I hate Libertarians, that is all.

[NightWatcher]

I think it's funny how most of the smug libertarians I know are dependent on the government in some for or another for their income and/or healthcare. I know libertarians who hate the government from the comfort of their retirement checks that come from the Army Corps of Engineers every month. I know anti-government libertarians who are employed by the US Postal Service. I know anti-government libertarians who are employed as civilian employees of the Dept of Defense. Hell, I know anti-government libertarians who are enlisted in the Army... If they hate the government and want to be free from it, why not start by stopping cashing their checks.

[randys1]

1. Almost all of them are repubs too embarrassed to admit it

I once made the comment that unfortunately most veterans are cons, well they are it is just that many of them call themselves libertarians or independents which really is con and the ones that love pot but hate govt are just as bad

It drives me crazy that so many vets and currently serving are righty because Obama is the one who gave them PTSD settlements which many of them enjoy now, which they deserve of course.


I know this isnt about vets, but yes most libertarians are useless

[NightWatcher]

2. They like running up charges on a credit card but never want to pay the bill

Oh, and they want to smoke pot and tell you how they are better than everyone else because they are so smart.

[AgingAmerican]

3. My Nieces inlaws

...are Libertarian Hillbillies. Almost all of them are on some form of public assistance. They get food stamps and Social Security. They rant and rage constantly about the evils of public housing and 'Freedom', even though half of them live in section 8 housing.

They stupidly don't even realize they are absolute hypocrites. They lay around fantasizing about being MMA fighters and poaching deer.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. Betcha they can't WAIT for the coming race war too.

[hifiguy]

4. The best quote ever about libertarians and Randites:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

—John Rogers

Libertarians are nothing more then ordinary greedhead repukes who want to smoke dope and watch porn.

[rivegauche]

23. OMG I love that quote. Thanks for sharing it! n/t

[hifiguy]

25. You're entirely welcome.

It is such a brilliant observation, and is stuffed to bursting with truth.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

94. My favorite quote about libertarianism was a definition given by the writer Iain Banks

"A simple-minded right-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard."

My first objection to libertarianism is that it denies reality. After all, modern libertarianism pretends that only the state intrudes on our liberties. It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free. It denies the need for the state to curb them in order to protect the freedoms of weaker people. It is the disguise adopted by those who wish to exploit without restraint. It also ignores the libertarian paradise, Somalia.

I know, libertarians will claim that Somalia has nothing to do with libertarianism, and linking the two is a sore point with libertarians. They claim that it isn't true libertarianism, it's anarchy. True libertarians believe in just enough government to protect private property and personal safety; without those protections, they argue, anarchy ensues. The problem is that they cannot point to even one current or historical example of a government that functions as they imagine it should. They have no real world examples, so they ply their arguments as a theoretical construct.

Every example of places with little centralized government is dismissed by libertarians as an anarchistic situation, not a "true" libertarianism. It's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, Ron Paul edition. The situation in Afghanistan is blamed on 30 years of war and tribal anarchy, rather than the lack of a central government. Somalia is blamed again on war, on American intervention, Russian intervention, and again on tribal anarchy. Historical examples of feudalism arising in the absence of a centralized state, or dark ages arising after civilization collapses, are dismissed as either irrelevant or invalid because of war and anarchy. The fact that corruption and the Mafia are more prevalent in southern Italy where tax collection and central government are weaker than in the North, is again dismissed as a cultural or anarchistic issue. It's always the same. Libertarianism is an infallible theory of the way things should be, just as Marxism is seen by its adherents. Wherever it fails, it does so because the people weren't ready for it, or there was too much violence to allow it to work, or because the government wasn't powerful enough to protect people from harm.

Libertarians fail to realize that there has never been -- and never will be -- a government that functions according to their principles because it runs entirely contrary to human nature. As any libertarian understands when it comes to authoritarians, power tends to corrupt; and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you decentralize and remove the modern state, leaving only essentially a glorified police force in charge to protect private property and personal safety, one of two things happens: 1) The central police force turns into a right-wing military dictatorship invested in stamping out all leftist thinking, then appropriating the country's wealth for themselves and their friends (for example, Chile under Pinochet) or 2) All central authority and protection break down completely as power localizes into the hands of local criminals and feudal/tribal warlords with little compunction about abusing and terrorizing the local population (feudal France, Afghanistan, Somalia, western Pakistan, etc.)

