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: Exnihilo
Many do. As does everyone.

I usually pass them by as I will pass this guy as I stroll past the ash-heap of history.

51 posted on 02/01/2002 10:53:45 AM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
I'm a communist because I post something from someone with a different political view than I have?? Wow.. that's logic for ya!
52 posted on 02/01/2002 10:53:45 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
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.

The author's "points" are based on socialism, based on the idea that it is just fine for the government to redistribute income and regulate employer-employee relationships to an absurd degree. Therefore, your precious "points" mean nothing to Libertarians and I would dare say, most conservatives.
53 posted on 02/01/2002 10:54:05 AM PST by FreedomIsSimple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
redistribution of wealth is not wrong:

Oh, really?

I call it "theft".

54 posted on 02/01/2002 10:54:29 AM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I don't care what "side" he's on.

You don't care that the article (to the small extent to which it conveys any comprehensible message at all) is an endorsement of communist philosophy?

55 posted on 02/01/2002 10:54:31 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Why are you spending all morning attacking Libertarians?

It's a disease. He can't help himself. Every few months we get a new anti-libertarian lunatic posting the same old anti-libertarian rants that we've all seen dozens of times over the years. He'll be banned soon.

56 posted on 02/01/2002 10:54:46 AM PST by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo;malador
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.

Why don't you just post from Chairman Mao's Little Red Book? It's not quite as socialist as this drivel.

57 posted on 02/01/2002 10:55:06 AM PST by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Is it just me or does this article boil down to: "You need a ruling class to tell people what's what."

The will to power is a tough one to overcome. The paradox is, once having given up power, you realize that you never needed it in the first place.

The problem we have today is that far too many of us are willing to enforce our vision of what ought to be at the point of a gun. When and where rational me and women of good will disagree, each is free to shrog their shoulders and walk away and let reality be the fianl arbiter. The problem arises when either party seeks to 'improve' the others' judgement at gunpoint. Spiral-eyed liberal/marxist radicals and god-shouting fanatics occupy the same pew in the church of oppression and mass murder. They're worshipping the same set of death-oriented values, like it or not, know it or not.

58 posted on 02/01/2002 10:56:08 AM PST by Noumenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
Thank you.
59 posted on 02/01/2002 10:56:22 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: El Sordo
Many of the author's "points" about Libertarian thought depend entirely on how he chooses to define his terms.

And I would have sworn that Billzebubba had far too much ego to write under a nom de plume....

60 posted on 02/01/2002 10:56:38 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Thanks.
61 posted on 02/01/2002 10:56:39 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: FreedomIsSimple
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.
62 posted on 02/01/2002 10:56:46 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser; Exnihilo; francisandbeans
I think the only reason the other thread was pulled was because of the placement in 'Breaking News'.
63 posted on 02/01/2002 10:57:11 AM PST by UnBlinkingEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dakmar
Your quote, and your response, have nothing to do with the subject at hand- Libertarians and the points the author makes that Libertarian philosophy is self-contradicting. I have yet to see anyone attempt to rebut his points.
64 posted on 02/01/2002 10:57:54 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo, Doctor Doom
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 2/1/02 11:42 AM Pacific by Exnihilo

No, you are only saying that they are "exactly right" because you hate libertarianism. If I were to rend this essay into the shredded scraps of disassociated illogic which truly compose it (as I could easily do), would you have the mental prowess to rebuild and re-establish this Communists's "exactly right" criticisms? No, of course you wouldn't. You would just stand there drooling, "but libertarianism is bad", committed to your Social Gospel lies of Government Collectivism which are largely responsible for murdering True Christianity in the American Church.

Because Christianity is not truly important to you; Totalitarianism is. And where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

So why should I waste my time?

65 posted on 02/01/2002 10:57:57 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
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.

"Smile when you say that," purred the Mensan-since-age-nine and ex-editor of her chapter's newsletter.
66 posted on 02/01/2002 10:58:24 AM PST by Xenalyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | 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.

That's why it pays to write your longer comments 'off-line' in a decent HTML editor - then post it...

67 posted on 02/01/2002 10:58:25 AM PST by Noumenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
No, I don't. I selected it for the author's points on Libertarianism. Those points have yet to be refuted, except for someone to say "he's a commie!". That is not an argument.
68 posted on 02/01/2002 10:59:14 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
"I don't care what "side" he's on. His points about the inconsistancies of Libertarianism are exactly right."

Personally, I don't think you know what the authors points are. You probably found the longest anti-libertarian article you could find and posted it ... so you can say "What exactly about his points ...".
69 posted on 02/01/2002 10:59:15 AM PST by gjenkins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
See.

What percentage of Mensas are females?

