What is Libertarianism?

The difference is, you aren't a pirate but I am genuinely interested in becoming more educated.

jpete wrote:The difference is, you aren't a pirate but I am genuinely interested in becoming more educated.

You mascarade here as wanting to educate vs. becoming educated!

Oh I'm becoming educated greatly.

I've learned that no matter how much evidence is presented, some people will always squeeze their eyes tight, stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA! LA! LA! LA! LA!" lest their world view be challenged.

Or as I like to say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think"

jpete wrote:Oh I'm becoming educated greatly.

I've learned that no matter how much evidence is presented, some people will always squeeze their eyes tight, stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA! LA! LA! LA! LA!" lest their world view be challenged.

Or as I like to say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think"

Here's a different point of view for your to read and ponder: www.zompist.com/libertos.html

Northern Maine wrote:

jpete wrote:Oh I'm becoming educated greatly.

I've learned that no matter how much evidence is presented, some people will always squeeze their eyes tight, stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LA! LA! LA! LA! LA!" lest their world view be challenged.

Or as I like to say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think"

Here's a different point of view for your to read and ponder: http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

It's hardly different. I've read many similar things to this.

I don't believe saying "Libertarianism is worthless because people who preach it sometimes don't practice it" is a worthwhile argument. No action could ever be taken because I don't know every human that behaves exactly perfectly at all times in every situation. And that fact exactly proves what von Mises was saying in that you can't subject human action to the same rigid tests as you would physics. So right there I think the author of the web page is barking up the wrong tree.

If we were to take the Founding Fathers at face value as MEN, then I'd have to say they weren't worth following much at all because they often acted opposite their stated goals.

But those stated goals ARE worth pursuing, don't you think?

And for the record, you'll note the absence of snarky non replies to a direct argument.

That's how education happens NM.

Just pointing it out in case you hadn't seen it before and may not recognize it when it does present itself.

It's hardly different. I've read many similar things to this.

I don't believe saying "Libertarianism is worthless because people who preach it sometimes don't practice it" is a worthwhile argument. No action could ever be taken because I don't know every human that behaves exactly perfectly at all times in every situation. And that fact exactly proves what von Mises was saying in that you can't subject human action to the same rigid tests as you would physics. So right there I think the author of the web page is barking up the wrong tree.

If we were to take the Founding Fathers at face value as MEN, then I'd have to say they weren't worth following much at all because they often acted opposite their stated goals.

But those stated goals ARE worth pursuing, don't you think?[/quote]

I think they are. Not being a libertarian or believing in ALL of it's attributes doesn't mean loving the govt; it means accepting complexity and the fact that its theory is not a cure all. The real world is a monstrously complicated place; there's not just one thing wrong with it, nor just one thing that can be changed to fix it. Things like prosperity and freedom don't have one cause; they're a balancing act. Here's an alternative theory for you: original sin. People will mess things up, whether by stupidity or by active malice. There is no magical class of people (e.g. "government") who can be removed to produce utopia. Any institution is liable to failure, or active criminality. Put anyone in power-- whether it's communists or engineers or businessmen-- and they will abuse it. Does this mean things are hopeless? Of course not; it just means that we have to let all institutions balance each other. Government, opposition parties, business, the media, unions, churches, universities, non-government organizations, all watch over each other. Power is distributed as widely as possible to prevent any one institution from monopolizing and abusing it. It's not always a pretty solution, and it can be frustratingly slow and inefficient, but it works better than any alternative I know of.

Now I KNOW you didn't watch the video. I reject wholeheartedly that there exists today any distribution of power. I think it's one face with many masks.

It's faster to read than to listen to but I like to hear it in the original voice.

jpete wrote:Now I KNOW you didn't watch the video. I reject wholeheartedly that there exists today any distribution of power. I think it's one face with many masks.

It's faster to read than to listen to but I like to hear it in the original voice.

I will admit that I did not watch it...as I was not able to....but also admit that I am watching it now! I will get back to you!

