Explain the key flaws

[in venere veritas]

in Libertrarian thought and why it fails.

[femmocrat]

1. Will this assignment count towards our final grade?

[in venere veritas]

3. LMAO Sure, why not?

I more so just want to watch people rip into libertarians.

[unblock]

2. i think the key flaws in "Libertrarian" are self-evidrent.

[Starry Messenger]

4. Rugged individualism practiced from birth is impossible.

Even Ron Paul needed someone to feed him and teach him English so he could spew his racist crap when he grew up. Socialism is the human condition. Anything else is a fairy tale.

[bhikkhu]

5. It gives insufficient value to societal cooperation

...the need and benefits of which, in our species, were apparent at the hunter-gatherer stage, and have increased greatly since.

[JHB]

6. Watching each others' backs is a collective endeavor.

[limpyhobbler]

7. Libertarian economics has already been tried and failed.

Up until about 1900, business and industry operated mostly unregulated.

The result was monopoly, abuse of workers, disease ridden tenement housing, corporate special interest control of government, etc. Basically picture the setting of a Charles Dickens novel and that's libertarian economic policy in action.

Many reforms were enacted during the 20th century to address the problems of libertarianism. I can't understand why anyone would want to go back to libertarian policies after all the struggles people fought to get away from it in the first place.

That's not really a philosophical argument, it's more history-based.

[in venere veritas]

14. I think the problem is

that large segments of the population have forgotten history. The whole those who forget history are doomed to repeat it dilemna.

[Major Nikon]

17. It would fail even worse today

Prior to 1900 there were few corporations and the US had an agrarian economy.

[Renew Deal]

8. Libertarianism is about selfishness

It's unamerican and unchristian. There seems to be a lot of Libertarian hypocrites out there, most notably Ron Paul. If Ron Paul really believed in "liberty" he we would be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage because it's not the governments job to tell people what to do with their bodies and who to love.

I'm sure some Libertarian would respond that all marriages should be outlawed because the government shouldn't be involved in licensing marriages. Good luck with that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

9. a complete lack of compassion. nt

[William769]

10. FUCK RON PAUL!

How's that for an explanation?

[in venere veritas]

15. That's more coherent than

anything RWs have said in years. And its accurate! A+

[renie408]

11. Explain why all of your posts are about libertarian-ism.

[in venere veritas]

16. Essentially because my economics

professor is hardcore Libertarian. So to keep my sanity I come on here as a way to blow off steam being that my economics class is essentially RW propaganda.

[morningfog]

19. I hope your professor doesn't teach at any publicly-funded schools.

I mean, how hardcore is he? Is he a state's-righter, natural law, libertarian-anarchist? Hardcore is relative, as is libertarianism.

[in venere veritas]

20. The abolition of

the minimum wage and the FDA as examples. Also he is in favor of comapines outsourcing to use child labor.

[Major Nikon]

12. Easy

Libertarian thought preaches that personal liberty trumps all (or almost all) other considerations. Things like civil rights, social justice, and social support all take a back seat (or aren't even given a ticket to ride the bus). It's based on the mistaken belief that less government leads to more freedom which is not surprising since most modern libertarian thought is based on the pseudo-philosophy of Ayn Rand.

[white_wolf]

13. Well for one thing it is unsustainable even within capitalism.

Ron Paul's supporters like to talk about the fact that Paul doesn't get a lot of corporate support and this is true, but they never tell you the reason why this is. Corporations don't like Ron Paul because his ideology is the dream ideology of a small segment of the capitalist class, the petty bourgeois. They want to return to classical liberalism because they think without the government's role in the market they will be able to rise up and become the new Fords, GMs, Microsoft, Apple, etc. and they might very well do so. However, as they gain power, they or their heirs will eventually compel the government to pass regulations that benefit them at the expense of smaller capitalists, thus returning us to where we are now. Libertarianism is unsustainable, the interests of the most powerful segments of the capitalist class will mandate that they add regulations that aid them.

This is only about libertarianism, if you want to discuss anarcho-capitalism, then remember that capitalism in any form requires force to protect private property. Whether that force calls itself a state or a security firm really does not make much difference.

[Zalatix]

18. It works well in the jungle, away from civilized society.

Among humans...? Not so much.

[saras]

21. Step 1: Don't think, use flawed emotional appeals for premises.

Anything built on those grounds fails.

[white_wolf]

22. Libertarianism is founded upon property rights...

However, those conflict with another key libertarian tenet, the non-aggression principle. It essentially argues that aggression is immoral, however the vast majority of this land was taken by force from the Natives, so by libertarian logic, the vast majority of private property in this country is invalid and immoral.

[in venere veritas]

23. Libertarian logic is barely logic

at all.

Anyway, I agree with both of your posts. The whole iedology is a clusterfuck used to justify selfishness. Essentially it says coercion is wrong when it impacts me negatively, but its okay if it serves my interests

[white_wolf]

24. It is especially bad today...

considering so much of it is based on Ayn Rand's Objectivism which is really a failed philosophy. Rand is really one of the weakest defenders of libertarian thought. The best defenders of libertarianism are men like John Locke and other classical liberals. I don't agree with them, but their arguments are well thought out and make sense in the context of their times, but honestly I doubt a man as smart as Locke would be preaching "classical liberalism" today, seeing as how it has failed.

[in venere veritas]

25. I love this quote I saw

It was on a demotivational poster. It said "Objectivism: Because the wealthy don't need instructions on how to be self-righteous assholes"

[HopeHoops]

26. Key flaws - won't open the lock.

[MisterP]

27. a fabulous book is James Arnt Aune's "Selling the Free Market"

from Rothbard saying it's less moral to let a retarded child die than to tax anyone for the kid's upkeep to G. Edward Griffin's "Commie Jews run the Fed" populism; it's a good intro to how neoliberalism took over all parties in the West

[in venere veritas]

28. Thanks for the suggested reading

:] who doesn't love a good book?

[Honeycombe8]

29. They espouse little or no govt, while all the while they themselves are in the govt.

It's a catch-22. You can't have "no government" in America because only a govt has the authority to make that happen. If a govt makes that happen, then there is NOT "no government."

If there is little to no govt to enforce public policies and regs, then it becomes survival of the fittest, with the most vulnerable being cast to the bottom of the barrel, with the people with the most money rising to the top, and a lopsided country is the result. A number of rich at the top, and lots of poor at the bottom, with no middle class. Which is not freedom for most people.

[in venere veritas]

30. I always saw it as passing authority to a new group

We take it away from a government elected by the people only to pass it on to unaccountable, corporate overlords whose only goal is personal economic gain.

[Honeycombe8]

31. Yes, I think that's true. nt