The devolution of local authority and taxation into the hands of criminal groups willing to provide a safety net in exchange for their cut of the action is the inevitable result of the breakdown of the government-backed safety net. The people will want a safety net; they'll either get it from an accountable governmental authority, or from a non-governmental authority of shadowy legality. Both kinds of authority will levy their own form of taxation, be it legal and official, or part of an illegal protection scheme. In its own way, the "No True Libertarianism" argument is very similar to the "No True Communism" of the far left, who argue that the fault of Communism lies not with the idea, but with the practice -- despite the fact that no successful large-scale Communism has ever been implemented in the world. Neither ideology can fail its adherents. They can only be failed by imperfect practitioners. Both ideologies run counter to human nature for the same reason: power abhors a vacuum. The people with the money and guns will always abuse the people who don't have the money and guns, unless there are multiple levels of checks, balances, and legal and economic protections to ensure the existence of a middle-class with a stake in maintaining a stable society. The modern state didn't arise by accident or conspiracy; it evolved as a means of avoiding the failures of other models. Libertarianism is a philosophical game played by those without real-world experience of localized, non-state-actor tyranny, or enough awareness of history to understand the immaturity of their political worldview. It is based, like Marxism, on fantasy and rejection of the real world.

[Rozlee]

97. Good analysis.

Libertarianism in its ideal state would require its citizens to be the equivalent of Stepford Wives. They would eventually lose the selfish me-centered vision they currently have of it, where they keep all their "wealth," but the system would be so delicate that it couldn't sustain any changes to its structure.

[SkyIsGrey]

110. "modern libertarianism pretends that only the state intrudes on our liberties".

It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free. It denies the need for the state to curb them in order to protect the freedoms of weaker people.


Libertarianism also denies the role of said banks, corporations and the rich directly causing the government intrusion on civil liberties.

[hifiguy]

112. Saving that whole post as a doc.

[freshwest]

48. K&R on this post and the thread.

[Major Hogwash]

86. Hahahaha!!! That's a classic! Thank you for sharing that here.

There are a lot of so-called "Libertarians" where I live in Idaho that think that the federal government has never helped them at all.
I just laugh, and ask them how they got to work.

[Bonx]

5. I don't hate Libertarians

Some are good friends.
That is all.

[NightWatcher]

6. "strongly disagree with their ill conceived and ignorant political positions" just doesnt flow

[alterfurz]

7. Christopher Hitchens on Libertarianism:

"I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement in the U.S. that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough."

[1StrongBlackMan]

10. Cute! eom.

[freshwest]

49. Thanks for all of that.

[War Horse]

100. That is a good one :) n/t

[el_bryanto]

8. It is messed up to hear someone living on the government dime through unemployment or

disability, complain about how the government creates dependency.

In college I had a grudging respect for libertarians (on the grounds that at least they were more consistent than Republicans, and willing to own up to the ugly side of their beliefs) - but as I've come to meet more and more of them, I've come to dislike their political position more and more - it's essentially a con.

Bryant

[paulkienitz]

9. I find libertarians much more reasonable than, say, fundies

...but on the whole, I might actually prefer dealing with fundies because they're less persuasive and less of a long term threat.


Libertarianism: the illusion that we could drive faster and have less traffic if we were allowed to use both sides of the road.

[pnwmom]

33. I think Libertarians are much more of a temptation to young people

who haven't seen enough of the world yet, but know enough to reject fundie idiocy.

[F4lconF16]

41. Bingo.

That describes most libertarians I know that aren't just conservatives who want to feel better than the average person.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. Hate is a strong word but, I am Rec-ing this thread anyway.

[cheapdate]

12. What's even worse? A conspiracy-minded libertarian.

Believing that there is no legitimate public interest that justifies limiting private behavior in any way is merely dumb. Believing that AND believing that the government is secretly conspiring to deliberately cull the human population through an aerial spraying program is INSANE.

[NightWatcher]

13. you mean this guy?

[MineralMan]

14. The libertarians I know are all trying to get me

to switch to Linux. Not enough work for all of the Linux consultants, I guess.

No sale, folks. No sale.

[mikeysnot]

16. This site is running on Linux

I believe...

[MineralMan]

17. Entirely possible, but Microsoft Office won't.

I make my living with Microsoft Office.

Now, I have work to do, so I'll see you later.

[mikeysnot]

20. I make my living with Microsoft Office.

sorry to hear that....

