Why do people dismiss libertarianism? (minimum wage, ethical, lobby, party)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I admire libertarianism, but I don't think it will work. We are still greedy destructive humans who, in the absence of laws, would exploit freedom to destroy others and the environment, something we still excel at even with laws in place to circumvent those character flaws. With our psychological background, basing a society on "Don't tell me what I can and cannot do" is a recipe for disaster. Until we set some firm ground rules and establish common values, libertarianism by itself will not solve any problems. Unfortunately, I sense that even this design restriction would be too much for many libertarian advocates to bear.
I am sure it is intentional but the fact that so many people think libertarians want NO LAWS or the removal of laws is really interesting.
Libertarians want very clear precise laws against the initiation or force, fraud and coercion with a strong government to uphold our contracts.
What we don't want are millions of regulations and laws that have nothing to do with an actual crime of force. regulations that are created by and for the benefit of those most politically connected.
I am sure it is intentional but the fact that so many people think libertarians want NO LAWS or the removal of laws is really interesting.
Libertarians want very clear precise laws against the initiation or force, fraud and coercion with a strong government to uphold our contracts.
What we don't want are millions of regulations and laws that have nothing to do with an actual crime of force. regulations that are created by and for the benefit of those most politically connected.
The choice is not either/or, higli. They key is balance. I like a government with enough restrictions to protect citizens, but not so many restrictions that it strangles them.
Libertarianism is as disastrous as communism and leads to similar results -- rule of law by the biggest thug.
Only if we did not have a constitution and Bill of Rights. You can't have thug rule when the rights of the individual are supported.
Like I said, laws against in initiation of force.
Gun bans don't seem to be working well in Chicago.
"Chicago was recovering from another violent weekend that left at least 29 shot and three dead."
" Last weekend, at least 52 were shot and ten killed in just three days,"
"Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City's handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities."
There is nothing on which to demonstrate the failure of libertarian principles because they've never been put into practice in this country. So I'd like to know why critics of libertarianism are so dang critical of something that hasn't demonstrated failure, since it hasn't even been practiced.
Sure there is. 40 yr Voodoo economic deregulation is what libertarian + neocon think tanks sold, and "more is more" is the fruit. Who is manning up and owning this? :::crickets:::
I do see some wisdom in libertarian thinking but it crashes and burns in practice once special interests position themselves into monopoly where no one can say no. It gets pragmatically expressed in governance as an abdication of any and all responsibility (even in this moment). The denial of the role of proper stewardship defaults to unqualified for office. They voted themselves out of a job, and many of Ron Paul's arguments have been deleting the ground he's standing. Parallel track of Phyllis Schlafly. Why would this woman bother to become a constitutional lawyer that stands on a soapbox insisting females don't need an education, viable economic opportunities, or due consideration within the law? This line of nihilistic reasoning requires one credible vote which is well within it's means to manage in singularity. Namely, a bullet to it's own head.
The other problem I have with them is common theme with GOP; all on that side of the aisle are empty handed with constructive plans. How is anyone supposed to take that seriously? Example; the surreptitious behavior of Rand Paul using politics as a card game... not appreciated even slightly. He's part of the problem not the solution, and this beaten path we've been marched down making mockery of public trust is betraying the real plan. That's been the end game all along. Deep down everyone knows we have to buck up and face painful realities and change is inevitable. Outright lying about your plan is not in any way useful.
It's like being surrounded by doctors refusing to tell you the truth when your life is on the line, but they're committed to their BMW more than living up to their oath.
I expect better from libertarians. I have high hopes but I'm not lowering/ parting with the standard of good governance to accommodate them. Step up to the plate with well thought out solutions or leave adults alone to make decisions. If you expect to be reasonably heard you'd have to be offering something to hear besides grousing and pouting.
