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.
First, you are totally free to criticize libertarian principles. Feel free, I don't care, give it your best shot. But allow me to place these on the table:
1) Can you please read and understand what libertarianism is before you criticize it? You can really gain a lot of knowledge by reading and understanding what it is that you are criticizing, especially if you read the logic that leads up to it. In fact, you can strengthen your own views and come better armed in a discussion. For example, if you want to criticize the libertarian non-interventionist foreign policy, criticize non-interventionism. Don't tack isolationism on us, and then tell us how wrong we are to believe in it.
2) We believe in a government that exists to protect our individual Constitutional rights, maintain law and order, provide defense for this nation, and provide a legal, social and infrastructural framework to ensure the integrity of a market based economy. We believe in government that is as local as possible because we believe the most change can occur there because it is more accessible. Wherein it is more efficient for the government role to be at the state level (college education), we believe the state government should handle it. Wherein it is more efficient for the government role to be at the federal level (defense), we believe the federal government should handle that. The key takeaway is bolded: "We believe in a government..."
3) The fact that libertarianism hasn't been "implemented in other countries" is probably one of the most ridiculous criticisms ever. What the heck does that even mean? Is there a list of libertarian things that governments should do to implement libertarianism. You don't implement anything, it's not a framework, and just because it has been "implemented" doesn't mean anything or give any validity toward your attempt to debase the ideology. Slavery was "implemented" in many places, what does that have to say about that argument? Are "implemented" things more valid or something?
I don't know if it's misunderstanding Libertarianism, or simply the fact that it's easy to dismiss Libertarians when you draw absurd conclusions (which usually amounts to comparing it to Anarchy) about their beliefs. Libertarians believe in limited government, not no government.
First, you are totally free to criticize libertarian principles. Feel free, I don't care, give it your best shot. But allow me to place these on the table:
1) Can you please read and understand what libertarianism is before you criticize it? You can really gain a lot of knowledge by reading and understanding what it is that you are criticizing, especially if you read the logic that leads up to it. In fact, you can strengthen your own views and come better armed in a discussion. For example, if you want to criticize the libertarian non-interventionist foreign policy, criticize non-interventionism. Don't tack isolationism on us, and then tell us how wrong we are to believe in it.
2) We believe in a government that exists to protect our individual Constitutional rights, maintain law and order, provide defense for this nation, and provide a legal, social and infrastructural framework to ensure the integrity of a market based economy. We believe in government that is as local as possible because we believe the most change can occur there because it is more accessible. Wherein it is more efficient for the government role to be at the state level (college education), we believe the state government should handle it. Wherein it is more efficient for the government role to be at the federal level (defense), we believe the federal government should handle that. The key takeaway is bolded: "We believe in a government..."
3) The fact that libertarianism hasn't been "implemented in other countries" is probably one of the most ridiculous criticisms ever. What the heck does that even mean? Is there a list of libertarian things that governments should do to implement libertarianism. You don't implement anything, it's not a framework, and just because it has been "implemented" doesn't mean anything or give any validity toward your attempt to debase the ideology. Slavery was "implemented" in many places, what does that have to say about that argument? Are "implemented" things more valid or something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vejadu
I don't know if it's misunderstanding Libertarianism, or simply the fact that it's easy to dismiss Libertarians when you draw absurd conclusions (which usually amounts to comparing it to Anarchy) about their beliefs. Libertarians believe in limited government, not no government.
Dont bother- Most of them rather spew BS in Anger and ignorance.
As I have mentioned over and over Libertarians are a derivitive of the 1960s hippie movement.
They are NOT akin to Evangelical conservatives.
It's because libertarians themselves are constantly guilty of the no True Scotsman Fallacy. There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of "small government." it's that it is a meaningless and hollow sentiment as people only want the government small so long as cuts don't personally affect them.
Also, believing that businesses can regulate themselves, and that the states will effectively guarantee our civil rights has been tried and neither worked out so well.
1) I know a good bit about, at least from the original concepts to current ideas in the party. The issue is that each person's libertarianism is unique to them. It's like herding squirrels to criticize the ideal when every person one talks to about practicality of how to implement things differs (usually very vocally).
2) Okay, outline your version. Saying we believe in government like everyone agrees with your version, after the first point of how the other libertarians have championed isolationism that doesn't agree with your view of what libertarianism is...simply doesn't make sense. Outline your position of what you believe.
3) Well, I agree in principal. If it has never worked doesn't mean that it won't. The ideal does need a proof of concept in order to know for a fact it will work though. You are welcome to believe that it will, but belief is not evidence. Present a strong argument and people will test it to see if the evidence supports it. I mean people used to believe that demons caused disease, but some one proved it was not using evidence.
I spent years in libertarianism and, based upon discussions on this forum, have read more libertarian thought than anyone on this board. Whenever it comes up and I pose pertinent questions to self-described "libertarians," they invariably fall back upon two things to avoid answering those pertinent questions:
1. "You don't know anything about libertarianism!"
2. "Just because I'm a libertarian doesn't mean I have to believe X, Y and Z!" X, Y and Z, when I bring them up, are fundamentals of American libertarianism that you sort of have to believe in order to legitimately call yourself a libertarian.
No, the problem isn't that critics don't understand libertarianism, it's that you guys usually don't know it.
It's because libertarians themselves are constantly guilty of the no True Scotsman Fallacy. There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of "small government." it's that it is a meaningless and hollow sentiment as people only want the government small so long as cuts don't personally affect them.
Also, believing that businesses can regulate themselves, and that the states will effectively guarantee our civil rights has been tried and neither worked out so well.
I spent years in libertarianism and, based upon discussions on this forum, have read more libertarian thought than anyone on this board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometclear
Whenever it comes up and I pose pertinent questions to self-described "libertarians," they invariably fall back upon two things to avoid answering those pertinent questions:
1. "You don't know anything about libertarianism!"
Most questions aren't worth answering because many people don't know about it. They pin things to us that we really don't believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometclear
2. "Just because I'm a libertarian doesn't mean I have to believe X, Y and Z!" X, Y and Z, when I bring them up, are fundamentals of American libertarianism that you sort of have to believe in order to legitimately call yourself a libertarian.
You must not be as knowledgeable as you think if you think there's a consensus on things you have to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cometclear
No, the problem isn't that critics don't understand libertarianism, it's that you guys usually don't know it.
All I am asking is that critics argue the actual tenants.
The problem for libertarians is that there are so many different groups of people that lay claim to the title. Lately it seems the bulk of supposed libertarians are in reality just the far right religious wacko wing of the GOP.
Is Glenn Beck and his anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-Muslim, pro-war stances a libertarian?
Why are so many libertarians aligned with the Tea Party movement? The same Tea Party that consistently takes an anti-freedom approach on things like gay marriage or drug prohibition and that has many members that are part of the religious right and that fully support their authoritarianism.
What about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, they use the title are they truly representative of libertarianism?
Even on C-D, you will find self proclaimed libertarians that support things like border fences and harsh crackdowns on undocumented immigrants. Positions that are the exact opposite of the pro-freedom stance of the actual Libertarian Party.
Most questions aren't worth answering because many people don't know about it. They pin things to us that we really don't believe.
You must not be as knowledgeable as you think if you think there's a consensus on things you have to believe.
All I am asking is that critics argue the actual tenants.
That's "tenets," Lord Acton.
The Libertarian Party has outlined basic tenets for some time, starting with the "non-coercion principle."
Again, the problem is that, on the right, libertarianism has become "chic," and has consequently attracted a bunch of people who know little to nothing about it, but claim the label.
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.