[MineralMan]

53. Why are you sorry?

I'm a writer. That's how I make my living. All of my clients use Office, and we use its revision marking feature extensively. Why would I use anything else? Tools are tools.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. "I make my living with Microsoft Office."

Till it crashes or some website zaps your drive just for fun.

[MineralMan]

52. I haven't had a crash for years, and am very careful on the web.

No problems at all. But I used to write a column on Office for PC World. Did that for over ten years. So, I know it pretty well.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

54. I've used Open Office about as long and it's got more flexibility and uses memory better....

Although I noticed a few spreadsheets needed the column width fixed when saved to xlsx and then opened in Office 2007.

[MineralMan]

55. Not even close as a professional writing tool.

Not even close. Some people need pro tools. If you don't that's fine. I do. Try indexing a book in Open Office. I created a macro in Word that lets me Mark index entries with one keystroke. Then, indexing is automatic and repairs itself when edits are made. I have hundreds of macros in Word that save me hours of work. You have no idea, if you're suggesting Open Office.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

56. You must be used to an older version of Open Office because it can do all of that...

Indexes, tables of content, footnotes, bibliographies, the works. My current build is 9483.

I've added tons of fonts over the years though.

[MineralMan]

58. Word has been doing all that since its version 1.0 for

DOS in 1984. Sorry, but I use professional tools, and my editors use the same tools. Open Office cannot compare. I'm done. You can have the last word, if you wish.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. I guess you're stuck with it if your editor insists on it.....

I'd avoid using the same machine for the web.

[savalez]

107. lol

Microsoft hate is so nineties.

[MineralMan]

109. It is. Microsoft won the office application wars in about 1995.

Everyone else lost. It's the standard, now. If someone works with words and interacts with editors and publishers, they use Word. It's what everyone uses.

[savalez]

105. Linux as in server hosting...

The poster is clearly talking about his personal computer.

Yes I know linux also runs on desktops but comparing apples to apples is always nice.

[mikeysnot]

119. That was understood.

His reference was to Linux admins, of which there is lots of work... not sure why you would need and admin for a laptop, but oh well.

[hunter]

98. I use Linux, dislike Libertarians, and I'm a socialist Democrat.

I won't touch Microsoft, Apple, or Adobe software unless someone is paying me.

It doesn't bother me at all if others use the tools that work for them, proprietary or not.

Libertarian philosophy (if we can call it that) always boils down to "what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine."

Linux is essentially a socialist endeavor. Every innovation is freely shared with the entire community. Many of the strongest innovators are government subsidized students, academics, scientists, and engineers. The modern internet itself was created on government owned or subsidized computers in places like the University of California and CERN.

Libertarian Linux promoters are the same sort who benefit from many government social services, everything from free roads to public health, yet still they complain about taxes and government regulations.

[War Horse]

103. Must be those "Leftist Liberterians" ;)

whatever that is. Some folks describe themselves as such. I would imagine that 'true' Libertarians would be behind MS.

(I also use MS Word for work, btw. As a spell check plugin. It's effed up in many ways, but still the best one out there. Open Office is great, but has a ways to go with their spell check).

[MineralMan]

108. The reason I can't use Open Office is because it doesn't have

Word's sophisticated edit tracking capabilities. Everyone I work with, and everyone I have ever worked with, uses Word's Track Changes feature. Without it, we'd spend far, far more time doing the kind of multiple edits most writing involves. That's a professional feature that is crucial for professionals in the writing business.

Also, Word's macro capabilities allow me to automate a lot of functions over time. I mentioned my index item macro, which took me some time to develop. As I write for long documents, I mark words and phrases as index entries as I write. A combination keystroke takes care of that job for me, but it does more than that. If I mark a word or phrase as an index entry, the macro takes care of that, but also instantly searches for that word or phrase from the top of the document and mark other occurrences that I've already written. Another macro for indexing lets me check the entire document when I've finished writing the document and locate all indexed words and mark other occurrences automatically. That way, I only have to make the indexing decision once, anywhere in the document, and can then forget about it.

Other features like section breaks and other long document tools make many time-consuming tasks simple. The difference in the amount of time it takes to create the entire document is dramatic.

These days, I write content for small business websites. Normally, I write the entire content, as a single document. Some sites are made up of hundreds of individual web pages. Word's internal document hyperlink tools let me work with the website as a visitor will use it. Links in the document work the same way as they will in the final website. When the web designer gets the site's finished content document from me, it's simple for him to swap in the actual URLs for my links. I have a macro for that, too that speeds up that job dramatically for the designer.

