Why Libertarians don't like you
unsung
Posts: 9,487
All in good fun, I don't believe in insulting people to get them to share my beliefs, although admittedly I agree with some of it.
http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/04/08/top-10-reasons-libertarians-arent-nice/
Cantwell can be a bit harsh, but I think he's tired of the bs.
http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/04/08/top-10-reasons-libertarians-arent-nice/
Cantwell can be a bit harsh, but I think he's tired of the bs.
0
Comments
I'm not sure his last / #1 point holds water, either. I know of no one who (legitimately) walks on elevated moral ground. We all have vices, hypocrisies, failures, etc. Political leanings tend to have no bearing to me - I go by one's overall character - and no matter how "good" anyone may perceive themselves as, we'll always be trumped by our humanness and natural faults.
9. "Most people involved in these things aren’t actually interested in finding any sort of objective truth. As far as we’re concerned, the fact that they aren’t already libertarians is evidence enough of this." Ah oh- so if we're not on your team and adopt your labels we aren't interested in objective truth? That one doesn't float.
8. "Not trying to win elections"... you're anarchists. I get that. Good luck with that.
7. "We’ve already had this discussion a hundred times." This one has a lot of truth but the attack mode wins no one over and the generalizing doesn't help. But you libertarians do that-- ALL of you! LOL.
6. "The nice thing about freedom is, people get to make their own decisions. We’re not entirely sure why this bothers you so much." Because at least in this country too many people really don't give two shits so somebody has to take the wheel- may as well be somebody who gives two shits, right? Just to start with, do you really think corporations if they are left unregulated and left to their own devices and will pollute LESS?
5. " I can’t teach you economics in 140 characters or less." True. Ditto sustainability, local economy, conservation, etc.
4. "We actually are smarter than you". Yeah, well at least my mother doesn't (um, I mean didn't, sorry, Mom) wear Army boots. Phwwwwt!
3. "logically speaking, morality should be consistent" I'll go along with that... but I won't take on your label to prove that.
2. "We’re not asking for much." Oh good Lord, why not? I am. The oceans are dying, the climate is a wreck, pollution everywhere- a lot needs to be done and yes, I'm asking that we all do a lot.
"We don’t believe in government" Interesting idea but good luck with that.
1. "You always resort to violence". Always? Sorry, too much black and white thinking again but I agree that there is too much violence in the world. And not just to people, but to wildlife. But it's ok to kill wildlife unnecessarily? I still don't get that.
I don't disagree with all libertarian ideal but the likelihood of anything resembling anarchy is just never going to go over with the masses OR those in power and your chance of eliminating government are essentially nil so doesn't it make more sense to work to improve the government we have?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think the idea of left and right is funny to a libertarian. Mainly because true libertarians are so far to the right and so far to the left on a traditional spectrum they are nearly touching. So- Called "Leftists" and so-called "Rightists" appear to only see in one direction so they never notice that we(I think I am a full fledged libertarian at this point) not only are in front of them, but we are actually behind them on their side of the precious spectrum as well. limited gov't is not the same as no gov't. And while Anarchists can and libertarians can certainly have similar beliefs, so can socialists and libertarians, the perfect end result for all wouldn't look alike I don't think.
Brighter minds than mine (Chomsky for one) believe they are the same, I guess looking from that perspective, a libertarian can be a socialist much like an anarchist and both can also be capitalists. If you don't believe it and have read this far, you are reading the thoughts of a socialist libertarian. I believe we have a responsibility to our fellow man, I just don't believe I have the right to use a gov't to force that set of beliefs on everyone else who may not agree. It is purely idealistic, but if we cannot strive for the ideal world we picture in our minds, what the fuck is the point.
All sets of political beliefs are irrational, that is not exclusive to libertarians. It is all about perspective, you may say it is irrational to believe that people could and would live just fine with less gov't, I say it is irrational to believe that gov't does more good than it does harm. The person in Kentucky who benefits from federal unemployment insurance, the person in Minnesota who benefits from social security, they are no more important to me than the person our gov't kills in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else they promote freedom with the gun in your and my name.
