How to deal with Libertarians...

[SocialistGunOwner]

How do you deal with their logic? I find myself becoming more and more libertarian everyday.

[liberalhistorian]

1. To each his own, but frankly, they're too right-wing for me,

particularly their positions on economic issues.

[whoYaCallinAlib]

2. They are no better than repukes.

Low taxes, small government . . . sounds very repuke to me.

[SocialistGunOwner]

4. How is that bad?

Low taxes: More money for you, more money for you do donate to good causes or do whatever with. Dont tell me you dont actually want to dictate how your money is spent by you having control over it...

Small government: In theory, it works beautifuly. Less governmental waste, less overhead, no government oversight of the 10th amendment, government actually doing what its job is, as outlined in the Constitution. Sounds great to me.

Personal freedoms: the BOR actually means something. Guns are freely owned, as well as less regulation on stupid things. I dont want the government in my life. If I screw up, its my fault. Just like I dont want to pay for others screwups.

[Stevendsmith]

21. Odd

Those are very un-socialist beliefs for someone with the moniker of SocialistGunOwner.

The liberal progressive project is not about "big government" and waste. No one wants that. It's about community and the belief that government should be an instrument of social progress.

Unfortunately, the right has successfully indoctrinated legions of people that government is something evil and separate from people.

Community values require that we make sacrifices for the common good.

For instance, we have too many fucking guns in this country.

[liberalhistorian]

23. LOL!

GREAT comeback, stevendsmith!

[SocialistGunOwner]

27. Maybe...

Like I said, I am presenting their arguement and seeking responses. So far, I have not been convinced otherwise. Government is here to serve the governed, not the other way around. I am the senator's or representative's boss, and he/she is there to make sure that my views are duly represented in congress. Not make laws that are there for the "good of humanity" and protection. I can do that myself, thank you very little.

As far as guns go, there arent enough. More people need to own guns. Guns are just tools. I can harm or kill someone just as easily with an ice pick, hammer, chainsaw, car, or any other assorted household item. Guns arent killing people, people are.

[saline]

36. last time I checked...

... you're representative wasen't your plaything. He's all our plaything, we've got to share, hence voting. Thats what we do we say, this is the majority opinion, voice it. Unfortunately I don't think this happens often enough but were working on that.

How is government supposed to serve the governed with no money (as a result of no taxes, a big libertarian selling point).

Also, it's a lot easier to kill people with guns, last time I checked I couldn't kill someone with any of the things you mentioned standing stationary from 300 ft away, unless you got real lucky with the hammer maybe.

Guns are a tool, tools are there to make a job easier, the job guns make easier is killing things.

[Stevendsmith]

41. Huh?

The governed IS the government--at least that how it should be.

And you can take care of the good of humanity all by yourself? You must be a God. I guess I'm just naive enough to believe that progress is achieved through collective action.

You should find an Ayn Rand discussion board, my man.

Oh, but you're right about the need for more guns. I mean, there is just no correlation between the number of guns in this country and the number of gun-related deaths.

[Trajan]

43. Yes: .. WE form the government ....

WE write the laws ....

IF we write laws that restrict the usage of dangerous objects, like guns, that doesnt mean we should now disparage government: the VERY government that was deigned proper by the consent of the governed to begin with ...

I have NO problem with a government that 'promotes the general welfare', through the fair use of taxation to affect a better societal distribution of resources, IF that is what the government formed by the consent of the governed DECIDES to do ...

But instead: .... Libertarian ATTACK that government: even though it is constituted through the will of the citizens .....

Libertarians are essentially anarchists ....

[whoYaCallinAlib]

24. It's not bad. It's repuke ideology. That's all I'm saying.

I'm a moderate, centrist, middle of the road democrat. Very liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. I also strongly believe in the right to bear arms. I don't have a problem with libertarians except on domestic issues. I tend to be far more compassionate than my libertarian friends.

[saline]

9. libertarians

To the first poster, what specific things do you have problems with, where are they logicaly hard to refute?

Alib, I've got a great idea, lets take two issues and characterize entire groups. Libertarians are very different from your average republican. In theory they should be economically in line but thats commonly not the case. Republicans (and democrats) want to maintain their power and thus the government so they must maintain certain economic realities regardless of what their beliefs might be in a pure sense. Republicans and Libertarians are very different on social issues, Libertarians taking a hands off, what ever you want to do is fine just don't do it on my land policy. Republicans as we all know are a little more nosy and in my eyes far worse than libertarians as a result.

