When will libertarians figure it out?

[Deja Q]

Their ideas sound nice... of course, so do the qualifications for a lab experiment.

This is the real world. And if I lived by their distorted way of thinking, they'd find a way to spin that too. (so maybe the next time they ask me for help, I'll remind them of themselves...)

[benburch]

1. Some have.

And are Democrats now.

[YOY]

2. Once they realize were all fricking broke except those rich whitebread

bastards we were trying to warn them about...

[Deja Q]

12. Or even then...

They don't seem to realize (or care) that the economy itself is dependent on the wealthy; so in their own closed-minds, offshoring is fine'n'dandy.

Even when asking them "So how will you feel when you lose your job to it?" They respond "Well, I'll feel angry, but it's his freedom to do so and that's all that matters. Oh, and how government should be staying out of everything and how I disagree that corporations get tax incentives and tax breaks because all that is soooo wrong..."

They're so predictable. It's as if they've brainwashed themselves with the same feel-good indolent drivel.

Especially when, if they had the capacity TO think, that it's up to their bosses to give them jobs in the first place.

Personally, libertarians are what evolved from the indolent thanks to previous generations' fighting the robber barons and fascists.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. What explains those nutty Ayn Rand peeps?

(I hear them on Thom Hartmann from time to time.... what doozies!)

[Deja Q]

15. Congenital deficiency, I should think...

[immoderate]

20. Something sounds good, but doesn't actually work.

--IMM

[eggman67]

31. How in the hell can anybody make it through any of her books?

I'm small-l libertarian. I tried to read Atlas Shrugged and just couldn't get past the first couple pages. She was one lousy writer.

[redstateblues]

4. Yeah - who needs roads, safe water and meat inspection?

[immoderate]

5. Clarification called for.

You must mean Libertarians, not libertarians. Libertarians are freepers who smoke pot, or alternatively eschew religion, or have sex.

libertarian means:
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action

Otherwise: b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

Noam Chomsky describes himself a libertarian socialist.

Glad to be of help.:hi:

--IMM

[AntiFascist]

9. What are the limits to one's freedom?

If a relatively small group of people snatch up all the land and natural resources in the world, don't the rest of us just become feudal tenants whose value depends on what they can offer to the upper levels of society? At what point do the landlords decide that its not worth the trouble and begin a process of extermination? Is social darwinism of this nature an inevitability?

(wow, I'm glad I got that off my chest!)

[genie_weenie]

10. isn't that what's been happening?

The whole nation-state world order is the result of land grabs by groups with power. An analogy is if the world's criminal organizations (Mafia, the Yakuza, the Triads, The Republican Party) declared all your base are belong to us and then determined amongst themselves that anyone falling under their sphere owes taxes, loyalty, service, etc...

[immoderate]

11. Well, I'm not the arbiter, but I'll take a shot.

The limits of freedom are when it interferes with someone else's freedom. Obviously, it's going to lead to difficulties if followed to any extreme. Libertarianism there leads to anarchy and chaos. The situation you described will lead to revolution.

I apply libertarianism wherever possible to individuals. The mistake made hear is when we give this power to corporations.

Civilization requires imposing limits such as not discharging firearms in densely populated areas, or being able to make unlimited noise and keep your neighbors awake. Generic libertarians accept the necessity of having rules for a just society. We know that the "invisible hand" of the free market is a myth. Eclecticism is necessary for practical, just government. It is so with any "-ism." None of which work perfectly in all situations. A limit on wealth seems reasonable to me. It doesn't seem reasonable when you test the limits, that say one person should be able to own everything.

--IMM

[Warren DeMontague]

28. My take is that economics is a whole nother ball of wax

when you're talking about "freedom".

The freedom to live as you choose, love as you choose, believe as you choose, and do with your own body --insofar as everyone is a consenting adult and you don't harm anyone else-- as you choose are not identical to the freedom to not have to pay taxes as a member of a functioning society.


I do believe in the idea of free enterprise and real, level playing field capitalism, which is a far cry from the crony, hack version we are encouraging in this country today. I also don't think it's so much a limit on wealth that is called for as much as it is a recognition of the fact that capitalism, even in its ideal form, mathematically tends to accrue larger amounts of money towards those that already have it. Money makes money- that's capitalism. To mitigate that, progressive taxation and social support networks (like a SPHC system) are a rational response IMHO.

[immoderate]

33. Sounds right to me.

I used the phrase limits to wealth in the loosest possible way, appropriate taxation being a possible solution.

--IMM

[AntiFascist]

30. Sounds good....

I once had a similar discussion with "libertarians" who felt that there were no innate human rights. All rights were granted by God and they believed the world should be ruled under a theocracy, which follows that there is no democracy, and everything was to be decided by a group of priests and holy people, I suppose. It's scarey that there are people out there who believe this way.

[immoderate]

32. .

