Why I'm against libertarianism (employment, minimum wage, generation, illegal)
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.
This is why I am against the "mountain man philosophy".
Reason 1) Libertarians only want liberty for some people
While libertarians claim to be champions of liberty, in reality they actually believe only the people they like (which of course includes themselves) should be free.
More than half of Americans believe that people who rely on food stamps should be restricted in what kind of food they can eat with them. Many of them also advocate mandatory drug tests to stay on the program. I guess they're not against the state if they are policing people they look down on?
Reason 2) Libertarians are victim-blamers
To a libertarian, having more money means you are a harder worker and a better person. People who are poor are seen as just being lazy and useless; human appendices, basically, or worse yet parasitic vermin.
This is a false equivalence as many wage workers are forced to take welfare "entitlements" despite working very hard because they are not paid enough to live and take care of their children. Not only that but many rich people are wealthy because of inheritance, or because they are exceptionally good at manipulating numbers - day trading and Ponzi schemes being examples.
This mentality is similar to the Indian caste system, which views the poor as being sinners in a past life.
Reason 3) Voluntarism is not fair
Libertarians think that all agreements between people are inherently fair. This of course ignores the fact that people are not all equal in status. A child cannot consent to sex because they are more vulnerable and have less of a position of power than an adult. Likewise a wage earner cannot be said to "consent" to abysmal working conditions if it's the only option they have.
The "non-aggression" principle ignores the fact that many people have a subordinate or lower status in society. If put into practice, this principle would just allow the strong and privileged to dominate the less powerful.
Force is not the only form of coercion, so the idea that the absence of force equals liberty is not true.
Reason 4) Libertarians are prejudiced towards the handicapped and have a tendency to be bigoted in other ways
I'm not making this up. In the debates I've had with libertarians, many of them will accuse people of being retarded or autistic. It's a consistent enough pattern that I honestly think libertarians hate people with disabilities. Their economic Darwinism would hurt disabled people probably more than anybody else, so that makes absolute sense.
As far as libertarians being racist and sexist, I wouldn't say this is necessarily true, but it would follow libertarian logic that since Europeans and men have dominated the world's economy that they might view them as being inherently superior. On the other hand they wouldn't hinder someone from being successful just because they are nonwhite or female, though they would ignore the fact being one of these things often lowers someone's status. Libertarians would also condemn racism on a superficial level being they are diehard individualists. Libertarianism isn't racist in theory, but in practice it often is.
Reason 5) The free market is not only overrated, it doesn't exist anywhere
Libertarians love capitalism because they praise it as a near-perfectly efficient meritocractic system that has "lifted millions out of poverty" and, unlike socialism and social democracy, "works".
There are a lot of problems with this. For one thing libertarians attribute to consumer capitalism what is actually the product of development. Not only was the condition of the world's people improving well before the 1980s when neoliberal ideas became highly influential on a global scale, by some measures the progress on development is slowing, and it is actually reversed in some places (Africa, much of the former Soviet Union, parts of Latin America).
Since 1990 the proportion of the world's people with electric power has only gone up about 5-10%, while it rose from 49% to 75% between 1970 and 1990. The Chinese economic miracle is not the product of a free market, but of a hybrid system heavily guided by the state. If it weren't for the fact China has so many people the improvement of quality of life for the world's people since 1990 would be pretty negligible and much slower in the making than the decades prior to that.
The free market actually doesn't exist anywhere, by the way. In Hong Kong a minimum wage has been enacted and all the land is state-owned.
Where do you get the idea that libertarians only want liberty for certain people? Link? Quote? I've never heard any libertarian express that sentiment.
The overwhelming majority of libertarians would draw a distinction between consenting adults and children. So that is a poor example.
If you don't understand libertarianism, naturally you would oppose it.
More than half of Americans believe that people who rely on food stamps should be restricted in what kind of food they can eat with them. Many of them also advocate mandatory drug tests to stay on the program. I guess they're not against the state if they are policing people they look down on?
Most libertarians I know dont even believe in food stamps, so what the hell makes you think they want to restrict what people can buy with something they shouldnt even have?
Well, it's apparent that you don't know many libertarians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belmont22
This is why I am against the "mountain man philosophy".
Reason 1) Libertarians only want liberty for some people
While libertarians claim to be champions of liberty, in reality they actually believe only the people they like (which of course includes themselves) should be free.
More than half of Americans believe that people who rely on food stamps should be restricted in what kind of food they can eat with them. Many of them also advocate mandatory drug tests to stay on the program. I guess they're not against the state if they are policing people they look down on?
So you're okay with the government taking money from the working class, giving it to people who don't/can't work and letting those people use that money to buy illegal goods? What part of "other people's money" aren't you getting? If an employer can test for drugs before deciding whether to give you the opportunity to earn a paycheck, it's only logical that the people who are supplying the paychecks to the welfare recipients should be allowed to do the same. This isn't the same as not allowing someone liberty. The majority of welfare recipients have the liberty to find gainful employment so that they don't need to receive welfare anymore. Many welfare offices even offer job training in order to help them do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belmont22
Reason 2) Libertarians are victim-blamers
To a libertarian, having more money means you are a harder worker and a better person. People who are poor are seen as just being lazy and useless; human appendices, basically, or worse yet parasitic vermin.