I like libertarian social policy (as is evident in the above part) but their economic policy commonly leaves something to be desired, capitalism as a pure system doesn't work. It's too easy to abuse.

[SocialistGunOwner]

13. Well, their positions and arguements make sense...

and things that are just common sense are quite dificult to refute for me.

[leftyandproud]

31. I really don't think you can refute libertarians..

Their philosphy is pure and well reasoned.
They are very consistent.
but..

They are just WRONG. ;)

Repukes on the other hand, are hypocrites, enacting legislation on a daily basis that goes against their supposed beliefs of limiting government power (patriot act, religious interference with govt, corporate socialism, etc etc)

[saline]

40. I disagree...

They can be refuted, because although their arguments are logical the world we live in isn't. A logical solution to an illogical problem using illogical actors isn't going to work. We like to think we're logical, but I'm willing to bet everything you do to be happy is at least somewhat illogical.

Pure arguments are fine, but the proof is in the jello and libertarian philosophies never seem to fit the irregularly shaped, ridiculously large and constantly changing mold we call life on this here planet.

[jagguy]

15. How so ? Bush has enlarged government to record level

The myth of small government republicans is, well, a myth. Its more a question of HOW to spend and engorge.

Libertairians have the market cornered on downsizing govt seriously.

[liberalhistorian]

26. They're also mega-capitalists who believe the

free market is king, and to hell with people if they don't have enough money for little things like, say, food or health care.

[lcordero]

3. OK let's try it this way

With smaller government we have less govt oversight, with less govt oversight corporations are free to abuse workers anyway they see fit.

[Stevendsmith]

5. Libertarianism

Libertarianism = Selfishness Masquerading as Virtue

It’s a rejection of community and public values. Uncool shit.

Dennis Miller is a Libertarian. Look what an asshole he is.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GeronimoSkull]

20. SHUT UP... just SHUT UP!

my favorite Bill O'Reilly line

[salin]

35. such insight.... such brilliant understanding of the issues

yep - screaming 'shutemdown bill' - a great mind :eyes:

[liberalhistorian]

28. Geez, man, take the "Socialist" off your

name, 'cause you sure as hell ain't anywhere close to being one!

[saline]

29. Sink or swim

Can you give me the exact amount you would need before you could donate "lots of money to charity"? Why not donate a little now, admittedly I don't know you don't but considering your opinion on "people leeching off of the government" it seems unlikely.

This is my problem with Libertarianism, its based on the belief that life is fair. Life isn't fair, it inherently isn't and it can't be, we can try and make it more so but it's hard. If life were fair then we could say, "you failed because you made a mistake" and that would be the end of it (even then people would get injured but is that really fair? Totally off topic). People would accept that, problem is the world doesn't work that way.

People are born richer or poorer, big impact on their lives. People are born sick sometimes, hardly fair. People have horrible things happen to them before they can talk or walk, are we supposed to say to them "sucks to be you, better luck next time!" Some people say yes and to them I say fuck you life ain't that simple.

Everyone agrees that responsibility is a good thing but an individual is not 100% responsible for everything that happens to them. As a result the sink or swim mentality of Libertarians should be unacceptable to an ethical person on the basis that some people start out already drowning and some start out in a lounge chair on their own cruise ship of life.

[liberalhistorian]

33. I've known many Libertarians who were

"sink or swim" until something happened to them (sudden job loss, serious or catastrophic illness or injury, etc.) where they suddenly realized that they'd done everything they were supposed to do, worked hard, were responsible, etc., etc., and it didn't make a damn bit of difference, they were still "sinking", and they hadn't done anything.

[liberalhistorian]

30. Corporations and big businesses are the ones

feeding off of your hard-earned money, my friend. Corporate welfare is far more common and pervasive than any other form of "welfare", but I never seem to hear people like you complaining about that!

[Forkboy]

37. Wow

I dont know whether to laugh or cry :crazy:

[SocialistGunOwner]

7. Not necessarily...

Just because the gov isnt watching doesnt mean that you have to work for a company who oppresses people. You negotiate compensation and benifits, and outline treatment guidelines. It makes sense in the end.

