russell Kirk Conservative? Of course not. Again, I never- and I repeat never- said that I agreed with everything, or even most of what the author said. Some have claimed an invisible rule that one is not allowed to post anything unless he or she is willing to defend every shred of the post. That's a joke, and I feel no reason to follow it. I agree with his claims that Libertarianism is inherantly contradictory, and I agree with the image/reality table he laid out. Other than that, I posted this to stimulate debate, and that it did! I love how angry the Libertarians get when someone dares to challenge them. It's really just a fun time for me because I know that trying to discuss anything with a Libertarian is like talking to a brick wall. They are right, and if you disagree, you are wrong and that's all there is to it. It's amusing really. 190 posted on 2/1/02 12:45 PM Pacific by Exnihilo

You agree with his "image/reality" table?

Really?!?

The short bus is to your left. Be good.

199 posted on 02/01/2002 11:50:10 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
I do not care what you think of my 'behavior'. I do not mind that by posting an article that goes against the Libertarian orthodoxy, I create a feeding frenzy of Libertarian pirahna. Also, I have explained my views on a variety of issues in this thread alone. I have commented on taxes, ss, welfare, etc. However, your insulting tone and empty rhetoric really don't give me any reason to explain myself to you. Draw your own conclusions about me. I'm not here to make friends. Just to discuss issues. At this point, two people have effectively responded to the post. You're not one of them.
200 posted on 02/01/2002 11:52:16 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 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