Libertarianism - the perpetual motion machine of U.S. politics thread

[Inigima]

5 derps out of 5 derps.

I guess nobody will die in a Socialist utopia that doesn't need to. Nobody will starve to death in breadlines and nobody will die waiting for a doctor on that single payer health care.

And that's cute. If nothing else I respect your opinion, but as is mostly the case with people like you, something gives you the opinion you are above me. I'm sorry I didn't know you were part of the intelligentsia class master.

I don't understand why you think I'm a socialist. I also think you mischaracterize both our current system and the less helpful system that I'm pretty sure you'd prefer. Basically any government socializes at least some things. We socialize the cost of, for example, police departments, because it's much more efficient to fund them as a group than it is for everyone to hire security. "Contract enforcement" is typically the one thing hardcore libertarians insist is a properly provided government service; the costs are socialized so that a. everyone pays in and b. you don't have to hire a guy named Big Mike to break the kneecaps of people who don't meet their obligations, or deal with the ethical issues and practical problems he produces.

I don't believe you when you say you respect my opinion. It's pretty clear you don't, so I assume it's the equivalent of the "no offense, but" fig leaf typically trotted out before something blindingly offensive. And you're right, I do think I'm "above" you, because I think most self-professed "libertarians" are basically toddlers, politically, who haven't thought very critically about their beliefs. Nothing I've seen in the last couple days here has disabused me of that opinion. So there you are.

EDIT: The other problem with libertarianism, and "libertarianism," is that they're basically hydras. I mentioned this a long time ago, in this very thread, but it's borderline impossible to debate, because people One True Scotsman all the way to the bank. Oh, this thing that happened? That's not libertarian. Oh, no. That's not libertarianism, this is libertarianism. Oops, you missed me! Libertarianism is over here now.

edit: I have no idea why I'm even bothering to write these posts. Your last post made it very clear that you are only interested in arguing with the strawmen you create.

[Lummel]

Are Libertarians just lazy Marxists?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Are Libertarians just lazy Marxists?

Not a great sign when you are comparing a philosophy to Marx(ism) and you have two quotes from Marx but not a single quote from a philosopher espousing the philosophy that you are comparing it to. A good rule of thumb - if you're going to compare two philosophies, you should treat them both with the same level of analysis. Which is to say, if you're going to quote Marx to make your point, you should be quoting an actual libertarian philosopher to support the point you're trying to make about libertarianism - you can't just substitute "libertarians believe" instead.

[TrackerNeil]

Speaking as an ex-libertarian, that's basically the core of my objection to it now. It's an ideology based around premises rather than outcomes. So long as any situation fits the libertarian premises then the outcome is - by definition - considered good, regardless of how much real-world harm results from it.

Wonderfully expressed.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Are Libertarians just lazy Marxists?

I got a lot more from the comments than the actual article

[Ramsay Gimp]

Not a great sign when you are comparing a philosophy to Marx(ism) and you have two quotes from Marx but not a single quote from a philosopher espousing the philosophy that you are comparing it to. A good rule of thumb - if you're going to compare two philosophies, you should treat them both with the same level of analysis. Which is to say, if you're going to quote Marx to make your point, you should be quoting an actual libertarian philosopher to support the point you're trying to make about libertarianism - you can't just substitute "libertarians believe" instead.

Left-wing critics of libertarian thought hardly ever draw from the actual source, preferring to construct easy-target straw men. They just spout what libertarians "believe" without ever quoting one

The only "libertarian" theorist that critics bother to respond to is Ayn Rand, a polarizing figure even within libertarian circles.

[MerenthaClone]

The only "libertarian" theorist that critics bother to respond to is Ayn Rand, a polarizing figure even within libertarian circles.

I mean, if you want to cite others, I'll happily respond. Admittedly not on this forum, but I've responded repeatedly to people citing Murray, Rothbard, and Hoppe, who are all varying degrees of idiots. That's why, incidentally, my exposure to libertarians has been more on the an-cap side. If you've got other ones you want to support, you're welcome to. I'll throw a little message saying "the libertarians I've talked to seem to support ____ and have repeatedly cited most of Mises.org at various points" if it makes you feel better, though. Its not like I actually talk to any theorists, but sure.

Argumentation Ethics is, by the way, some of the dumbest fucking shit I've ever seen written. Fortunately, at least some of the other libertarians involved seemed to agree. Unfortunately, many of them seemed to disagree because it wasn't compatible with praexology, which is also some of the dumbest shit I've seen written.

e: You mistake laziness in description for laziness in thought.