[saline]

17. been there done that

You're right, the workers can unionize, and then the company can bring in scabs or strike breakers. The companies can hire people to start a riot, then the rioting workers can be fired on by the mercenaries hired to protect the factory. Sorry but we've aleady been down that road in American history.

Say you do negotiate compensation and benefits what are the workers supposed to do when the company renigs? Sue them? There's no federal government, local court systems might be less powerful than certain companies. Whats to keep the company from having a standing army to force the workers into slavery.

Can't say that makes sense to me...

[willyjixx]

6. howdy fellow THR

i personnaly buy a walther an rejoice

[SocialistGunOwner]

8. 1911...

or a large caliber semiautomatic rifle with lots of magazines. Shottys work as well. :-)

[DBoon]

10. Freedom really isn't

When freedom is defined as the freedom to operate in an unregulated marketplace, and the distribution of wealth is grossly unequal, it does not result in freedom at all for most, but their exploitation. the libertarian philosophy is based on an 18th century peasantry, AFTER all the lord's land has been redistributed! When we are all self-sufficient because we own enough property to be so, THEN libertarianism results in freedom.

Or try,

Property is created by the government. When the US Civil War ended and the 13th amendment passed, a large amount of "property" was just willed out of existance. Property isn't a fact of nature, it is a social relationship. Or look at how current copyright laws have created this weird thing called "intellectual property". Believing that property is a fixed natural entity just obscures what it really is - a convenient sets of rules governing how we behave. Libertarians are too rigid to believe these rules could be intentionally changed for the better, believing as they do that they are laws of nature.

Or maybe,

What about economic externalities, where an action creates good or bad for many, and the effects cannot be restricted to those who benefit from/pay for the item? Inherently these cannot be allocated by a marketplace, so there is a need for governments to regulate, own, allocate them (e.g., bad effects of pollution, good effects of public health measures, etc.)

[willyjixx]

18. libertarians seek to protect themselves..

by regulating an passing laws on others. protected groups are a prime example. why are they more special or should have more rights then me? cuz their differnt? we are all different so we shoould have a basic of laws to govern that. when you assign special laws it creates a new cast of better people. so that is not very liberal now is it.

[SocialistGunOwner]

22. Like..

Affirmative action? How does that not legislate protected groups? What about other laws like that? According to your argument, thats not very Liberal either.

*This message not meant to troll or incite.*

[SocialistGunOwner]

19. I dont like that people are rich through exploitation...

Well, I dont like the fact that money is going to those that dont work for it, and play the system. However, if I actually work for my money (Sam Walton for example) I dont think that the government should be telling me that its theirs (socialism), or redistributing my wealth when I slaved away for it. When there isnt a system to play, then the rich will be those that worked for it.

I think that opprotunity will take the place of the current system and while there will be those that are rich, there will be less poor because they will go and work for their money, thereby re-establishing a little thing called "Work Ethic", something sorely missing in this country. I cant believe that people dont think that they have to work for something in this country and are entitled to handouts. Sorry, not out of my pocket. I bought a Mercedes because I worked for it, not because it was handed to me. I will be damned when someone comes and takes it for the good of the country too.

[Qutzupalotl]

38. Freedom is not free.

You need roads, emergency care, libraries, police, firefighters, national defense...think about those things when you pay your taxes.

Unless you negotiated a deal where you get your income tax-free, it's not your money. Render unto Ceasar, you know?

[liberalhistorian]

39. Sam Walton didn't "work for his money", he

got thousands of others to work for it, then paid them nothing, made them work overtime without pay, gave them little or no benefits, treated them like dirt, passed that way of "management" on to his successors and lived high off the hog on other people's labor. Sam Walton got rich off of the hard work and sacrifice of others, like most CEO's, he didn't work hard himself.

[RandomKoolzip]

34. Hey, check my avatar and sig line, D. Boon!

Libertarianism is just Republicanism in "bad-ass" clothing. It's like claiming to be a "waste management artisan" when one is really a "garbageman."