I have a hard time getting a read on you and I like that, my question is why do you believe gov't is the solution to the problems gov't has caused? (kind of a loaded question I know)
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
chicken or egg I suppose but I believe if it can't be sold it can't be bought
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't want to start a big fight about labels and semantics but I truly hate that everyone wants to label themselves or not label themselves according to their own whim... I am an atheist because I don't beleive in any of the Gods man has created. My wife won't call herself an atheist because she believes in something greater than ourselves, though explicitly not the Gods of man. She can dance the waltz and say I don't want to be "put in a box" but the fact is she doesn't believe in God by any existing definition and is therefore an atheist. It runs exactly the same with politics.."I don't want to be labeled and put in a box" too bad, you are in the box you might as well quit quibbling and take the label. Of course some of your opinions eschew the tradition, so does everybody ¡nd we can't all get our own special label. There is clearly a right and left, and, like it or not, libertarians are lefties.
Sorry for the rambling, I can't read what I have already written so I am kinda driftin by the storm here..
Shit, almost everywhere other than North Korea is more limited in gov't and is a better place to live, this of course coming from someone who hasn't been to North Korea and can only go off of what I have heard and read maybe it is a great place to live. But if you agree that North Korea is an overreaching gov't and it is a bad place to live, then aren't we also in agreement that a more limited gov't is better? It is simply the degree with which you believe it to be limited that is under discussion isn't it?
and you won't get argument from me, when gov't is for sale it makes things worse. I just have a different belief in solution. It is really no more idealistic to believe that society could exist without gov't in a constructive and positive manner than it is to believe that somehow magically the sale of gov'ts to the highest bidders will end.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
sure - you can highlight instances of corruption ... but if you look at any indexing on corruption - it's generally lowest in modern day socialist countries ...
there just is no example of the type of governance you wish for working anywhere ...
I agree about the embarrassment factor. Unfortunately libertarian gets more eye rolls than any other label in my opinion as there are so many different people all calling themselves the same word. Wanting limited gov't appears to be the only membership criteria and unfortunately there is no punishment for people who call themselves libertarians and then want to legislate their morality. So I do refrain from calling myself a libertarian but I cannot really hide my stripes with most of the long time posters here.
You are right, that when people get together and submit to gov't rule by giving their consent AND it actually exists to protect individuals from tyranny it is a good thing.
I agree that limited gov't is an abused term to simply mean limit what I don't agree with, we are in agreement there. So until I can be shown something different, I say not only limit what I don't agree with, but also my ability to force my beliefs on anyone else and the only way I see to get there the fastest is to limit the power of gov't agencies. The idea of an FDA and EPA are great, it is the corruption that seems to be inherent in the power they wield that makes it disgusting to me.
I am curious as to why think libertarians are leftist? I don't know if I have ever seen that anywhere. I have no problem being described as left or right, I label myself as a libertarian because that best describes my beliefs, if that means I am a leftist to you then that is fine with me. I am just interested in why you consider libertarian left because you really are the first person I have seen describe it that way.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
As an example of how limited governance could work, I'd like to hear with what you would replace FDA regulation?
Until we can communicate mind to mind we have to use words. If you don't like the term society has for your situation....TOO BAD!!
i do think it's a reasonable position as for me - i do believe in a higher power ... whether it's called a god or whatever ... i'm just not interested in proving it's existence or way or another ... that to me is where the exercise is slightly futile ...
"socialist" governments in europe really bust that theory up. People are happy to pay high taxes to a body that protects them and gives them copious maternity/paternity time as an example. Also, before the market gets called into play, remember that all the business owners haven't fled the country.
It's funny how some feel the need to label others though. I'm this, you're that.
I say have at it, because in the end, who cares? Why divide, separate? No little patches of common ground to be found and fostered?
Me, I know I don't know and probably never will. And that's fine - who's to say any of us SHOULD know?
I think you are right. Libertarians see people as individuals and wish to treat them as such in the eyes of a governing body. That doesn't mean there isn't a sense of community, but that sense can be stronger or weaker depending on the individual. There is poison in things we consume that are approved by the FDA, there are drugs that get recalled for one reason or another that were approved by the FDA.