We also use Word's HTML features to automate the coding for tables, styles, and other basic HTML features. The result is a faster turnaround between the content document and the final website. We don't do anything fancy in Word, but Word's automatic HTML coding for basic features is clean and usable as is. I use Word 2000, just because its HTML for basic stuff is super clean.

And here's the final thing that keeps me using Word: I can convert a document of hundreds of pages into an e-book almost instantly. All of the hyperlinks in the document work in the e-book, and Word's automatic table of contents generator creates a hyperlinked table of contents that works perfectly in the e-book. Once the document is finished, proofread, and checked, it can become a great looking e-book in just minutes. Every image, every hyperlink, every numbered or bulleted list appears in the e-book correctly. All of the headings, subheadings, etc. are translated perfectly. No extra work is needed.

[Drew Richards]

113. I bet youre old enough to remember wordstar and word perfect... :)

[MineralMan]

115. I am old enough for that. And many others, too.

I was the word processing reviewer for PC World Magazine between 1986 and 2003. So, I reviewed them all, in DOS and Windows versions, for years. The first year, I reviewed 16 word processors. The last year, it was finally down to just Microsoft Word, and a few free, open source word processing programs.

Microsoft won. The rest lost. And so it goes.

My favorite word processing software of all time was Ami Professional. It actually won as the best word processor one year. Then, it was purchased by Lotus, which proceeded to screw it up beyond recognition. It was gone from the market within two years. Sad. It was terrific in its first couple of versions. Thanks, Lotus!

[Peacetrain]

15. I only wish I could recommend this more than once

I am right with you.. there is no knife deeper in the back of the poor than that of a libertarian..

[woo me with science]

18. Easy fix for Democrats.

Corporate Democrats are obsessed with Libertarians and Libertarian-leaning Republicans only because they expose those Democrats' betrayal of voters on the issues they should own. The only reason any Libertarians get attention at all is because they say some of the right things re: reining in warmongering, curbing the drug wars, and stopping the outrageous surveillance/militarized police state. People do NOT like their willingness to scrap social programs and gut Social Security.

All Democrats would have to do is re-embrace the policies they were *supposed* to stand for all along. Stop the outrageous corporate war on marijuana and marijuana users. Stop pandering to the corporate One Percent with private prisons and draconian drug policies and a fascistic surveillance state. Stop being apologists for torture. Be the party that not only ends the spying and the warmongering and the outrageous drug wars for profit, but also reins in Wall Street, restores our Constitution, reduces inequality, and STRENGTHENS social safety nets.

Those who whine about Libertarians while excusing the corporate sellout of our own party are part of the problem. Third Way Democrats would not have to worry about Libertarians at all if they would crawl out of their corporate Masters' pockets for long enough to own the issues they SHOULD own.

[Psephos]

19. this post wins the thread n/t

[BobbyBoring]

72. Agreed!

Well said woo

[ReRe]

76. I second that e-motion!

[NightWatcher]

27. Libertarians say "popular" sounding things to people who don't think too much

"Let's end taxation" sounds great until you realize that the government provides some services that we all want and need. Libertarians often embrace silly flights of fancy that are not practical in a functioning society.

I don't think that if the Democrats got back to "the policies that they were supposed to stand for all along" that we'd see a decline in Libertarians. I think that the swell of libertarians came from Repukes who are too ashamed to call themselves repukes and from spoiled kids and adults who didn't take a basic civics class in high school or college.

[gateley]

34. That was me, and you nailed it.

But I disagree that some Republicans are too ashamed to identify themselves as such. I think they LOVE being Republicans, and love letting everyone know about it. They're members of the ruling class, dontcha know.

[pnwmom]

37. Not young people. They'd rather call themselves Libertarians than associate

with the bible-thumping, gay hating, anti-choice Republicans.

But whether they call themselves Republicans or Libertarians they've succumbed to the same Ayn Rand economic principles.

[gateley]

40. Ah, I see what you mean.

I just didn't see past the "elder" Libertarians, so thanks for clarifying.

[jen63]

93. Thank gawd

that I raised mine as a liberal. I admit that when I turned 18, I had no clue, or interest in politics. My son had more incite into Romney and the repubs as an 18 year old, than most adults. He voted for Obama and when we had a conversation a while back, he said, "when you move, don' throw out all of your Obama signs, buttons and bumper stickers." I assured him I wouldn't. History, ya know.

