The Libertarian Utopia

[Minimalist]

What these fuckers really want.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20...-their-way

But it seems even clearer that a “libertarian” in today’s political environment is almost always someone who ascribes to certain core philosophies: He abhors government, hates taxation, and is hostile to collective action on behalf of the less fortunate. Name any prominent modern libertarian—Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan, Ron Paul, Peter Thiel, Rand Paul—and they are likely to fit this description.

These figures represent a singular and increasingly dominant libertarian vision. To avoid future confusion, I'll give their brand of thought an admittedly imperfect name: “libertarian/conservative.” It is that vision, and their future, which I address here—and it's a frightening future.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Tiberius incoming in 3...2...1...

[Minimalist]

The author is merely more polite than I. I call them republibertarianeo-conazis because of the their own philosophical differences but they are all aiming at promoting the rich and fucking the poor...no matter how you slice it.

[Tiberius]

Tiberius incoming in 3...2...1...

Yet another author who uses the term "Libertarian" to cover all political views he disagrees with. Just more bullshit.

I mean, honestly, the author thinks that Libertarians argue private ownership means you can murder people as long as the murderer does it on their own land. He also suggests that Libertarians would outlaw charitable organisations that try to help the poor! This article is not just a load of bullshit; it's DELUSIONAL.

[EgoRaptor]

Libertarianism was originally a socialist movement. It was only later that that capitalists stole the term. I actually tend to agree with libertarians on moral, social & philosophical issues (ie. I like greed & selfishness), but I mostly disagree with them on economic issues. Free-market communism FTW!

---

The original libertarian who I near-completely agree with on economic issues; Joseph Déjacque.

[TaraJo]

I mean, honestly, the author thinks that Libertarians argue private ownership means you can murder people as long as the murderer does it on their own land.

No, but you could certainly make a libertarian case for legalization of murder, especially murder-for-hire (free enterprise and all).

He also suggests that Libertarians would outlaw charitable organisations that try to help the poor!

Outlaw? No. Strangle? Yep. That seems to be the case. Here in Texas, our government has been going more and more towards this type of libertarianism over the past few years, with less and less of the governments money going to help people with things like food kitchens and shelters. Yet we've had story after story after story about how the charities don't have enough food or money or resources in general anymore. I'd be more willing to let the government out of the assistance business if not for the fact that the private sector doesn't seem to be covering it (especially the people with the most money who have been proven to be greedy assholes).

[Minimalist]

Tiberius incoming in 3...2...1...

Yet another author who uses the term "Libertarian" to cover all political views he disagrees with. Just more bullshit.

I mean, honestly, the author thinks that Libertarians argue private ownership means you can murder people as long as the murderer does it on their own land. He also suggests that Libertarians would outlaw charitable organisations that try to help the poor! This article is not just a load of bullshit; it's DELUSIONAL.

Yet you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that it is these "libertarians" who claim the word for themselves, Divi Tiberio. I'm sorry but you are not the Pope of Libertarianism. You don't get to decide who is in and who is out.

I consider the title to be terribly dishonorable...just like "xtian" so anyone who wants it can have it.

[CapnAwesome]

I'm sorry but you are not the Pope of Libertarianism. You don't get to decide who is in and who is out.

Neither do you.

[Tiberius]

No, but you could certainly make a libertarian case for legalization of murder, especially murder-for-hire (free enterprise and all).

No, you really couldn't. If you think you can, then you are are too deluded about what Libertarianism actually is and what it stands for. Above anything else, Libertarianism is about the rights of a person to control their own life. Free enterprise does not somehow trump that. A company that killed people for money violates Libertarian ethics and laws just as it violates our current ethics and laws.

Outlaw? No.

Go and re-read the article, specifically this part:

It never stops: Close down the homeless shelters. Shut down the Salvation Army. Make it illegal to throw a starving person a coin or toss a blanket over them as they lay on the sidewalk. This logic only ends one way: in a hellish dystopia where the underclass is starving, homeless and dying in droves.

Seems that outlawing is exactly what this guys thinks Libertarians want to do.

