Libertarians are sick, evil people.

[Odin2005]

A libertarian responded to a post of mine on anther message board involving poor people not being able to afford insurance. The asshole said:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4418&page=3

Incorrect.
What you fail to understand is such people have no financial discipline.
That is why they live paycheck to paycheck.
Being poor is no excuse for not saving money.
There should be no government insurance aka welfare for those who failed to achieve success within a capitalistic society.

Insurance is not a natural right.
If a person cannot afford it --> too bad.

and I responded:

I grew up in a poor rural area, and so I know that what you claiming is a goddamn lie. You are a sick, sick, selfish person. Social Darwinism is a evil ideology.

UGH, bunch of fucking sociopaths.

[leveymg]

1. Switch title to Social Darwinists are sick, evil people, and I might agree.

But, Libertarians run a wide spectrum. Some are quite communitarian, and willing to increase public programs, particularly education and health care. So, please, change the heading.

Social Darwinists are just selfish louts who should have their asses kicked.

[Odin2005]

4. I haven't met a (Right)-Libertarian that isn't a Social Darwinist

at least implicitly.

[DBoon]

5. and left wing libertarians are just plain wierd

sorry Noam Chomsky, but it is true

Well intended, but no grounding in reality

[ElboRuum]

13. I am one. Ask me anything...

Maybe I can answer some of the questions you have. Clearly, if you find it "weird", you must not be understanding something about it. It's the most normal thing in the universe. Personally, I'd like to know what specifically is cause for your saying that there is "no grounding in reality." There is nothing more real and natural than the individual actor, it's the grouping of such which is artifice.

[EOTE]

20. Here are my questions:

Do you support a more progressive system of taxation? Do you support increased funding for education and healthcare? Do you believe that government can do more good than harm? Do you support free market capitalism across the board? Also, do you typically support libertarian candidates rather than democratic ones? If you support democratic ones more often, is it due to pragmatism or because they simply represent your views better than typical libertarian candidates? There are some things I like about libertarianism, but not enough for me to actually consider myself a libertarian. I'm interested in your answers. Thanks in advance.

[armyowalgreens]

36. I don't think you know the difference between left and right libertarians...

There are many left-libertarians in here. I am ideally one of them.

[EOTE]

48. Would you be interested in answering my questions as well?

Elboruum did and I can't help but think that he doesn't really fall into my preconceived notion of a Libertarian at all. Perhaps I don't know the difference between the left and right Libertarians, but I thought that ALL versions of libertarianism included a more limited government and a hands off policy regarding government health care, more progressive taxation and education. If that's not what you believe, that's great, but I don't understand how you can support those things and still consider yourself Libertarian.

[ElboRuum]

40. Here are a few answers for you...

"Do you support a more progressive system of taxation?"
"Do you support increased funding for education and healthcare?"

Of course. Progressive systems of taxation may allow fewer to be obscenely rich, but the overall wealth of the nation is greater, and I'm not just talking about money. Progressive systems of taxation allow what I believe to be the hallmark of any prosperous nation, a public educational system which brings the potential for both personal enrichment and financial gain to those who would otherwise not have access to it. Education is a fundamental prerequisite for both capable citizenship and individual empowerment (what a libertarian will always support). Health care, it goes without saying, also contributes to the strength of a society and has a great positive impact on the quality of life as a whole. Again, a healthy individual is in much greater control of his/her own life than one who is ill.

"Do you believe that government can do more good than harm?"

Depends heavily on who is running that government. Government is morally neutral and necessary for the creation of any society. In the hands of people who believe in service to the individual citizen it can do remarkable good. In the hands of people who believe in service to their own interests or to the interests of a very few private interests, it can do remarkable harm. In the past 50 years we've seen both kinds, so anyone who wants to discuss the "capability" of government need only go to see the past 50 years of history to have very salient examples showing the potential for either.

"Do you support free market capitalism across the board?"

No. It is not libertarian to support free market capitalism even if it were that which we were talking about. Since what we have now and what I assume you mean, specifically large scale corporate economics, is probably the opposite of free market capitalism There are "libertarians" who do, but really that moniker is just camouflage for trickle-down conservatives. They like to equate "personal freedom" with "economic freedom", however, it becomes clear that an "unchecked" system spawns social stratification and inequities which REDUCES individual freedom. All economic systems are protectionist, at least in the practical sense, so the value of one economic system over another, at least to a libertarian, is measured in how much freedom it places in the hand of the individual as an actor within it. In other words, who is it protecting? Any system which offers increasingly limited choice for the individual while allowing entrenched groups access to game the system in their favor is not one a libertarian would support.