70 posted on 02/01/2002 10:59:38 AM PST by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Did you happen to notice that this article could have been written by a socialist, or is your only concern refuting libertarian positions by any means possible? Truthfully, I've grown tired of the libertarian-statist flame wars on this board, to the point where I avoid these types of threads. But I just wanted to bring to your attention that the points here are certainly not conservative ones - they more closely resemble the ravings of Terry McAuliffe.
71 posted on 02/01/2002 10:59:42 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
"One world!" is an immensely powerful slogan: it appeals to left and right - even to people who support all kinds of secessionist movements. Again, the libertarian version of global unity, is generally the options-exchange version: global financial trading, absolute free trade, and sometimes free global migration.

In this laughable statement, the author tries to simultaneously accuse libertarians of being glabal statists and free market individualists! Incredible!. First, he sneaks in the psychological baggage of "one world" and then twists the concept to mean " defragmented free market exhchange"!!! What intellectual dishonesty...

72 posted on 02/01/2002 11:00:22 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
No, you are only saying that they are "exactly right" because you hate libertarianism.

So then just refute his points! That's all you have to do! Explain why his specific statements about the contradictory nature of libertarian philosophy is wrong using libertarian philosophy! It should be easy, right?
73 posted on 02/01/2002 11:00:38 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I wish you guys would refute his points about Libertarians.

What's to refute? A communist (who craves absolute power) is obviously going to be opposed to a libertarian (who wants to abolish any power that approaches that level). One might as well insist that I "refute" a mugger's stick-up demand before defending my property.

74 posted on 02/01/2002 11:00:44 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo, Doctor Doom
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian I'm a communist because I post something from someone with a different political view than I have?? Wow.. that's logic for ya! 52 posted on 2/1/02 11:53 AM Pacific by Exnihilo

No, you're a Communist because you find this Communists' views to be so "illuminating".

In fact, they are poorly-composed presumptuous and logically-fallacious drivel.
What, you mean you couldn't tell? Good grief, why not... can you read?

75 posted on 02/01/2002 11:01:30 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
are you blind? He even said it appeals to the left and right. Duhhhhh....
76 posted on 02/01/2002 11:01:35 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte, biblewonk
Smile when you say that," purred the Mensan-since-age-nine and ex-editor of her chapter's newsletter.

As she demonstrated why some people find "Mensa" and all its works and all its empty promises silly, pretentious, and risible. ROFL!!!

AB

77 posted on 02/01/2002 11:02:43 AM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
*yawn* Is this the best you people can come up with? "You're a commie!" Get real. I found his points about Libertarians illuminating. 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??
78 posted on 02/01/2002 11:02:56 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
The only Mensa members that I've ever met have been females.

I've always found that a bit amusing.

79 posted on 02/01/2002 11:03:30 AM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
are you blind? He even said it appeals to the left and right. Duhhhhh....

If "it appeals" to everyone, then why does he use it as an argument to single out libertarians in a negative manner? I'll tell you why---because he's grasping for straws.

80 posted on 02/01/2002 11:03:44 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
No, I don't. I selected it for the author's points on Libertarianism. Those points have yet to be refuted, except for someone to say "he's a commie!". That is not an argument

Welcome to the world of Libertarianism, where they will state with a straight face that they are "conservatives" and in the next breath will state what a great "constitutional" organization the ACLU is.

81 posted on 02/01/2002 11:04:01 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Those points have yet to be refuted, except for someone to say "he's a commie!". That is not an argument.

Commies have no standing to make arguments against freedom for the same reason al-Qaeda apologists have no standing to make arguments against Israel.

82 posted on 02/01/2002 11:04:35 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Steve, it ought to be easy. He makes specific statements about Libertarian philosophy, using Libertarian sources! All you would need to do is show how he is wrong about either his sources, or his conclusions! It shouldn't be hard. He even goes so far as to summarize a number of his points on a nice little colored table. I'm still waiting. Stop running around shouting commie and just refute him.
83 posted on 02/01/2002 11:04:39 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
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.
84 posted on 02/01/2002 11:05:26 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I posted it for his points on Libertarianism, not his personal opinions on other matters.

His personal opinions on other matters lead him to his views on Libertarianism. If he and/or you are to be taken seriously, you cannot incorporate solid socialism into a viewpoint and then try to separate it when it suits him/you.

85 posted on 02/01/2002 11:05:31 AM PST by riley1992
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WindMinstrel
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.

Love it! :-)

86 posted on 02/01/2002 11:06:07 AM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Libertarians do have their use in this country. We need a party that's pretty far to that extreme in order to have any chance at all of pulling the Republicrat party away from big government and more curtailment of our rights.
87 posted on 02/01/2002 11:06:54 AM PST by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Libertarians are the ideological predecessors for the Post-Indurstrial Age/ Post Nation-State political movements.

Conservatives are the managers of the welfare state and the late stages prior to the death of the nation state in the Pre-Information Age time period.

