Libertarians are SO confused!

[markpkessinger]

LOL! A friend of mine told me about an exchange with a friend of his (whom I don't know) who identifies himself as a Libertarian. His Libertarian friend has apparently decided that Iceland, with its very strong economic recovery now in place, would be the perfect place to live. Apparently, he is unfamiliar with precisely how Iceland accomplished its impressive feat. Hint: it started with a government take-over of Iceland's banks and re-regulation of its financial sector, which had been deregulated in 2000 -- yet these are precisely the kinds of government interventions that Libertarians are always railing against. This reinforces my belief that most Americans who call themselves "Libertarians" have a rather confused understanding of what Libertarian political philosophy actually entails!

[Dont call me Shirley]

1. Did he intend on going there to wreck the place as Libertarians do?

[CJCRANE]

2. That's because no prosperous developed country is based on a libertarian model.

A social democratic mixed market economy seems to be the best model for widespread prosperity as per Germany and the Scandinavian countries (and America under FDR and Eisenhower).

[markpkessinger]

3. I once posed this question to a group of self-identified 'Libertarians' on Facebook . . .

My question to them was, "Can you point to any country in the world, either in the present day for in history, where libertarian principles have been implemented in a way that has resulted in success for that nation as a whole?" I got one response: Somalia. Delivered without irony!

[arcane1]

8. Like the only true "free market" was Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. I suspect the Somalia answer ...

was delivered by someone that knows libertarian "ideology" is a fantasy.

[former9thward]

4. Would you be willing to go back to the government structure

that existed under FDR or Eisenhower? Federal spending in 1938, for example, was 8.4 billion (139 billion in 2014 dollars). Federal spending in 2014 was 3.8 trillion.

Germany and the Scandinavian countries have been prosperous (both capitalist countries) because we have paid for their defense. If they had paid for their defense over the years they would not be in the same situation.

[daredtowork]

5. So all we have to do is spend less on defense

and we too can have the functioning government and prosperous way of life of Germany and Scandinavia.

You said it not me.

[arcane1]

10. Beat me to it!

[former9thward]

12. I know I said it.

Last edited Sat Oct 4, 2014, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)

I have long said it on DU. Of course I am not naive like many who think cutting defense will have no consequences. There will be massive layoffs -- millions, not thousands, as a result. I am willing to accept that as short term pain to lead to long term health. Also military pension benefits and insurance would have to be cut for present retirees of the military. These are a massive cost and defense can't be cut without cutting those also.

[Pharaoh]

25. perhaps we could shift jobs

to solar/wind...... a Manhattan project if you will?

Would that maybe be a good start? to shift away from a War economy to a sustainable
/sane economy ?

[barbtries]

36. that's my theory.

could put a lot of people to work - work that would benefit all of us and even the planet.

[onethatcares]

38. infrastructure

roads, bridges, water works, sewer systems, all of the above are needing repair or replacement. Putting people to work
on those could modify the impact of losing at least one F35 flying piece of crap.

why, if we scratched the entire program of the f35, we might even be able to afford healthcare for the peons.

a phase out of military benefits would be appropriate, but with not fighting wars of imperialism it could be spread out over
years like they do with social security benefits, and only affect a few. Compared to the general population the military
is a small faction.

[rhett o rick]

6. Forgive me but I am missing your point. I am sure it's me but what are you recommending? nm

[former9thward]

11. I am not recommending the "social democratic"

economy that allegedly existed, according to the poster I was replying to, under FDR and Eisenhower. Whatever existed under those two was in relation to a tiny government that existed at the time. Can't have it both ways.

[paleotn]

19. Seems to me....

....the democratic socialist nations of Europe simply took the ideas of FDR, Truman and many others to their logical end. Our government was tiny as you say only because we were stymied by those few who would rather our country revert back to the sociopathic, libertarian gilded age, where a 16 hour day, 6 day work week was the norm, even if you were only 12 years old. Where dying at a relatively young age by being literally worked to death was the average person's retirement plan. At least they avoided the grinding poverty and pain from lack of healthcare that characterized "retirement" for those who actually lived long enough to experience it.