"Also, do you typically support libertarian candidates rather than democratic ones?"
"If you support democratic ones more often, is it due to pragmatism or because they simply represent your views better than typical libertarian candidates?"

"Libertarian" candidates are not libertarians. They are either economic archconservatives who are very ambivalent about being ecomomic archconservatives or anarchists who really haven't thought the matter through to its logical conclusion. Think of it as what your typical neocon would be if he wasn't so pissed off all the time. They trot out the same irritating chestnuts that their more vehemently vocal and "principled" brethren do... "small government"... "no taxes"... "economic freedom"... but just can't seem to put their heart into doing anything about it.

I support Democratic candidates because of all of the options out there, right here and right now, they are the only group paying any attention to the plight of the individuals within this society. They are the only ones even paying lip service to the idea that individual rights and freedoms should trump those of groups, organizations, and the government itself, and in so doing, ratifying the ideas upon which this country was originally founded.

Having said that, needless to say, I'm disappointed by Democratic custodianship of this principle of late, and very depressed by the fact that this is the best we have with regards to it.

[EOTE]

47. I agree with pretty much everything you say.

So my first inclination is to say that you're not really a Libertarian. You say that Libertarians support things like a strong educational system, strong health care and the progressive taxation to support it, but that really hasn't been my experience at all.

Maybe I just don't have a very good idea of what Libertarianism is, but by your definition, I'd think a good majority of people here at DU would be considered one. Certainly myself.

Anyway, it IS a shame that there are so few Democratic politicians out there who truly represent us. It's also good to have you on our side.

[ElboRuum]

53. As I said to the other...

I am a libertarian, the Libertarians you refer to are not. They're, again, co-opting the good, taking it for themselves to legitimize their ideology. And, in so doing so, what have they done? They've made liberal a bad word to everyone and libertarian a bad one to the liberal viewpoint by associating it with essentially right wing rhetoric. Now, libertarians (which I think most people on the left are even if they don't necessarily know it, although there are some progressive authoritarians) end up at odds with people who respond to the negativity that has been cast upon the label. It's just the same old divide and conquer bullshit the right is notorious for, when you are faced with numbers you cannot stand against, sow dissent and discord amongst the enemy to poison them from within.

BTW, thanks for your kind words. :toast:

[EOTE]

57. I understand a bit more what you're saying.

I guess if you look at political ideology as a two axis graph, with authoritarian vs. libertarian on one axis and progressive vs. conservative on the other, I'd consider myself to be a progressive libertarian. However, I guess due to the way that the word libertarian has been bastardized (as has the word liberal), it's come to mean more like anarchy rather than the opposite of authoritarianism. I don't want the government telling me what to do with my body and I don't want the government legislating morality or creating victimless crimes. However, I also realize that the government has the ability to protect the citizenry, both from corporations as well as tyrannical majorities. So if that makes me a libertarian, then so be it. I guess the issue then becomes how do we reclaim the word from those who would co-opt it for their own purposes?

[rucky]

51. That's so different from Right Libertarians, why share the label?

[ElboRuum]

52. Because it was OURS FIRST.

Just as I won't allow the tarnishing the right would give left or liberal to dissuade me from adopting it, neither will I let them take libertarian for themselves without resistance.

[JHB]

15. I'm a left libertarian who's not a Chomskyite...

...though I'll cop to "plain weird" since people with my views seem thin on the ground. Though I think my views ARE "grounded in reality".


What's your perception of "left-libertarian" that it's ungrounded?

[DBoon]

26. all right, I will apologize

You guys really are OK. I should think first before posting.

Died-in-the-wool anarchists are another matter though. I did read Murray Bookchin's book way back and saw him speak, and "post scarcity anarchism" is still a pipe dream

[JHB]

46. No need to apologize, I'm sure we can find something to argue about...

:evilgrin:

And thank you for your reconsideration. :toast:

[asdjrocky]

55. Class act.

You don't see people do that enough on DU.

[leveymg]

6. That doesn't refute my point.

In a universe of Libertarians, only some are SDs. But, in a universe of SDs, almost all are (Right)-Libs. At least the Libs would let you smoke a joint, or whatever.

