The Libertarian Utopia

[Minimalist]

Divi Tiberio, I love you man...but when you start in with that No True Libertarian shit you sound just like G-C and his No True Xtian shit.

Really, you need to take a breath and look in a mirror. And then you look at your fellow-travelers.

Perhaps this will help?

[Darth]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

It's not a no true scotsman fallacy to state things like "no true christian would worship satan" or "no true Australian is actually a ravenous space beast from pluto" (I demanded to see our last prime ministers birth certificate because of suspicions about this btw).

Libertarianism is focused on negative rights/liberties. A libertarian can argue for a position that robs you of some of those rights sure, but to say that it's a libertarian argument is absurd. It would be no true scotsman fallacy to say "true libertarians can't argue for it", not to say, as tiberius did (paraphrasing) "no you really can't make a libertarian argument for it"

Strict constitutionality =/= libertarianism (though your constitution, as your president whinged, is "a charter of *negative liberties"). Lots of libertarians aren't fans of the 16th. It being on the constitution didn't make the 18th amendment jive with libertarian principles…

It does, in regards to the state doing it at least…

*mostly

[Shell B]

I'm neither a Libertarian or a Republican, Tara and I care about getting tax cuts. You don't seem to have anything to back up the assertion that "most people" don't care about tax cuts. Just sayin' Carry on, you political weirdos.

[Tiberius]

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

I didn't argue that the answer to every economic ill was tax cuts. I just pointed out that your example wasn't an example of Libertarian thinking. You can't just take money out of the system (spending cuts) without balancing it out somewhere (in this case, tax cuts) and expect things to work. In some cases, it might (for example, cutting spending of the armed forces since we don't have a need for such a large army), but in the case of welfare it clearly doesn't; plenty of people need some form of welfare.

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.

Tax cuts are easier for a government to legislate on than massive changes that affect the market. Libertarians want all those things as well. Where we disagree is how we should achieve them. Libertarians think that competition between companies can make wages go up and prices go down.

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

Go read up on what the No True Scotsman fallacy actually is and you'll understand why I didn't make it.

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.

You are really being quite moronic now.

Article One of the Constitution gives Congress its powers. No, the Constitution doesn't say anything about murder; however it does set up Congress and give them the power to legislate laws, as long as those laws don't violate other parts of the constitution (or go beyond the limitations also set up for Congress in Article One).

So following Ron Paul's philosophy correctly (and not your weird anti-Libertarian take on it), murder is not allowed because a law was passed by Congress which made it illegal, and Congress was given the power to do that by the Constitution.

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.

Right, and like I've tried to tell you before in this thread and on these forums, calling yourself a Libertarian is meaningless unless you actually support Libertarian positions on things. The Koch brothers, quite simply, are not Libertarians.

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.

No, my complaint is with both. I can't stop people I have no ability to contact from using the Libertarian label improperly, but I can try to stop people like yourself from using it to shit all over proper Libertarians by trying to argue against policies we don't even support. Use your brain next time. Go read up on what Libertarianism actually is (start with the Libertarian Party's manifesto maybe) and then compare those positions with those of the Koch brothers, or anyone who calls themselves a Libertarian.

---

Divi Tiberio, I love you man...but when you start in with that No True Libertarian shit you sound just like G-C and his No True Xtian shit.

Like I told Tara, go read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy. It is you who misuses the fallacy, not me who uses it. If I say "no true vegetarian eats meat", I'm not committing a fallacy, because vegetarians by definition do not eat meat! Likewise, if I say that the article doesn't represent "true Libertarians" because it says they support <insert a number of anti-Libertarian positions here>, then I'm not committing a fallacy either.

For the last time (oh I hope it will be, but I know deep down it won't): LIBERTARIANISM IS WELL DEFINED.

Really, you need to take a breath and look in a mirror. And then you look at your fellow-travelers.

No, you need to read up on what actual Libertarians support, and not just use them as a scapegoat for any politician you don't like, even if they claim to be a Libertarian.

[là bạn điên]

I am not a libertarian since I beleive in thoroughly unlibertarian things as Socialised medicine, free education to the end of secondary, safety nets for the low waged and minimum living standards for Children. I think I can defend this position logically to libertarians I also have grave misgivings about protection for children, the mentally challenged and Animals in a Libertarian society however Libertarians are generally honest and consistent which is far more than I can say for most positions.