Maybe the most shared libertarian idea and one of the most mischievous is the attempt to paint taxation as theft because of the following:
First, it's dishonest. Most libertarians theoretically accept government for defense and law enforcement. (There are some absolutists who don't even believe in national defense; I guess they want to have a libertarian utopia for awhile, then hand it over to foreign invaders.) National defense and law enforcement cost money.You can't swallow that and maintain that all taxes are bad. At least the cost of those functions is not "your money"; it's a legitimate charge for necessary services. Americans enjoy the fruits of public scientific research, a well-educated job force, highways and airports, clean food, honest labeling, Social Security, unemployment insurance, trustworthy banks, national parks. Libertarianism has encouraged the peculiarly American delusion that these things come for free. It makes a philosophy out of biting the hand that feeds you. Second, it leads directly to George Bush's financial irresponsibility. Would a libertarian urge his family or his software company or his gun club to spend twice what it takes in? When libertarians maintain that irresponsibility among the poor is such a bad thing, why is it OK in the government? It's no excuse to claim that libertarians didn't want the government to increase spending, as Bush did. As you judge others, so shall you be judged. Libertarians want to judge liberalism not by its goals (e.g. helping poor children) but by its alleged effects (e.g. teen pregnancy). The easiest things in the world for a politician to do are to lower taxes and raise spending. By attacking the very concept of taxation, libertarians help politicians-- and the public-- to indulge their worst impulses.
Finally, it hides dependence on the government. The economic powerhouse of the US is still the Midwest, the Northeast, and California-- largely liberal Democratic areas. As Dean Lacy has pointed out, over the last decade, the blue states of 2004 paid $1.4 trillion more in federal taxes than they received, while red states received $800 billion more than they paid.
Red state morality isn't just to be irresponsible with the money they pay as taxes; it's to be irresponsible with other people's money. It's protesting the concept of getting an allowance by stealing the other kids' money.

I'm not sure where you cut and pasted that from but it's chock full of false premises and outright lies.

jpete wrote:I'm not sure where you cut and pasted that from but it's chock full of false premises and outright lies.

Please point out the false premises and lies? In all fairness you have presented media to defend your position and so have I....

coalnewbie wrote:.. and let's guess the percent of libt urds that read educational documents from the revered Cato Institute. Whatever it was does once not matter. Now it's gimme more phones and beat the c rap out of anybody that stands in our way. It does no good to post things that in some way attempts to validate these idots. we need to take one trillion bucks a year out of the system NOW, there are no other issues of any consequence. I need a vacation in HI.

cons serve a turd, perfectly ok to spent trillions on their wars, don't even account for it, so responsible leaders now have to deal with it.. republicons are going down, all the way to hell.

Speaking of turds, there he is! I thought your kind didn't believe in hell?

Kevin

Northern Maine wrote:

jpete wrote:I'm not sure where you cut and pasted that from but it's chock full of false premises and outright lies.

Please point out the false premises and lies? In all fairness you have presented media to defend your position and so have I....

At least I provide the source material when I do so.

Where to start, where to start....a target rich environment if there ever was one....

Maybe the most shared libertarian idea and one of the most mischievous is the attempt to paint taxation as theft because of the following:
First, it's dishonest. Most libertarians theoretically accept government for defense and law enforcement. (There are some absolutists who don't even believe in national defense; I guess they want to have a libertarian utopia for awhile, then hand it over to foreign invaders.)

Most libertarians believe that the initiation of force is amoral and if national defense were needed, there are other, private ways to achieve it


National defense and law enforcement cost money.You can't swallow that and maintain that all taxes are bad. At least the cost of those functions is not "your money"; it's a legitimate charge for necessary services. Americans enjoy the fruits of public scientific research, a well-educated job force, highways and airports, clean food, honest labeling, Social Security, unemployment insurance, trustworthy banks, national parks.

All this assumes that "if government didn't do it, no one would" which is clearly false. People engaged in scientific research long before government was suppling the cash. There was education before the government. We had highways and airports. The whole list, other than the "New Deal" spending of course, existed before the government took over.

Libertarianism has encouraged the peculiarly American delusion that these things come for free. It makes a philosophy out of biting the hand that feeds you.

Most libertarians I know say "There's no such thing as a free lunch". It's D.C. that believes the "deficits don't matter"[/color}

Second, it leads directly to George Bush's financial irresponsibility. Would a libertarian urge his family or his software company or his gun club to spend twice what it takes in? When libertarians maintain that irresponsibility among the poor is such a bad thing, why is it OK in the government?

[color=red]And here we see the bias and the agenda. Or maybe this was published before Barack Obama. Without the link, I'll never know.

Libertarians want to judge liberalism not by its goals (e.g. helping poor children) but by its alleged effects (e.g. teen pregnancy). The easiest things in the world for a politician to do are to lower taxes and raise spending. By attacking the very concept of taxation, libertarians help politicians-- and the public-- to indulge their worst impulses.

That assumes the goal of liberalism is to "help the poor". I'm not sure how increasing poverty helps the poor but I'm not a poverty pimp so maybe I don't understand. And while I don't see a direct cause/effect relationship between helping the poor and "teen pregnancy" unless the social workers are literally AND figuratively screwing their clients, the most obvious effect is taking money from onee person to give to another. That's called theft where I come from. If I give $10 to a homeless guy after I take your wallet, I am not a "charitable organization", I'm a thief.

What allows politicians and the public to indulge their worst impulses is the knowledge that they can raid the public treasury for their own private gain.