All this talk of a "parasite class" mooching off the largesse of "hardworking people" is pure bullshit; again, it's racism and classism in a "bad-ass" guise. There are more wealthy people who got that way from investing and inheritance than there are those who legitimately "worked" for it, i.e. real labor. These same "selfmade" men then turn around and burn the rope ladder they just climbed so that more room at the top is not to be taken by any of the lower classes (if you really think there are no classes in America, it's time to wake up and smell the carbon momoxide.) by claimking that anyone not "smart" or "hardworking" as they are not entitled to a comfortable living. I suppose the fact that these lower classes are made up of "lazy" dark-skinned and white trash laborers willing to do filthy work the uppers would never stoop to performing is just coincidence, right?

Libertarianism= selfishness. And Ayn Rand sucks.

[DBoon]

12. One thing I like about libertarians thoug

Is their opposition to military advantures. I believe the Libertarian Party went on record opposing the Iraq invasion. You could ALMOST convince me that the benefits of cutting the military down to size would outweight the bad consequences of cutting the rest of government down to size. AFAIK, libertarians believe in military action only when US territory is attacked.

[DBoon]

14. One more post then I quit

A libertarian is a Republican who likes to smoke dope.

[stevebreeze]

16. Analyze their logic and you will find they are only appeals to greed

Their ideal iis winner take all. No min wage? Then if you can destroy someones life so bad as to make them your slave, is that OK? I think not!
:kick:

[willyjixx]

25. reading defintions........

a libertarian is someone who is a believer in freedom of thought an action.

hmmm whats wrong with that?


a liberal/liberalism: had about 5 ways to say holding an believing in self expression, supporting civil liberties, and using the govt to promote the common good ie social progress. being broadminded and tolerant.


hmmm i see a contradiction of current "Liberals" an the dictionaries version

[sweetheart]

32. As a libertarian, y'all are using negative stereotypes

I'll tell you how to deal with libertarians. Say "Hi friend, welcome to the coalition to depose the criminal bush administration." As a libertarian, i say "Thank you for welcoming me honourable person." I'm sure we have our political differences, but that we are more alike than different, as firstly i want to be free and have my liberty as written in the constitution.

Critical to libertarian thinking is the empowerment of the individual. As an individual, i am free by the first amendment to pursue my religion of choice, even if it is to take drugs, and how dare you tread on my first amendment rights. It is your first amendment right to speak freely outside of first amendment zones... i will die fighting for you to have that right.

The war on drugs is core to libertarian america and for more reasons than is initially appearant. Much of the invasive policing and erosion of privacy and choice that we all tolerate ?? is pursued under the auspices that we are ignorant cattle who must be policed for drugs usage much like we are in a prison and need monitoring to be "american". Ending the war on drugs is a massive cutback on prison populations, an 85% reduction in violent crime and the policing needed to keep our streets safe; it is the end of needless wiretapping and suspicious sting operations to "bust" the supply chain for such things.... so by dropping the WOD, we get less crime, less government, more liberty, more tax revenue, less drugs addiction, and less government... a win win win win for all around. How anyone can argue FOR keeping teh stupid WOD that HAS NEVER WORKED... is beyond me... surely a libertarian basher can have a go explaining such stupidity.

Next in line is policing the world... live and let live.. a libertarian says... if you don't attack my country, i have no need to keep a huge global empire of military bases in every frikkin' nation.... a giant military cutback and a shifting towards civilian relations and good diplomacy is the libertarian way.

I believe the senate should ratify the UN declaration of human rights... as i am a "left-libertarian" and believe all human beings have the right to medical care, the right to education and work... the illusion that libertarians are anti-community is created by a few right-libertarians like dennis miller... stupid shit that he is.

I challenge you to take the small quiz on http://www.lp.org and discover how libertarian your own blood is... likely you end up near "ghandi" on the scale... that is a friend, not a foe... deal with libertarians as friends and defeat the republican criminals...

Peace.

[drdigi420]

42. Not all Libertarians follow the entire platform

Just like not all Dems follow the same platform.

I consider myself a temporary democrat. More independant actually. But I am throwing my full support behind the candidate most likely to oust Bush.

Nothing is more corrupt than the Bush Family.

If Democrats would adopt the 'no drug war' stance and lighten up a bit on gun control, they would be unbeatable.

This isnt leaning to the right, just lessening support for bad policy.