Why Libertarians don't like you

unsung
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
in A Moving Train
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.
«1

Comments

  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    Interesting read, but in the end - and I do share some of your beliefs, by the way - I've no interest in using any tactic to try and win someone over to my views. I'll discuss them and hopefully I and them will get a better perspective of the other's outlook. Maybe come to respect them, understand them...

    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.
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    pretty arrogant, normally i like that but he just isn't as funny as he is trying to be. Most of that is funny if applied to conservatives only but most leftists are very rational and are searching for truth analytically..I would argue libertarians are less rational as they live in a hypothetical bubble where anarchy makes sense. Is there a thread where we can argue anarchy? This would be fun, I would love to pick your brain on how we could live without the State.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    10. "Ridicule works." That's so 1990's LOL. "reason and evidence"... I can go for that! Stop shooting bears because there is no need to in 2014 and wildlife is diminishing rapidly. So far, so good!

    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?
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • DriftingByTheStorm
    DriftingByTheStorm Posts: 8,684
    rgambs said:

    but most leftists are very rational and are searching for truth analytically...

    one of the funnier statements \ claims i have ever seen made on this board.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Howard Zinn. Noam Chomsky. Chris Hedges.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    Bill Maher. Well hey, that guy's funny. :-)
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    edited April 2014
    brianlux said:

    Bill Maher. Well hey, that guy's funny. :-)


    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.
    rgambs said:

    pretty arrogant, normally i like that but he just isn't as funny as he is trying to be. Most of that is funny if applied to conservatives only but most leftists are very rational and are searching for truth analytically..I would argue libertarians are less rational as they live in a hypothetical bubble where anarchy makes sense. Is there a thread where we can argue anarchy? This would be fun, I would love to pick your brain on how we could live without the State.

    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)
    Post edited by mikepegg44 on
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    the problem with libertarians which i keep saying and no one cares to address is that they are fighting the wrong entity ... it's not the concept of gov't that is a failure ... it's that the people have allowed gov't to be an extension of corporations that is the true problem ... libertarians focus on limiting gov't but it isn't the size of the gov't that fails us now - it's who they report to ...
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    polaris_x said:

    the problem with libertarians which i keep saying and no one cares to address is that they are fighting the wrong entity ... it's not the concept of gov't that is a failure ... it's that the people have allowed gov't to be an extension of corporations that is the true problem ... libertarians focus on limiting gov't but it isn't the size of the gov't that fails us now - it's who they report to ...


    chicken or egg I suppose but I believe if it can't be sold it can't be bought
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    my answer to that final question is similar to what polaris said. Government by consent exists to protect individuals from other individuals and groups that are more powerful and prone to abuse of power. (corporations mostly, super-wealthy in general) We have to get our heads on straight, government doesn't corrupt for the fun of it, it corrupts because the individuals involved are weak and need replaced. Limited government is a catch phrase that defense contractors want you to use because it spreads the notion that we should cut "unnecessary" spending, which of course is code meaning social programs. I would be a libertarian by name and action IF I wouldn't be embarassed by the libertarian practice of treating the market as a psuedo-religion that will magically protect us all. We only have clean, edible food by way of "unconstitutional" actions by the gov. Our roads, our air and water, our technology, all owe their existence to a protective government.

    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..
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    polaris_x said:

    the problem with libertarians which i keep saying and no one cares to address is that they are fighting the wrong entity ... it's not the concept of gov't that is a failure ... it's that the people have allowed gov't to be an extension of corporations that is the true problem ... libertarians focus on limiting gov't but it isn't the size of the gov't that fails us now - it's who they report to ...

    Simple, brilliant, spot on.