Strangle? Yep. That seems to be the case. Here in Texas, our government has been going more and more towards this type of libertarianism over the past few years, with less and less of the governments money going to help people with things like food kitchens and shelters. Yet we've had story after story after story about how the charities don't have enough food or money or resources in general anymore. I'd be more willing to let the government out of the assistance business if not for the fact that the private sector doesn't seem to be covering it (especially the people with the most money who have been proven to be greedy assholes).

You just don't get it. You can't just take part of Libertarianism (in Texas' case, less government spending) and apply it without applying the part of Libertarianism that balances it out. It's obvious to even Libertarians that simply reducing government spending on welfare won't solve the problem; that money has to come from somewhere else, which is why Libertarians also advocate lowering taxes so that ordinary people have more money, which they can then give to charity. Libertarianism is a way of governance; it's designed to be implemented as a way of running the country, much like systems like communism and socialism are supposed to be.

---

Yet you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that it is these "libertarians" who claim the word for themselves, Divi Tiberio. I'm sorry but you are not the Pope of Libertarianism. You don't get to decide who is in and who is out.

No, but neither do they. However, the definition of Libertarianism is pretty easy to find, so go look it up and apply what it says to what they are advocating. You'll see that they are not proper Libertarians. It really is quite simple Minimalist, and I'm afraid that it is you who is the one "steadfastly refusing to acknowledge" this fact.

I consider the title to be terribly dishonorable...just like "xtian" so anyone who wants it can have it.

Fair enough, but that is your opinion and it doesn't make it so. I consider the title of "communist" dishonorable, but I'm not going to go about stating you are a communist, or Obama is a communist, or <insert Min's favourite political person here> is a communist, unless they actually match the definition of the word.

You simply latch onto any moron who calls themselves a Libertarian, assume that this is the case, and then use whatever disgusting views they espouse to attack Libertarianism itself, despite the fact that Libertarianism doesn't even remotely support these views.

[TaraJo]

You just don't get it. You can't just take part of Libertarianism (in Texas' case, less government spending) and apply it without applying the part of Libertarianism that balances it out. It's obvious to even Libertarians that simply reducing government spending on welfare won't solve the problem; that money has to come from somewhere else, which is why Libertarians also advocate lowering taxes so that ordinary people have more money, which they can then give to charity. Libertarianism is a way of governance; it's designed to be implemented as a way of running the country, much like systems like communism and socialism are supposed to be.

Ah, the old Republican answer to every economic ill: tax cuts!

Here's a news flash: most people don't care about tax cuts! We don't want tax cuts, we want wages to go up, we want prices on things like health insurance, gasoline, rent and groceries to go down and tax cuts ain't gonna do that. Right now, the only people with enough money to make up the difference in what the government wouldn't be giving charity anymore are the people who are far too greedy to share any of it. The truth is, there's a lot of rich people who are assholes who think the world owes them everything and unless an economic system takes them into consideration, it's going to fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY6rOR0Mz54

---

No, but you could certainly make a libertarian case for legalization of murder, especially murder-for-hire (free enterprise and all).

No, you really couldn't. If you think you can, then you are are too deluded about what Libertarianism actually is and what it stands for. Above anything else, Libertarianism is about the rights of a person to control their own life. Free enterprise does not somehow trump that. A company that killed people for money violates Libertarian ethics and laws just as it violates our current ethics and laws.

Ah, the ol' No-true-scottsman route, huh?

Pay attention to the political philosophy of Ron Paul, the biggest name in American politics to carry the label "Libertarian." His way of looking at things can be summed up like this: if the constitution doesn't specifically say we can do something, we can't do it.

So, do you know if the constitution says anything about murder? I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. From what I've seen, state constitutions don't say much about murder, either. Following Ron Pauls' politcal philosophy to its logical conclusion, yes, since it's not in the constitution, I can legally beat the door-to-door religious people into the concrete until their head splits in two.

And, yes, Ron Paul identifies as a libertarian. But let's not leave others out. Have you paid attention to the Koch brothers? Billionaire businessmen who argue for libertarianism in the form of less regulation and lower taxes.... while accepting huge government subsidies.

Tiberius, I think your complaint should be taken up with the people who wear that libertarian label and use it to defend some pretty psycho policies, not wth me.