Our government was tiny, as you say because social security was in its infancy. Medicare, Medicaid and other social safety nets didn't yet exist, but were certainly part of FDR's idea of 4 freedoms. We were never able to implement universal healthcare due to our over abundance of sociopathic, conservo-libertarian types, and average Americans stupid enough to follow them. We also hadn't quite managed to spend $1.5 trillion on a war plane that doesn't work very well and no one wants...other than Lockheed Martin anyways. Oh, maybe that's some of the defense spending you mentioned above that we shelled out, but Europe didn't. Seems they were the smarter ones in that regard.

[former9thward]

33. The European nations were "smarter" than us?

The European nations had no capacity for defense after WW II. Their militaries were destroyed as well as much of their infrastructure. The UK, one of the "victors" was on food rationing until 1956, over a decade after the war. If the U.S. had not defended them (and rebuilt their infrastructure with the Marshall Plan) thy would have been taken over by the Soviets.

[rhett o rick]

30. First I think you are mis-presenting what the OP is saying and Secondly, it's much

easier to "not recommend" than actually have a recommendation. Don't be so shy. Tell us what you believe in.

[former9thward]

34. What do I believe in?

What an open ended statement. What I believe in is not possible in a post on DU. Could you put what you "believe in" in a DU post? What I do believe, in the context of this OP, is that we must dramatically reduce our defense spending to bring our economy to long term health. This will result in severe layoffs and severe cuts in pensions and insurance for military retirees.

[rhett o rick]

39. In post #4 you asked some questions that seemed to be insinuating something. I apparently am not

sharp enough to figure out your point. All I am asking is for you to make your point outright instead of the insinuation. It's one thing to ask questions, it's quite another to provide your opinion or stand. Help us out here.

[former9thward]

40. Why don't you help out?

The poster I replied to seemed to think the FDR and Eisenhower years were idealistic. Yet the government size was tiny compared to now. Is this what you want? No one answers that question.

[rhett o rick]

42. You frame your questions to push a point of view. No one want's to answer such questions. If you

think the FDR years weren't "idealistic" and that it's not practical to try to emulate that, then come out and say so. Once you've made your stand known, others may agree or disagree. But I still don't know what the point is that you seem to be struggling to make. I assume you are not a fan of FDR. If that's true I would be interested in knowing why.

[former9thward]

44. I have no problem with FDR or Eisenhower for that matter.

I would rather be living now instead of then because those years were not idealistic for anyone. And to call those years "social democratic" shows a stunning ignorance of the term. To try and drag out FDR and put him into 2014 is silly and anti-history. I am not struggling to make any point. You and the other poster refuse to answer a simple question I have posed. If FDR and his economy was ideal then do you want his government? You won't answer it.

[rhett o rick]

45. Neither of the Roosevelts were perfect but certainly better than today's leaders.

If you haven't noticed the middle class that was built on reforms from FDR's administration is rapidly dying. Our president's biggest priority seems to be supporting the MIC via the Continuous Middle East War.

[former9thward]

46. Agree with your post 100%.

[Cayenne]

27. United States? Switzerland? Hong Kong? Taiwan?

All of those were mostly free market economies.

Libertarianism is not complete lawlessness or anarchy as keeps getting repeated here. Free markets do require the law to keep them free and open.

All isms end in schisms.

[rhett o rick]

43. " Free markets do require the law to keep them free and open. " Are you saying that Libertarians

want small government except as needed to keep "Free Markets" free? Seems like this is where Libertarians get confused. If regulations are the antithesis of a "Free Market", then how do you have regulations (the law) to make sure there are no regulations?

[Cayenne]

47. "The government that governs least, governs best". Ben Franklin

Reams and reams of regulations do and will smother the market. It is not binary, it is a matter of degree.

[rhett o rick]

49. I agree. Regulations are needed. There really is no such thing as a "Free Market". nm

[LeftyMom]

7. If he's like most libertarians the real draw is that it's whiter than a paper plate in a snow storm.

[wolfie001]

17. Yes, Ron Paul is a big time racist. Missing the elephant in the room.

Unspoken among the all-white Paulites.

[rhett o rick]

9. Libertarian principles don't even make sense to me. It could be me. Seems to me that there

wouldn't be roads or bridges or schools, fire depts, police, water systems, etc. Is there a libertarian in the house to help me out?

