[Maceman]

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.

[Exnihilo]

bump

[El Sordo]

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

[francisandbeans]

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?

[Aquinasfan]

The central problem with libertarianism is that God doesn't give anyone the "right" to do anything intrinsically evil.

[FreedomIsSimple]

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!!

[Paradox]

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.

[Captain Shady]

More relevant links:

Democratic Freedom Caucus

Republican Liberty Caucus

The Progress Report

[tcostell]

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.

[Cold Heat]

Bookmarked and bumped! However, I titled it a study of libertarianism. LOL! I tried not to offend. I must be too liberal.

[The Green Goblin]

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.

[riley1992]

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?!

[steve-b]

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.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Because there is a real distinction between moral good and evil that matters in more than a utilitarian way.

[narby]

redistribution of wealth is not wrong:

Oh, really?

I call it "theft".

[Dakmar]

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.

[NittanyLion]

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.

[The Green Goblin]

"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...

[Quila]

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.

[JohnGalt]

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.