:scared:

--IMM

[Deja Q]

19. Excellent definition - thank you muchly!

BTW: Arrogance doesn't suit you. ;)

Glad to be of help. :hi:

[immoderate]

22. Ouch!

But that arrogance I so demonstrate is an example of why Libertarianism (capital L) doesn't work. Anyone can do it.

--IMM

[castiron]

6. for every libertarian who figure it out,

5 more teenagers read Ayn Rand and grow a philosophy out their ass.

[immoderate]

24. When I was a college freshman...

I told my favorite professor, a chemistry teacher, that I wanted to be a follower of Ayn Rand. "Ayn Rand?" he said, "She's a flying hunk of shit."

I'll always cherish that memory.

Rand has a special attraction to those who are in love with their own intellect.

--IMM

[Warren DeMontague]

26. A flying hunk of shit.

That's really funny.

The Rand cultists I've come across have all been pretty nutzo, in addition to fitting your apt description. R.A. Wilson did a nice job of skewering her in Illuminatus, ("Telemachus Sneezed") if I remember correctly.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. Define "libertarian" n/t

[immoderate]

13. See post #5 for the dictionary definition.

Remember dictionaries are summaries of how people use words. They are not proscriptive.

--IMM

[Warren DeMontague]

25. I consider myself socially libertarian

or small-l libertarian, or left-libertarian.

Meaning, I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, Ayn Rand does nothing for me, I'm a strong believer in a decent social safety net (which covers areas the free market does a piss-poor job of addressing, like Health Care) and environmental and other regulations particularly on corporations, which have somehow been granted more rights even as individuals have less.

But if the question is, do I support an authoritarian nanny or daddy state, with inanities like $40 billion a year (not counting incarceration costs) to keep cancer ridden grannies -and anyone else- from smoking pot... or, can I abide supposedly well-intentioned moralists from the right OR the left telling consenting adults what they can do with their own bodies and what they can or can't read or watch in the privacy of their own homes? The answer is a resounding Fuck NO. If forced to choose between the authoritarian busybody control freaks which seem to constitute a large share of the human population on this planet, and those who identify as 'libertarian', I will choose the libertarian label every time.

[Deja Q]

14. They're like republicans...

Except they aren't upper-class.

And like repubs, expect people to help them, even though they themselves tell everybody else to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

[Skip Intro]

8. Specifically -?

I'm a Democrat and not a Libertarian for a reason - because I do believe government (an exetnsion of the will of the people) has a responsibility to provide a safety net/minimum standard of living for ALL Americans, and, unless I'm mistaken and very well could be, Libertarians do not share that beilef.

Is that the kind of problem you're hinting at?

[immoderate]

17. Libertarians are freepers who smoke dope, while

libertarians (small l) believe in free will for all.

--IMM

[Skip Intro]

27. free will for all - in other words, freedom?

yep, I believe that too.

I believe that if you are not causing harm to anyone (against their will), you should be free to do as you wish, as long as your actions don't limit someone else's freedoms.. Murder not allowed, free will or not. Drugs, gambling, prostitution, using your mind and body as you see fit without restricting the freedom of others - yes. We are not property of the state.

I think that makes me a libertarian.

But we, thru government, do have an obligation to see to the welfare of the most vulnerable in our society. imho. I think that makes me a Democrat.

lables, labels, labels...

[immoderate]

29. I agree with you.

I'm a libertarian too. But not a Libertarian. We shouldn't cede a perfectly good word to the nutsos.

--IMM

[sendero]

16. Libertarianism..

.... makes a lot of sense until you come upon any issue related to economics - and then it falls apart.

Communists and Libertarians are opposite sides of the same flawed coin. Communists believe the state can totally control the economy, Libertarians believe the state has no role to play in the economy.

Both are idiots, both are an abdication of the difficult balance that has to be maintained between the rights of the individual and the rights of the masses.

[kid a]

18. I know many who have come around to be dems

[Deja Q]

21. Some claim they used to be dems... until they "grew up".

Besure to stay away from them. After all, they're "grown up" and don't need anybody's help. Ever.

[toddaa]

23. Outside the US, libertarianism = socialism

I wish Americans weren't so damned insulated from radical politics. Now, if your OP is in fact criticizing anarcho-syndicalism or libertarian socialism (a redundant term outside the US), then at least post something more useful than argument from incredulity.

[MrBenchley]

34. Never.

Libertarianism is basically mindless rationalization of whatever twisted impulse runs through a libertarian's mind at the moment...

As alicublog said "Libertariansim is something suburban white dorks do when they haven't got enough get up and go to kill and mummify hitchhikers."

[goodboy]

35. Libertarians stand for nothing, and everything, and just some things

all at once, or not at all, or maybe just sometimes.

[redqueen]

36. Collectively? Never.

There's always a fresh crop of naive young people to be swept off their feet by fairy tales.

Some will grow up and figure out that laws are actually necessary.

Some will stay in never, never land... where thinking is optional.