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mikepegg44 said:

    polaris_x said:

    the problem with libertarians which i keep saying and no one cares to address is that they are fighting the wrong entity ... it's not the concept of gov't that is a failure ... it's that the people have allowed gov't to be an extension of corporations that is the true problem ... libertarians focus on limiting gov't but it isn't the size of the gov't that fails us now - it's who they report to ...


    chicken or egg I suppose but I believe if it can't be sold it can't be bought
    sure ... but you can clearly see in most other places where they can't be bought - things are better ... there is no such example of where things are good and the role of gov't is limited ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    rgambs ... by definition - your wife is agnostic ...
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    polaris_x said:

    mikepegg44 said:

    polaris_x said:

    the problem with libertarians which i keep saying and no one cares to address is that they are fighting the wrong entity ... it's not the concept of gov't that is a failure ... it's that the people have allowed gov't to be an extension of corporations that is the true problem ... libertarians focus on limiting gov't but it isn't the size of the gov't that fails us now - it's who they report to ...


    chicken or egg I suppose but I believe if it can't be sold it can't be bought
    sure ... but you can clearly see in most other places where they can't be bought - things are better ... there is no such example of where things are good and the role of gov't is limited ...
    where are the places you speak of where gov'ts can't be bought? Africa? nope..middle east? nope, Europe, nope, South, Central and North America? hell no....Gov'ts are bought anywhere and everywhere, it is only the degree of purchase that could be argued.

    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.

    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mikepegg44 said:

    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.

    norway? iceland?

    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 ...
  • mikepegg44
    mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    rgambs said:

    my answer to that final question is similar to what polaris said. Government by consent exists to protect individuals from other individuals and groups that are more powerful and prone to abuse of power. (corporations mostly, super-wealthy in general) We have to get our heads on straight, government doesn't corrupt for the fun of it, it corrupts because the individuals involved are weak and need replaced. Limited government is a catch phrase that defense contractors want you to use because it spreads the notion that we should cut "unnecessary" spending, which of course is code meaning social programs. I would be a libertarian by name and action IF I wouldn't be embarassed by the libertarian practice of treating the market as a psuedo-religion that will magically protect us all. We only have clean, edible food by way of "unconstitutional" actions by the gov. Our roads, our air and water, our technology, all owe their existence to a protective government.

    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..

    I like the ramble, I am notorious for long rambling posts that make little sense to anyone but me.

    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.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    libertarians are lefties because they want a better world. They want less corruption and more freedom. Conservatives want to maintain the status quo, hell more often than not they want to regress! You and I want progress we just have different solutions to the problem.
    As an example of how limited governance could work, I'd like to hear with what you would replace FDA regulation?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    i would say libertarians are not lefties ... i break it down as we vs. me ... i think most people would say their philosophy leads to a better world ... libertarians are definitely about personal freedoms and choices focusing on the individual or me ... i'm sure they will tell you that they believe in the "we" and that their way will get you there but the language is typically "me" ... lefties are about the "we" ...
  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    polaris_x said:

    rgambs ... by definition - your wife is agnostic ...

    incorrect. Common misconception. A-gnostic (i hate AG-nostic, makes no sense) means that the existence of deity is unknowable..Todays popular definition has been expanded to include those on the fence, but populism doesn't go far in academics. The problem is all the new age "pantheist" types who want to say that God is the universe, we are all God, God is everything yada yada. Gods, by definition, are beings!!! If you do not believe in a supernatural being you are an atheist. My wife does not. It bothers me that people change the meaning of "god" so that they can change the label society has for their beliefs.
    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!!
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    rgambs said:

    polaris_x said:

    rgambs ... by definition - your wife is agnostic ...

    incorrect. Common misconception. A-gnostic (i hate AG-nostic, makes no sense) means that the existence of deity is unknowable..Todays popular definition has been expanded to include those on the fence, but populism doesn't go far in academics. The problem is all the new age "pantheist" types who want to say that God is the universe, we are all God, God is everything yada yada. Gods, by definition, are beings!!! If you do not believe in a supernatural being you are an atheist. My wife does not. It bothers me that people change the meaning of "god" so that they can change the label society has for their beliefs.
    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!!
    sorry ... my 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 ...


Categories