In the end, the philosophy would be that civil and criminal litigation would be a deterrent to knowingly or otherwise disseminate poisonous products. If the gov't was actually interested in protecting individuals it would be a fairly easy process.
But some people think that is too idealistic, I will reiterate, drugs that received FDA approval have irreversibly harmed people when taken the correct way. if you can still approve a product that is known to kill/harm like cigarettes, approve drugs that then have to be recalled, etc etc, what fucking good are you?
Most of the time I hear about added costs to the judicial system when I say that and that is a gov't agency, and I then go back to what I said earlier, libertarian is not the same as anarchy and some gov't is needed, especially in dispute resolution between individuals and other parties be they individuals or corporations.
edit:
That of course is just my thinking on the matter, there are others who are far more interested in getting rid of the FDA than I am that will have a different answer.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
We do not have criminal sanctions against members of businesses for shitty products that poison do not exist as far as I know. If those things exist with federal oversight in place, what does that say about the effectiveness of costly federal oversight? I would rather criminal sanctions be levied than federal oversight and federal fines. There will not be criminal penalties for the CEO of GM for example. No one from Chevrolet will be prosecuted criminally for knowingly selling dangerous cars.
Strict personal property rights deal with pollution as well. One question for you, do you agree with carbon credits? I ask because that would allow the rich to pollute at their leisure, but something I see touted as a win for environmentalism all the time.
If you pollute my property I sue. Pollution rarely stays put. Air quality affects us all, rivers and streams. I suppose if a company bought an entire lake they could pollute the shit out of it, if and only if that pollution did not leave their property. We are already a litigious nation, and again, I have no problem with judicial dispute resolution. I am for civil restitution but also criminal prosecution of property rights violations. I would love to see our jails filled with people who pollute rivers and streams rather than Crack users and pot dealers.
But again, the retort is always "too idealistic" or "impractical", "couldn't ever work" "too much strain on justice system"...well fine. Then let's keep it the same way and see what happens to the environment.
Subjectivity is the key there. I cannot tell you what makes you happy. I can only want to create a world where you have the ability to do what makes you happy without forcing the same type of "happiness" on others. There are no real life examples of fully libertarian societies, because libertarianism, like many other forms of gov't philosophy are by degree. On a freedom scale of my own design, a "Socialist" gov't can be more libertarian than a capitalist country.
Countries where taxation is high are just fine as long as there is some give and some take. I mean, if I am socially free as shit to do what I choose I may or may not notice my level of economic freedom as much. I would say if I had a degree of choosing social freedom would be much higher on my list than all things economic freedom, but those things do overlap. I mean, people would say we are "more free" in the US, but we don't ever really own property here. We say we are free, but we are far less so than many "socialist" countries we deem as evil. well, since it has never been done no one should ever try
I am not here to tell you the only way to live, I am here to tell you the way I would be happiest, and the way I believe would lead to less world conflict. People don't really want to fight wars, gov'ts do and the corporations who buy them do...socialist or not I would rather not have gov't entities so large that they could literally alter all life on earth because of a ridiculous disagreement.
if a community of people gets together and decides to pool resources that is fine with me, I just don't think a gov't needs to be involved in doing it. I personally believe in community, but I don't believe I have the right to force that on you or anyone else
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
the problem i have with your second paragraph is simply that if a community of people decide to pool resources - it has to have someone administer and manage it ... why can't it be gov't!? ... the issue i always have with libertarians is that I don't think anyone has ever made a strong case against the concept of gov't ... just pointing out that current gov'ts are wastefull and corrupt doesn't necessarily mean the concept of gov't is bad ...
as for norway ... and the oil running out ... the same could be asked of the US ... what percentage of the economy is tied to oil ... pretty big i would imagine ... norway has long diversified its revenue stream and is actively moving away from oil as a fuel source so at the very least - they are preparing for it ...
i think people like to point to norway's oil as the only reason they have succeeded when in fact the real reason they've succeeded is that they have a populace that fundamentally believes in the values they govern by ... their divide is not as partisan and wide as in north america ... combine that with relatively low corruption and you got the foundation for a successful system ...