As you wish.
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.
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?
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.
Why these rants against the libertarians today, somebody lose your welfare check?
"The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded."Is there a political philosophy whose values and/or premises can be rationally grounded?
"The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded."
Is there a political philosophy whose values and/or premises can be rationally grounded?
Most libertarians support competitive interaction in a Darwinist form - Darwinist in the sense that some entities may disappear, in the process of competition.
Well, with respect to their showing in the polls.. I guess Darwin won.
You are free to define yourself as you please.
WHY DEMOCRACY IS WRONG [which says among other things, RICH Persons should not be allowed to vote!]
The reality is that the rich (and some other categories) have a double, and more than double, vote. Depriving them of the vote partly corrects this structural injustice in
western democracies. Voting and candidacy rights could be removed from such categories as:
Hard work and longer working hours are praised by politicians and business, in the successful EU economies. The 'shining
example' is the USA, which indeed has the longest workweek of any advanced economy. But hard work is morally wrong - with
certain exceptions, such as the fire service or health care.
[just look at all of this filth!]
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/
This guy didn't just think up lies about libertarians he would like to destroy all Americans!
His work makes him seem like the TED KAZINSKI of Holland!
It would seem that a true Conservative should want the freedom that their fathers fought and died for and would vigorously fight any attempt to diminish them.
What's amazing is that every election cycle we hear Republican politicians talk of less government, less spending etc. and then, when in office, those grand old ideals take a back seat.
Of course not, no more than the law of gravity is defined as coercion. The laws of economics and the law of gravity are almost equally set into stone.
This anti-libertarian screed has so many false premises in, so much bad logic, it's not worth my time to pick apart every single stupid thing in it.