So, wouldn't it be more accurate to title your heading to reference SDs instead of Libs?

[Odin2005]

39. When most people say "libertarian" here in the US they mean Right-Libertarian

Left-Libertarians are generally called anarchists and anarcho-socialists here even when they are not truly "anti-state". I know it's different in Europe, where the original meaning was retained.

[EOTE]

19. I don't know what libertarians you're hanging out with.

But Libertarianism basically states that we're better off with as small of a government as possible. That means NOT increasing public programs, including education and health care. Maybe those people don't really know what it means to be a libertarian, but that's not really what they are if they advocate for increasing any portion of government spending.

[leveymg]

23. I see the libertarians and communitarians on the same axis - more the latter

Here's an article that makes that connection between the two movements:

Libertarianism as Communitarianism | The Freeman | Ideas On LibertyDr. Klein is Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of California, Irvine. The Age of Irreverence In former decades there was a certain decorum.
www.thefreemanonline.org/.../libertarianism-as-communitarianism/

SNIP

It is therefore no surprise that so many alarmed voices now fret about the breakdown of cultural value. One sure marker of this trend is the rise of an intellectual movement known as communitarianism. Led by George Washington University sociologist Amitai Etzioni, the communitarians have gained prominence by means of projects like the quarterly journal The Responsive Community and the immensely popular Society for the Advancement of Socio- Economics.

The Communitarians
Although the rapid rise of communitarianism is apparent, the same cannot be said of its fundamental message. Its major, if somewhat insipid, chord is that cultural values are crucial to the proper functioning of society, and that these values are born and bred in healthy community living. A favorite method among communitarians for adumbrating this message is to chide “mainstream” economics for viewing individuals as atomistic agents with preferences that are mysteriously “given.”

As for politics, the communitarians are rather squishy. Given their intellectual base in sociology and their emphasis on community norms, it isn’t surprising that few communitarians regard capitalism as the unknown ideal. Laissez-faire capitalism is sometimes fingered as a source of our problems. Indeed, government is often held. up as the agent of social betterment. Etzioni’s The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda (1993) is replete with specific suggestions for government action and regulation.

But don’t write off the communitarians as a bunch of closet statists. On the question of the state, Etzioni, like communitarians in general, runs hot and cold. In a recent issue of The Public Interest, he writes:

A strong case can be made that it is precisely the bonding together of community members that enables us to remain independent of the state. The anchoring of individuals in viable families, webs of friendships, communities of faith, and neighborhoods—in short, in communities—best sustains their ability to resist the pressures of the state. The absence of these social foundations opens isolated individuals to totalitarian pressures.

Indeed, Etzioni recognizes the potential compatibility of libertarianism and communitarianism: “One can be as opposed to state intervention and regulation as a diehard libertarian and still see a great deal of merit in people encouraging one another to do what is right.”

snip

For what it's worth, here's an stab at my own profile:

Social philosophy - I have some traits in common with the communitarians, particularly their emphasis on the centrality of shared values. But, I'm more of a social libertarian, as I find Etzioni and his followers to be a bit too authoritarian for my taste.

Politics - I have a lot more in common with the non-violent Left Anarchists (anti-Nihilist) than I do with socialists, who tend to trust in state power far too much. By academic training, I'm a small-a anarchist of the school of Howard Zinn, with whom I studied political science for three years.

Economics - I'm a small-r republican and 19th Century yeoman farmer-mechanic-small town newspaperman. I believe in locally-owned savings & loans and cooperatives. Nobody goes hungry in my town, but nobody lives in a palace, either. My wife is a public school teacher, and knowledge is more important than money. I'm what used to be called a Granger - anti-Big Business, anti-monopolist, a sworn enemy of land barons and railroad tycoons, everywhere. But, what I actually am today is a "Son of the Wild Jackass", a progressive Democrat, an American radical, who enjoys disturbing the smug, slumbering status quo and smooth-talking bullshit of striped-pants lawyers and statesmen with dirty little secrets. Really, I am not easy to categorize.

[Odin2005]

33. My views are part-Communitarian, part-Left-Libertarian

I see government as a tool of society, it can be used correctly and it can be abused. Government should be democratic and open. At the same time there are some things that are not the government's business. A am for a market economy, but would rather have co-ops than corporations.