This is a false equivalence as many wage workers are forced to take welfare "entitlements" despite working very hard because they are not paid enough to live and take care of their children. Not only that but many rich people are wealthy because of inheritance, or because they are exceptionally good at manipulating numbers - day trading and Ponzi schemes being examples.
This mentality is similar to the Indian caste system, which views the poor as being sinners in a past life.
First of all, I've yet to meet a libertarian who believes that the poor in general are lazy and useless. Are there poor people who are lazy and useless? You betcha. There are also wealthy people who are lazy and useless. Being lazy and useless isn't a class-specific condition.
We no longer have indentured servitude in this country. Those wage workers you are so worried about have at some point in their lives chosen the path that leads them to work those low paying jobs. There is nobody other than themselves stopping them from getting a better paying job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belmont22
Reason 3) Voluntarism is not fair
Libertarians think that all agreements between people are inherently fair. This of course ignores the fact that people are not all equal in status. A child cannot consent to sex because they are more vulnerable and have less of a position of power than an adult. Likewise a wage earner cannot be said to "consent" to abysmal working conditions if it's the only option they have.
The "non-aggression" principle ignores the fact that many people have a subordinate or lower status in society. If put into practice, this principle would just allow the strong and privileged to dominate the less powerful.
Force is not the only form of coercion, so the idea that the absence of force equals liberty is not true.
See above. The wage earner is not forced to remain at the place of employment they currently have. If the conditions are "abysmal," then it is time to either go get a different job or report the conditions to the proper authorities. After all, there are laws about what an employer can or cannot subject their employees to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belmont22
Reason 4) Libertarians are prejudiced towards the handicapped and have a tendency to be bigoted in other ways
I'm not making this up. In the debates I've had with libertarians, many of them will accuse people of being retarded or autistic. It's a consistent enough pattern that I honestly think libertarians hate people with disabilities. Their economic Darwinism would hurt disabled people probably more than anybody else, so that makes absolute sense.
As far as libertarians being racist and sexist, I wouldn't say this is necessarily true, but it would follow libertarian logic that since Europeans and men have dominated the world's economy that they might view them as being inherently superior. On the other hand they wouldn't hinder someone from being successful just because they are nonwhite or female, though they would ignore the fact being one of these things often lowers someone's status. Libertarians would also condemn racism on a superficial level being they are diehard individualists. Libertarianism isn't racist in theory, but in practice it often is.
This is the one that points out your ignorance of the libertarian point of view. You are confusing a figure of speech (no, it isn't one I like, but it's more common than you would think across all ideologies) with an expression of political view.
As for your racist claim, it sounds more like you are the one that has a racist/sexist point of view:
Quote:
they wouldn't hinder someone from being successful just because they are nonwhite or female, though they would ignore the fact being one of these things often lowers someone's status.
You first say that Libertarians wouldn't hold being nonwhite or female against someone. Then you say that both of these conditions lower that person's status. The racism and sexism is in your beliefs, not those of the Libertarians. Every single Libertarian I know believes that all people should have the same freedoms, regardless of race or gender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by belmont22
Reason 5) The free market is not only overrated, it doesn't exist anywhere
Libertarians love capitalism because they praise it as a near-perfectly efficient meritocractic system that has "lifted millions out of poverty" and, unlike socialism and social democracy, "works".
There are a lot of problems with this. For one thing libertarians attribute to consumer capitalism what is actually the product of development. Not only was the condition of the world's people improving well before the 1980s when neoliberal ideas became highly influential on a global scale, by some measures the progress on development is slowing, and it is actually reversed in some places (Africa, much of the former Soviet Union, parts of Latin America).
Since 1990 the proportion of the world's people with electric power has only gone up about 5-10%, while it rose from 49% to 75% between 1970 and 1990. The Chinese economic miracle is not the product of a free market, but of a hybrid system heavily guided by the state. If it weren't for the fact China has so many people the improvement of quality of life for the world's people since 1990 would be pretty negligible and much slower in the making than the decades prior to that.
The free market actually doesn't exist anywhere, by the way. In Hong Kong a minimum wage has been enacted and all the land is state-owned.
Errr, you do realize that one of the stated goals of the Libertarian party is to bring back the free market, don't you? Since that's the way they've phrased it, I'd say they know full well it doesn't exist anymore. While I don't necessarily believe in a completely free market, the way you worded this section is a bit misleading.
For the rest of your point in this section, do you realize how closely tied together development and consumer capitalism is? Or do you really believe that companies would create new products if they weren't going to make a profit from them?
Blah blah blah showing you don't understand libertarianism at all. I'm sure you think that it's greedy for me to keep my money and generous for you to spend it too.
Most libertarians I know dont even believe in food stamps,
That caught my eye too, so I didn't bother to read the rest.
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.