Conservatives would be wise to learn to work with us as our thinkers are the only chance they have to preserve their families and culture if not their welfare nation-state they have been taught to love.

88 posted on 02/01/2002 11:06:57 AM PST by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Maria Cantwell and Harry Reid love those libertarians. The Democratic Senate loves those libertarians.
89 posted on 02/01/2002 11:07:35 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
His idea have nothing to do with communism? How about this one:

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

As opposed to what? Redistribution of wealth or government manipulation of markets to make them more "fair"?

90 posted on 02/01/2002 11:07:38 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: riley1992
He doesn't incorporate socialism into his conclusions about Libertarians! That's just the point! He may at other places make aside comments that are socialist, but his flat out assertions about Libertarian philosophy have nothing whatever to do with socialism. In fact, he puts his comments in a nice little table contrasting the Libertarian image with the Libertarian reality. Now, why is he wrong? Just refute him! C'mon guys.. Don't be scared.
91 posted on 02/01/2002 11:07:40 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further

As you wish.

92 posted on 02/01/2002 11:08:54 AM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Why the black/white dichotomy? Either we have an unrestrained Libertarian free market economy or we have centrally planed socialitic economy? I don't understand your reasoning here.
93 posted on 02/01/2002 11:08:54 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Maria Cantwell and Harry Reid love those libertarians. The Democratic Senate loves those libertarians.

Perhaps if you fielded candidates that actually stood for small government and constitutional restraint, instead of whining about how someone stole your votes (as if you were entitled to them), you wouldn't have lost.

94 posted on 02/01/2002 11:10:07 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Conservatives would be wise to learn to work with us as our thinkers are the only chance they have to preserve their families and culture

What a joke. Libertarian hyperspasticindividualism will destroy "culture".
95 posted on 02/01/2002 11:10:09 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Despite the claimed horror at 'collectivism', libertarians share the general liberal preference for collective forms of decision-making - above all, the market.

This statement is outright idiotic. To call market forces--which consists millions upon millions of individual decisions mad by millions and millions of separate indivduals--collectivist is out right insanity. This guy has absolutely no regard for the proper definition of words---he's worse than Bill Clinton!!!

96 posted on 02/01/2002 11:10:19 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
An overly long treatise supporting authoritarianism, but let's pick a paragraph and parse, shall we...
collectivism: Despite the claimed horror at 'collectivism', libertarians share the general liberal preference for collective forms of decision-making - above all, the market. This is often legitimised by a claimed universal necessity, to "balance" or "weigh" preferences. This is an ancient metaphor, and very popular since Newton, but the 'necessity' is not self-evident. No can show why preferences should be balanced, or weighed: to want them weighed or balanced is a preference in itself. It is, by definition, a collectivist preference, since at least two people must participate. In practice, free-market decisions are always collective: supply of one product, by one maker, to one customer is not a free market. A free market in the libertarian sense needs at least three parties: with only one buyer and one seller, there is no competition. In such a free market, with multiple parties and competition, all parties influence the final state of affairs. No individual can decide that outcome alone. While claiming to reject autocracy, libertarianism has in fact abandoned autonomy.
This is mostly jiberish. Calling the free-market "collectivism" doesn't make it so. The market is a vast collection of free individuals. They each, as individuals, decide the value of any given commodity. And each individual then acts upon his judgement and decides whether or not to participate in a transaction. The buyer buys at a given price or the seller sells at that price each according to his own will. If one doesn't like the price, then he is free to walk away from the transaction. In an authoritarian society, be it leftist or rightist, those commodity values are set by the State. Also, the decision to participate in the sale is made by the State. What you may buy or sell, where you may buy or sell it, and what price you will pay or get are all set by the State. That is collectivism. And it is still collectivism even if one cloaks it in a veneer of "traditional values". Changing the definition of a word may work for Humpty Dumpty or Bill Clinton, but it doesn't work in reality.
97 posted on 02/01/2002 11:12:44 AM PST by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Why the black/white dichotomy? Either we have an unrestrained Libertarian free market economy or we have centrally planed socialitic economy? I don't understand your reasoning here.

Because rights either exist, or they do not.

If our rights are brokered by the state in a semi-socialistic-centrally-planned economy, then they are not recognized by the state as rights, but priveleges.

Why is this hard to understand?

98 posted on 02/01/2002 11:12:45 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Dane
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.
99 posted on 02/01/2002 11:12:51 AM PST by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Look, buddy, this commie crap has been refuted thousands of times over in the last half-century.

If you have failed to do any real research, that is your loss; don't expect ME, for instance, to refute this totalitarian vomit.

You have replied to none of my posts so far on any thread.

Don't bother now, Mr. Nothing; you are a disruptor, plain and simple.

I will hunt you down on every thread I can.

100 posted on 02/01/2002 11:12:54 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | 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