Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?

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

[Eagle Eye]

Discussion of what?

Or is that 'disgust' of the article?

[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?

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.

[Xenalyte]

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 . . .

[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?

[fourdeuce82d]

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?

[headsonpikes]

"...pig-swill of vomitous illogic..." Bump!

[tpaine]

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.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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?

[CIB-173RDABN]

two words: human nature

[Exnihilo]

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.

[Aurelius]

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?

[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 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...)...

[NittanyLion]

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?

[Aurelius]

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?

[Exnihilo]

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.

[Exnihilo]

Please, see my thread history and don't make idiotic accusations when you clearly haven't.

[JohnGalt]

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.'

[f.Christian]

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)!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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.

[Exnihilo]

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.