Sure there is. 40 yr Voodoo economic deregulation is what libertarian + neocon think tanks sold, and "more is more" is the fruit. Who is manning up and owning this? :::crickets:::
I do see some wisdom in libertarian thinking but it crashes and burns in practice once special interests position themselves into monopoly where no one can say no. It gets pragmatically expressed in governance as an abdication of any and all responsibility (even in this moment). The denial of the role of proper stewardship defaults to unqualified for office. They voted themselves out of a job, and many of Ron Paul's arguments have been deleting the ground he's standing. Parallel track of Phyllis Schlafly. Why would this woman bother to become a constitutional lawyer that stands on a soapbox insisting females don't need an education, viable economic opportunities, or due consideration within the law? This line of nihilistic reasoning requires one credible vote which is well within it's means to manage in singularity. Namely, a bullet to it's own head.
The other problem I have with them is common theme with GOP; all on that side of the aisle are empty handed with constructive plans. How is anyone supposed to take that seriously? Example; the surreptitious behavior of Rand Paul using politics as a card game... not appreciated even slightly. He's part of the problem not the solution, and this beaten path we've been marched down making mockery of public trust is betraying the real plan. That's been the end game all along. Deep down everyone knows we have to buck up and face painful realities and change is inevitable. Outright lying about your plan is not in any way useful.
It's like being surrounded by doctors refusing to tell you the truth when your life is on the line, but they're committed to their BMW more than living up to their oath.
I expect better from libertarians. I have high hopes but I'm not lowering/ parting with the standard of good governance to accommodate them. Step up to the plate with well thought out solutions or leave adults alone to make decisions. If you expect to be reasonably heard you'd have to be offering something to hear besides grousing and pouting.
What deregulation are you referring to? Our country has been on a chartered course toward greater regulation since FDR. You lie and have nothing against libertarianism. Try again.
A couple big reasons, one, most people are concrete communicators and when they hear things like "end the IRS" they can only envision the absence of something, no revenue for our government., elder dying in the streets, etc. Fear take over their thought process and they begin to imagine all of the negatives that would happen, no army, elder dying in the streets, no anything.
Libertarians are primarily metaphorical communicators. When they say "end the IRS" they envision all of the potential alternatives, the private solutions that would come about, all the pieces of the puzzle coming together.
This is key, people have been conditioned to look at each issue individually and not how a liberty solution would work with other issues and solutions. People are not conditioned to think through the process, they just react.
Libertarians sell the features "no this, no that", people respond to concrete benefits, not metaphorical benefits like "more freedom".
This line of reasoning mirrors hippies railing at authority tearing down mental institutions on high minded purist principles. It's all well and good until you realize too late what traditional conservatives were rightfully committed to defending all along. You are now 'free' to be terrorized by lunatic fringe preying upon your kids and giving the highways to the drunks/ druggies to accommodate their habits. Happy now?
Example of libertarians coming up short of the mark in logic: The war on drugs in practice is a war on open society. It should have been a war on addiction holding dealers and addicts equally accountable for it's social costs. It should be a clear choice for those who choose that lifestyle to pay the price for it abandoning the rights sober responsible citizens are afforded. Instead we hear free the leaf consequences to all others be damned.
Before you dissolve institutions it behooves all of you to thoroughly understand the multiple layers of function it was serving all along. To do otherwise only smears problems around in more costly inefficient arrangements and negates the core functions of civilization in the bargain. Generational angst- you're angry at the 'me' generation but don't own your myopic selfishness. Pot meet kettle.
Truth: Freedom is NOT free. Freedom and citizenship are inherently a responsibility. "We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" is a blood oath that cannot be broken without destroying America. The interlopers asserting themselves in this marriage are the problem. Your every man woman and child for themselves plan negates the function of civilization. You will continue to be marginalized until you face this logic flaw running as background program bad code in your philosophy.
There is nothing on which to demonstrate the failure of libertarian principles because they've never been put into practice in this country. So I'd like to know why critics of libertarianism are so dang critical of something that hasn't demonstrated failure, since it hasn't even been practiced.
I don't think they do. There is no libertarian candidate running, is there?
What deregulation are you referring to? Our country has been on a chartered course toward greater regulation since FDR. You lie and have nothing against libertarianism. Try again.
Deregulation began it's implementation in 70's. Try to pay attention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