OTOH, he's now at the US Naval Academy and I'm anxious to see how much their influence will change his politics. I hope it doesn't.

[arcane1]

51. It seems a lot of repubs suddenly became "libertarian" during Bush's last year in office.

[Number23]

77. Great post. But I think it is beyond hilarious those who are simply COMPELLED to enter a thread

righteously bashing Libertarians to set their sights (yet again) on Democrats.

As transparent as wet toilet paper but I guess we're all just supposed to pretend otherwise.

[SunSeeker]

83. Some can take ANY thread and use it as a vehicle to bash Dems/Obama.

Sometimes this place reads like the Yahoo or Huffpo comments.

[Number23]

84. I know. But it's just so damn funny to me how everyone just kind of pretends not to see it

over and over and over again. And ALWAYS from the same people.

It's like we're sitting on a bus pretending not to notice the meth head banging his head bloody on the floor right next to us. It's so needless, dumb and predictable and yet so glossed over. Maybe it's a coping mechanism.

[SunSeeker]

85. Maybe the admins allow it because the flame wars they generate bring on lots of posts.

Maybe it's so this place does not get boring. Who knows. But you're right, they're as obvious as a bleeding meth head. LOL

[Bobbie Jo]

104. This train is never late.

All too predictable. At this point, I'm not sure what they think they're accomplishing with this unending nonsense.

[gateley]

32. I'd have to agree. I was kind of wooed by Harry Brown

a few years back. DU educated me (because I didn't bother to educate myself).

If a Dem had been saying some of the same things, I probably wouldn't have paid attention to Brown.

[RufusTFirefly]

45. Terrific post!

Perhaps I think so because I completely agree.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. I agree with that.

End the drug war, support personal freedom, the Bill of Rights, come out strong- as Gavin Newsom and other forward-thinking Democrats have done- for Marijuana legalization.

Get government out of the bedrooms and bodies of consenting adults, and fully 1/2 of the support of "libertarians" evaporates, leaving only the Rand wing.

[bbgrunt]

81. thank you. wise and true.

[Marr]

89. +1

[Duppers]

92. +1000

[the_sly_pig]

21. I also know government employed republicans and libertarians.....

I never miss an opportunity to throw it in their face.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. American Libertarians are MOSTLY bible thumping "small gubmunt" gun crazy right-wing racists....

Unlike Gandhi who was a Libertarian Lefty.

[Tarheel_Dem]

28. "Libertarians are just Republicans who wanna get laid, and smoke dope".

[ReRe]

78. Also, one of Thom Hartmann's frequent quotes. ;-) n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

29. I don't hate anybody. (Not even Dick Cheney) That is all. n/t

[conservaphobe]

30. This OP is the kind of succinct disdain real Democrats show for libertarians.

None of the excuses for libertarianism and finger-pointing at Democrats we see in some replies to this thread.

[Enrique]

36. ridiculous

no non-anonymous Democrat would say such a foolish thing, that they don't even mean.

Even this totally out of control GOP, none of them would say "I hate all liberals".

[conservaphobe]

43. Responding to a thread attacking libertarianism with complaints about Democrats

tells me all I need to know about someone.

[Enrique]

47. no one judges people like that

based on the way people talk online and on RW radio, you'd think we are in an actual civil war, with half the country hating the other.

But you look around in real life and people rarely hate each other. If you or the OP had a libertarian co-worker, neither of you would hate that coworker.

[gateley]

31. I feel the same way about "Christians". nt

[pnwmom]

35. There are many kinds of Christians ,including people like the nuns on the bus,

who actively work for progressive social issues.

But all Libertarians believe in a disastrous economic policy that opposes everything progressives believe in.

[gateley]

39. Maybe you didn't notice the quotation marks around the word.

And I'm pretty much humbled by Pope Francis's true message of love.

So I understand the distinction, but thanks.

[pnwmom]

42. I saw them but wasn't sure what you meant. The quotes could also suggest

that many of those people who call themselves "Christians" might not be behaving in a Christ-like manner. Which, of course, is also true.

Thanks for clarifying.

[gateley]

44. Yes -- that's what I meant --

Like all the "Christians" yelling at those kids coming over the border "they're not my problem".

I wonder if Jesus is proud of them for "standing their ground".

[Manifestor_of_Light]

57. But Jesus said it was okay to kill people who didn't like his preaching.

Isn't that being Christian too???????