[emberling]

my own progression from libertarian-with-a-lot-of-asterisks to rabid hardcore leftist is basically of the form described in that article, only less specifically Marxist: the more deeply I engaged with the issues and the more I learned to recognize inequality and privilege, the more my quasi-"libertarian" principles led me to leftism. I was never anything resembling a real libertarian though, as I always saw private property - particularly inheritance - as a dubious social construct

the distinction between marxism and communism may be important to note in this discussion. not necessary to accept the whole violent revolution into communal state or whatever to understand class based perspectives, hegemony, superstructure etc.

[Hot Meat Pie]

Liberalism FTW :)

[Stannatic]

edit: I have no idea why I'm even bothering to write these posts. Your last post made it very clear that you are only interested in arguing with the strawmen you create.

Well at least we can agree on something, you and I. I have no idea why I'm bothering arguing with you considering your entire argument is basically "I'm older than you, I know what's what and you better shuddup, you darned kid!"

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Well at least we can agree on something, you and I. I have no idea why I'm bothering arguing with you considering your entire argument is basically "I'm older than you, I know what's what and you better shuddup, you darned kid!"

Projection much?

Don't get me wrong. People sometimes make age-related arguments on this board. People sometimes disparage those who hold particular views as being childish, or unworldly, or naive. It happens. It shouldn't, but it does.

But there was no part of Inigima's post that made anything resembling that kind of an argument. So... try again?

[TerraPrime]

Projection much?

Don't get me wrong. People sometimes make age-related arguments on this board. People sometimes disparage those who hold particular views as being childish, or unworldly, or naive. It happens. It shouldn't, but it does.

But there was no part of Inigima's post that made anything resembling that kind of an argument. So... try again?

It's celar that he saw Ini's use of the word "toddler," without comprehending the modifier following it, "politically," making the "toddler" an issue of political experience, not of age.

[Stannatic]

Projection much?

Don't get me wrong. People sometimes make age-related arguments on this board. People sometimes disparage those who hold particular views as being childish, or unworldly, or naive. It happens. It shouldn't, but it does.

But there was no part of Inigima's post that made anything resembling that kind of an argument. So... try again?

Political toddler. A comment in the other thread about most Libertarians being college freshmen that have no world experience. How else am I suppose to read those kind of statements?

This is such a headache. If I ever needed a reminder as to why I don't usually do political debates, the past couple days have been it. Clearly I'm outnumbered on this board, and clearly nothing good will ever come out of this.

[TerraPrime]

Political toddler. A comment in the other thread about most Libertarians being college freshmen that have no world experience. How else am I suppose to read those kind of statements?

This is such a headache. If I ever needed a reminder as to why I don't usually do political debates, the past couple days have been it. Clearly I'm outnumbered on this board, and clearly nothing good will ever come out of this.

Yes, yes, and yes.

But I don't think it will stop you. People who say this sort of stuff are also, generally, ones who lack the self-discipline to disengage, because those who possess that level of self-discipline would never have posted that sort of comment to begin with.

But that's ok. We have enough bandwidth on the board for you to show us your complaints about nobody taking you seriously before you offered anything serious to engage with. We all love self-fulfilling prophecies around here.

[Stannatic]

Considering the server goes down nightly on my end, that would seem to be false.

[MerenthaClone]

Considering the server goes down nightly on my end, that would seem to be false.

FWIW, I laughed quite a bit.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Lol

[Inigima]

Well, that's unlikely to be the tipping point, at least.

[Shryke]

EDIT: The other problem with libertarianism, and "libertarianism," is that they're basically hydras. I mentioned this a long time ago, in this very thread, but it's borderline impossible to debate, because people One True Scotsman all the way to the bank. Oh, this thing that happened? That's not libertarian. Oh, no. That's not libertarianism, this is libertarianism. Oops, you missed me! Libertarianism is over here now.

edit: I have no idea why I'm even bothering to write these posts. Your last post made it very clear that you are only interested in arguing with the strawmen you create.

It's the same thing you get with american conservatism. It can never fail, it can only be failed. It's how you paper over the holes.

[Crazydog7]

It's the same thing you get with american conservatism. It can never fail, it can only be failed. It's how you paper over the holes.

I remember this line of reasoning being used around the time of the 2nd gulf war Bush was never a "true" conservative and all of his insanity could be written off as an imperfect version of the philosophy.