[arcane1]

14. It's like someone who is 10 and doesn't realize how much their parents actually provide n/t

[rhett o rick]

29. I was a big Ayn Rand fan in high school. When I got into the real world, it was like a slap in the

face. I think Alan Greenspan should be in prison for all the damage he has done.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. They think "Libertarian" means "Liberty" which means "small government" which means Reagan was God.

[Rex]

16. They get neo-liberalism and liberalism confused.

They are lost Republicans. Drank too much of the kool-aid. Got drunk on Capitol Hill. Singing about glory days. True story.

I am convinced half of them are praying for Saint Ronny to come down in a chariot to save them from the secular hoards. Not that they love government, no they hate it...but just this one time.

[paleotn]

21. That is until their boss tells them....

weekends and holidays are cancelled, their health insurance is history and if they don't like it, they can go starve in the gutter with the rest of the "takers." When you explain the reality of it to them, most are a little turned off by the whole idea. Well, except for those few who've not yet advanced out of pubescent foolishness, still believing in unicorns, magic wands and Ayn the Great!

[Rex]

15. Been saying it for years

Show me a libertarian and I'll introduce you to a confused republican. Which is twice as scary as a stupid one. IMO.

[quakerboy]

20. By and large, yup

Though there are a few real libertarians, who believe that each person should do what they want, and that if a person is not willing/able to pay for something (be it a road in front of their house, or a baby that needs surgery) then it shouldn't happen regardless of the consequences(even if it means the fire department cant reach you, or the baby dies). Its a pretty heartless philosophy, really.

But most of them just pretend that those sorts of things don't exist, that some magic force will take care of it, because the idea of a few points off their taxes now is far more important than some baby they don't know, or the fact their house might burn down and take the neighborhood with it in 15 years after the electrical system they wired themselves to save a buck fails.

[Rex]

23. The mixing up of civil rights aka Civil Libertarians and Political Libertarians abounds.

Every SINGLE on of them that can, gets a SS check from the government and will continue to do so. Government assistance is what they define it as, so is private enterprise. No oversight or regulations. Just have at it. Kapow.

In a way Civil Libertarians are the opposite of Political Libertarians...which I think represent the closest to anarchy as you can get on the Right side of the spectrum.

Hence the ACLU as opposed to the Tea Party moonbats. Which on Blue Moons have a similar interest.

[barbtries]

37. i work with a man

who claims he's not a republican, he's a libertarian. i tell him straight up you're a republican. he watches fox news and actually believed that romney would win. go figure.

it cause a dissonance in me because i really like him in every other respect and consider him a friend. like my racist brother i guess. love him despise his politics. we don't talk as much as we used to.

[billhicks76]

22. Sure But Demonizing Them Is Dumb

We will lose votes to them because everyone with a brain and no filter knows the Drug War is evil and wrong. And as long as corporate mass incarceration supporters like Hillary and Jeb keep keep pushing to maintain the status quo we could easily lose to a Libertarian. BUT there is an easy solution...Don't Do Evil Stuff.

[valerief]

24. Somalia is the Libertarian paradise. nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

26. that's one adjective - I would use others!

I consider libertarianism an utterly invalid, bullshit concept that doesn't - and can't - work in any civil society.

[ZombieHorde]

28. Maybe he's a lefty libertarian.

Many DUers seems to be lefty libertarians.

[MFrohike]

31. They are

They're confused by the nature of power. They think if a certain label doesn't have power, all will be great. It never occurs to them that overweening power possessed by ANYONE is a really bad thing. They're the ultimate triumph of the stupid idea that words make reality instead of merely reflecting it.

If there was a great libertarian revolution tomorrow and we reverted to a tiny government that had virtually no role in the economy, you know what would happen the next day? Rich people would bribe the legislatures to pass laws to grant them advantages. I have no idea why they think bribery would just stop because they think it should and I have no idea how'd they prevent it by having a tiny government of virtually no powers.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. 'cos if he wasn't confused,

he'd be a Liberal.

[Enthusiast]

35. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

Libertarians often do not have a clue.

[treestar]

41. I had a wing nut friend say New Zealand was perfect

But I wrecked it for him by looking it up and finding out they had a health care system.

[hifiguy]

48. Libertarians are terminally confused.

Scratch a libertarian and 99 times out of 100 you will find a greedhead Republican who wants to smoke dope and watch porn.