Libertarians do not beleive that people can murder or steal or rape.etc etc. Indeed they have a non aggression principle which I admire unlike most people who want tax and spend for THEIR pet plans at the expense of others.

I think libertarians are certainly correct when it comes to Sexuality, Narcotics, Prostitution and Gambling. I also think that in most areas that the Government is a pretty terrible provider for most issues (though not all issues) and the threats to free speech are growing all the time (in the UK especially) that I am beginning to fear for free expression.

I certainly don't think Ron Paul is a good example of a Libertarian- he is opposed to abortion for a start he is certainly on the conservative edge of libertarianism.

[A Theist]

---

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

I didn't argue that the answer to every economic ill was tax cuts. I just pointed out that your example wasn't an example of Libertarian thinking. You can't just take money out of the system (spending cuts) without balancing it out somewhere (in this case, tax cuts) and expect things to work. In some cases, it might (for example, cutting spending of the armed forces since we don't have a need for such a large army), but in the case of welfare it clearly doesn't; plenty of people need some form of welfare.

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.

Tax cuts are easier for a government to legislate on than massive changes that affect the market. Libertarians want all those things as well. Where we disagree is how we should achieve them. Libertarians think that competition between companies can make wages go up and prices go down.

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

Go read up on what the No True Scotsman fallacy actually is and you'll understand why I didn't make it.

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.

You are really being quite moronic now.

Article One of the Constitution gives Congress its powers. No, the Constitution doesn't say anything about murder; however it does set up Congress and give them the power to legislate laws, as long as those laws don't violate other parts of the constitution (or go beyond the limitations also set up for Congress in Article One).

So following Ron Paul's philosophy correctly (and not your weird anti-Libertarian take on it), murder is not allowed because a law was passed by Congress which made it illegal, and Congress was given the power to do that by the Constitution.

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.

Right, and like I've tried to tell you before in this thread and on these forums, calling yourself a Libertarian is meaningless unless you actually support Libertarian positions on things. The Koch brothers, quite simply, are not Libertarians.

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.

No, my complaint is with both. I can't stop people I have no ability to contact from using the Libertarian label improperly, but I can try to stop people like yourself from using it to shit all over proper Libertarians by trying to argue against policies we don't even support. Use your brain next time. Go read up on what Libertarianism actually is (start with the Libertarian Party's manifesto maybe) and then compare those positions with those of the Koch brothers, or anyone who calls themselves a Libertarian.

---

Divi Tiberio, I love you man...but when you start in with that No True Libertarian shit you sound just like G-C and his No True Xtian shit.

Like I told Tara, go read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy. It is you who misuses the fallacy, not me who uses it. If I say "no true vegetarian eats meat", I'm not committing a fallacy, because vegetarians by definition do not eat meat! Likewise, if I say that the article doesn't represent "true Libertarians" because it says they support <insert a number of anti-Libertarian positions here>, then I'm not committing a fallacy either.

For the last time (oh I hope it will be, but I know deep down it won't): LIBERTARIANISM IS WELL DEFINED.

Really, you need to take a breath and look in a mirror. And then you look at your fellow-travelers.

No, you need to read up on what actual Libertarians support, and not just use them as a scapegoat for any politician you don't like, even if they claim to be a Libertarian.

---

[Autumnlicious]

Takes one to know one, AT

[là bạn điên]

Libertarianism is not defined by the US constitution. Libertarianism exists outside the US as well.

[A Theist]

Takes one to know one, AT

You should know, MS

[EgoRaptor]

For the last time (oh I hope it will be, but I know deep down it won't): LIBERTARIANISM IS WELL DEFINED.

For someone as intelligent as you Tiberius, I never expected to hear something this stupid. Considering libertarianism was originally a socialist movement & then changed to a capitalist movement I would say that it is horribly defined.

---

Takes one to know one, AT

You should know, MS

Considering he thinks Islam is a race, he definitely should.

---

Also, I support a free market laissez faire system without private property. Some of my main influences are Ayn Rand, Karl Marx & the Marquis de Sade. I support huge tax cuts.