[gateley]

67. I wouldn't know -- I'm not a Christian so don't profess to know what he did

or didn't say. I just know the memes.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

71. I'm not either. But I know the Bible much better than a lot of Christians.

They don't seem to know anything about it. They don't know about the cruel and hateful stuff Jesus allegedly said. They don't want to know about it. The bible is FULL of contradictions and absurdity. Why anyone would think all of it is true or all of it is a good moral guide is beyond me.

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching.
Matthew 11:20-24

[gateley]

79. Haha! I probably do, too, come to think of it.

I was raised Catholic so they never encouraged studying the Bible (fine by me!), but I keep hearing different quotes about the same issue from different people.

A friend of mine has her Ph.D in comparative religion, and it's fascinating how the Bible (probably all religions Holy Books) has been revised and cut and pasted to better serve whoever is in power at that time.

And yes, they think God rolled up his sleeves, is pen, and sat down and wrote the thing. It IS the word of God, right??

And that Matthew -- he forgot the sarcasm thingy.

[Bluenorthwest]

96. Pope Francis says gay people are inherently disordered, he says we are agents of 'The Father of

Lies'. He has described opposition to rights for LGBT people as 'God's war, which we must fight'.

If that is what you call a message of true love, I'd like to send you an Oxford English Dictionary, free of charge.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. If you're speaking of the Libertarian party, yes. libertarianism the philosophy, no.

the philosophy is much like "Christianity" in that it covers a whole range of people and viewpoints.

...in fact there are many people who identify as left-libertarian or socially libertarian, who believe in such "libertarian" ideas as pot legalization, or allowing terminally ill people to choose a dignified, pain-free exit on their own terms... reproductive freedom, equal rights for LGBT citizens, even letting consenting adults read dirty novels like 50 shades of grey if they want without fear of government censorship.

But the people, even some self-described "Progressives" who support things like filling prisons with pot smokers or censoring what consenting adults can look at or read- but won't always admit their secret authoritarian leanings- who deliberately conflate those small-l libertarian positions with the asinine economic ideas of Rand followers and the big-L Libertarian party, know exactly what they're trying to do.

[pnwmom]

65. The libertarian party is the only one that could get elected.

The libertarian "philosophy" you describe could mean anything or nothing.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. And you don't think equal rights, personal freedom, ending the drug war, etc. are good ideas?

"libertarian philosophy" CAN mean anything, but so can "Christianity". Actually, given the range of self-described "Christian" behaviors, from helping the poor, ministering to the sick to protesting funerals and attacking abortion clinics, I would argue that in comparison "libertarianism" the philosophy is incredibly well defined and constrained.

But labels, self-applied ones, are always open to such varied interpretations. Still, people find them useful.

If someone is advocating voting for the Libertarian Party here, they're breaking the rules. If someone is advocating a libertarian idea, like say not arresting pot smokers or burning books, they are not.

[pnwmom]

69. I agree. But when most people speak about Libertarians, they're speaking about

people who support the Libertarian party.

Being a civil libertarian or having libertarian principles -- but not libertarian ECONOMIC principles -- is a different thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. They are different, but they get conflated, thats my only point.

I agree about the Libertarian Party.

[Blue_Roses]

90. As a life-long Democrat I say

great points. It gives better clarity and understanding.

[ashling]

38. As a general rule, so do I

However, Steve Palzzo, (R Ms) who is for some unknown reason now a Republican Ass. Whip, recently sent a bible to all members to "aid in their decision making." Sort of "Gideons go Congress". Anyway, some Libertarian Congressman, whose name I do not recall, sent him a copy of Rousseau and the Constitution.


.

[gateley]

46. That's pretty funny. And I want those kittens!! nt

[KyleMcShades]

50. Excellent pic..

Some libertarians try to be consistent, but as the picture points out its not possible to be a consistent libertarian. You're not entitled to the benefits of society without paying a fee to that society.

[MisterP]

74. they honestly believe labor exploits capital, that's what

[kwassa]

60. Most of the first libertarians I argued with online ....

in the early 90s on unix text readers ...

were young single software engineers working at the same company as me.

Much of their, and my, income depended on huge government defense contracts.

In other words, socialism. Big government money transfers.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

61. Somalia awaits! It's a libertarian paradise! Bring your own weapons!!!

Why don't they move there, if they hate government so much?

Or a tropical paradise like Haiti is closer.

[musette_sf]

64. I live with one, day in day out

(it's like a Carville-Matlin marriage). I tune it out now. When the libertarians played the Republican Party with their "Liberty Caucuses", I asked some guys involved in the party WTF was going on. The reply was "You have to fish where the fish are". I'm, like, doesn't this tell you something about the fish, and your cause as well? The prevailing attitude of the libertarians I know is "If only you UNDERSTOOD it you would AGREE". In other words, "If you weren't such a brainwashed liberal, you'd 'get' our positions". Um, no.

[Iris]

66. What'd a librarian ever do to you?

oh, wait. You said libertarians.



Carry on.

[octoberlib]

73. Our Libertarian budget director just stepped down...

after he destroyed our state with his economic policies. I can't stand them , either. It's a totally fucked up ideology.

[Mkap]

75. They like Ayn Rand

the fact that they like Ayn Rand a woman who described all her villeins in her novels as "dark skinned" and "crooked nose" is enough to see how crazy that ideology is. And the fact they never grew up past the age of 16 and think they can do whatever selfish desires they want

They go against the social contract theory that a lot of the enlightenment writers (including the ones that influenced the constitution) write about

[Ikonoklast]

101. Ayn Rand despised Libertarians.

"For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs."

[Distant Quasar]

80. A good word hijacked by a bad cause

The original "libertarians" were (and are) socialist anarchists who opposed all kinds of hierarchy, including capitalism as well as the state. That is still what the term means in other parts of the world, I believe. Only in America could right-wing plutocrats who support the absolute tyranny of private property call themselves "libertarians" and not have people laugh in their faces.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

116. You're absolutely right.

And the distinction is important.

[nikto]

82. Libertarianism: One of the phoniest political philosophies EVER

When you really study it,
there's no there, there.

[emsimon33]

87. Bad news: Take a number and stand in line :-)

[PBass]

88. It's a load of utter nonsense, is what it is.

Even the most stoned utopian hippies* are more grounded in reality than Libertarians, with their mythical "Free Market solutions" nonsense. We might as well talk about how rainbow unicorns will provide economic solutions by sprinkling everything with fairy dust.

*(said with affection)

I agree that "hate" is a strong word, but Libertarians do deserve our scorn and mockery.

[DeSwiss]

91. Hate is a crass, dumb and useless emotion.

- And since you're a DUer, it's unworthy of you. Always aspire towards the positive. Don't let the negativity of others bring to their level.....

[SidDithers]

95. Fuck Ron Paul...nt

Sid

[PatrynXX]

99. well that sucks. always been a Libertarian

so the Tea Party has ruined the name

I'm not Republican

[ZombieHorde]

102. I strongly disagree with many Libertarian viewpoints,

but I have a hard time hating any group that is anti-war.

[SunSeeker]

117. Libertarians are all for a war on the poor.

Which is why they get along so well with Republicans ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend&quot .

[ZombieHorde]

118. Yeah, I strongly disagree with their economic policies.

However, I was using a different definition for the word "war." I was talking about grand scale armed conflict, usually between those who identify as belonging to different countries.

Which is why they get along so well with Republicans ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend&quot .

I have not noticed this, except some people consider Ron Paul a Libertarian, but he is a Republican. Some of the Republican boards I have read, such as Freerepublic and GOPUSA don't seem to care for Libertarians very much at all due to their stance on abortion, marriage equality, drugs, prostitution, and war.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

106. There is a difference between Left and Right Libertarian ...

...ideology.

One is rooted in socialist ideals of solidarity and worker's empowerment. The other in ignorance and selfishness.

[Tree-Hugger]

111. I have Libertarians as friends

I don't hate Libertarians as a people, but I hate the philosophy.

My friend is intelligent, but very young and immature in that intelligence. She's a big time Libertarian - great for being anti-war. Loves the pot. Wants to leave the gays alone. Very much anti-government anything. Very anti-tax. Doesn't believe in government aid or government programs. Wants the government out of her life. Yeah - Army family, living on base. They don't complain about the money coming from the government and it's wars. She's also a new Catholic, yet clutches Ayn Rand to her heart. She once told me it's "very easy" to believe in Rand and be a good Catholic. Yeah....no. The Catholic Church has it's problems, but as one of the largest social justice organizations in the world, it cannot be reconciled with Rand bullshit.

They never see, though. They've got the tinfoil pulled over their eyes.

[NightWatcher]

114. Your friend is all over the map. Rand fan, catholic, anti gov, cashes their checks

People like this have no idea what they're talking about, but they seem to be amongst the most vocal.

[Romulox]

120. Civil libertarianism has always been a core part of Democratic/Leftist thought.

This thread, and many like it, are products of ignorance of what these terms actually mean. It becomes pointless to fight the tide.

[Bonx]

122. libertarian = evil, mkay ?

don't over-think it.

[HughBeaumont]

121. Libertarianism is too bogged down in logical fallacies for me to take seriously.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Arguments_against_strict_libertarianism

* Libertarian business structures greatly resemble government hierarchies, even military hierarchies in the case of Taylorism. It seems contradictory to opine that citizens do not need rulers while maintaining that workers need managers; libertarians claim this is fine because joining a business is voluntary, although some critics of libertarianism would point out that changing jobs is not always possible, and that this argument would only be applicable if there actually were an abundance of businesses without such hierarchies who are hiring,[13] and that resigning is not an option because (especially when there is no welfare state) it may result in them being unable to afford food, water, housing, etc. In other words, this type of "freedom" means "the freedom to choose one's own masters or to starve under a bridge."

* Strict interpretations of freedom to associate offer little incentive to remedy problems created by social stratification; in particular, the principle of "personal ownership" often leads to a blame-the-victim mentality (e.g. Rand's use of the term "parasite" to describe those dependent on public services).

* For similar reasons, libertarianism is a circular argument. Libertarians speak of "property" and "contract," as if these legal ideas somehow had meaning in the absence of law. In fact, property has always been the creation of a lawmaker, and therefore some sort of a government. Much valuable wealth in civilized countries takes the form of such things as publicly traded stock and "intellectual property," all of which were obviously called into being by law. The same holds true of contracts; the lawmaker gets to choose which agreements are enforceable by law and which are not.

* Libertarians like to ignore certain periods of history such as the Gilded Age, where libertarian ideas were widespread and in effect ("No, it was crony capitalism!&quot or recast them as a golden age. This can lead to lots of lulz; like thinking Abraham Lincoln was the spawn of Satan.

* The aforementioned "Non-Aggression Principle" isn't quite as clear as many libertarians make it sound. Libertarians support force to hold up a system of property, a system which required force to be created (ask any indigenous person) and requires force to be maintained. Take fraud, for example. If a man is found to have lied to his health insurance company about a pre-existing condition, the police (in libertarian parlance, "Men with Guns&quot will use force against him. Libertarians call this "retaliatory force" and frame the acts by the sick man as initiating force which makes for a nice game of mental gymnastics.[19] Note that you may not use the same rationalizations to frame racism, or sexism, or union-smashing as force, (and their solutions as retaliatory force) since those are things libertarians are apparently okay with.

. . . . way more at the link.

Their continued employment of False Dilemma economics and hyper-Red Baiting are also a sore spot.

Their whole "Removing the minimum wage argument" . . .. almost as horrible an idea as their whole "FairTax" crapola most of them push. Yeah, take money OUT of the hands of people who have to spend every dime of it, all because they think slavery is awesome. Let me know how many "millions of jobs" THAT stupid action is going to create. A consumption economy loaded with people earning 4, 3, 2 bucks an hour . . . SMELL THE SUCCESS!!!

Here's yet another thorn I have with them: Their newest talking point (or it's been there all along) is that "Trickle Down economics "never happened" and that all the damage we're seeing today is a result of Keynesianism".

This to me is trading one cross for another: The Blessed Temple of the Holy Free Market. It's an addict who refuses to admit they're addicted. They say I have too much faith in the government, but that's where they're wrong. I can accept that government has been compromised.

Where the vast disagreement comes from is which egg beget what chicken; WHY did it become corrupted in the first place?

It's because of players throughout history (most of them corporate and Republican) infiltrated government to act in the interests of the "Free Market" and to employ market-based solutions to an entity that had no business being run like it was a for-profit corporation.

The refusal of the Free Market fundamentalists to admit that their religion (and make no mistake, it IS one) is infallible and can only be sullied due to governmental interference (they call it "cronyism&quot completely misses the forest for the trees: Government is corrupted BECAUSE the wealthy got so wealthy that the only thing left to BUY WAS the government and to run it like it WAS a "Free Market" . . . unto themselves.

It's about as idiotic as when they say "Both Sides" or "progressive agenda" (since they're now trying to demonize that word like they did "liberal&quot . There IS NO "both sides" in American politics. There is only "right of Center" to neo-Fascism. That's your scale.