When I used "Libertarian" in the OP I meant The American usage of the term for Right-Libertarians only.

[armyowalgreens]

37. You are wrong. Left-libertarians want less coercive forms of state.

That doesn't mean that they want to privatize everything.

[YOY]

2. The just justify selfishness with Randian Bullshit.

And need to be reminded that Ayn Rand died a very lonely bitter woman...with all her money.

They (including that fuckwit "economic guru my ass" charlatan Greenspan) put a dollar sign floral arraignment on her casket.

[DBoon]

7. note Ayn's early defense of a brutal killer william hickman

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

[rockymountaindem]

17. Thanks for posting that, it was fascinating

What a loon.

[EOTE]

21. Hickman wasn't a loon!

He was a deeply religious person, a real man with a wonderful free and light consciousness. Hickman was the objectivist ideal... um wait a minute. Yeah, I guess he was a rather sick fuck.

[YOY]

22. Holee shit.

That woman had an ego the size of jupiter to think her fawning pseudo-intellect could justify that...

[Boojatta]

38. I followed your link and saw this...

It seems to me that Ayn Rand's uncritical admiration of a personality this twisted does not speak particularly well for her ability to judge and evaluate the heroic qualities in people.
(bold style added by Boojatta)

In Ayn Rand's universe, wouldn't you be complimenting her? After all, "she enthuses in another journal entry" as follows:

He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should.

In seems that, according to Ayn Rand, the ideal person fails to understand some aspects of reality.

[abluelady]

3. I was at a Town Hall Meeting Last Night

I was sitting next to people with very opposite view than mine. One man was telling me about the kidney disease that runs in his family. His "friend" next to me was telling me how the way to stay healthy is to eat right. I asked him if his friend's kidney disease would be gone if his friend ate right. Needless to say, he stalked away and didn't answer. Not only evil, really, really stupid.

[DBoon]

8. He is not only cruel but also incapable of simple math

please tell me how someone making $10/hour can save enough to pay for cancer treatment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars?

It is mathematically impossible

[Odin2005]

29. That poster has this loony notion that one can just keep tightening the belt more and more.

Typical Libertarian: "But those poor people have internet, they need to cancel it"

Me: If you are looking for a job now days internet access is a necessity. and it has to be high speed internet because the job posting sites are full of code-rich, bandwidth-soaking gizmos.

[Jennicut]

9. Right leaning libertarians are the worst kind. They will walk on anyone who gets in their way.

Ayn Rand is their hero.
Libertarians in general have a very dark outlook on society...

[Boojatta]

10. The reply that you received goes far beyond health insurance.

Incorrect.
What you fail to understand is such people have no financial discipline.
That is why they live paycheck to paycheck.
Being poor is no excuse for not saving money.
There should be no (...) for those who failed to achieve success within a capitalistic society.

From now on, newly hired government employees could be told that they will never receive a pension from the government, no matter how many years they spend working for the government, and that instead the money that would have gone into a pension fund will be included in every paycheck.

Interestingly, such a policy applied to politicians would probably justify a substantial increase in their annual salaries, which might provoke a protest from the person who created the above (quoted) reply.

[ElboRuum]

11. This is the farthest thing from libertarianism.

I read that thread. That person isn't a libertarian. I am, too, in a sense. I know what one is and what one is not. This guy is nothing more than a parasite, although he'd accuse others of being so. Why do I say this? Simple. Any country or society, organized under any particular set of principles, can be aptly compared to an organism. Each individial cell in that organism has a job, communicates and acts in concert with other cells doing their job, and although each is an individual actor, the sum total of their machinations results in a viable organism (or not, depending on how well their jobs are done).

So why do I call him a parasite, rather than a cancer? There is sufficient room in this metaphor to equate him as an individual actor doing "his job" poorly, him and all of the others like him, acting against the viability of the organism. But cancer would be more properly compared to crime in a society, as in cells gone rogue. No, this guy sees himself as separate from the society at large, which makes him more of an external actor. Moreover, I would not be surprised in the slightest that he takes from the society all of the legs up he is offered, but every time he is asked to give back or support the giving back in ways that would reduce his take, he resists. What he fails to realize is that should a parasite kill its host, the parasite typically will not survive.

A true libertarian understands that his/her liberty is conditional on the viability of the country which supports that liberty. No true libertarian would operate under the principles that this person does because any student of history understands that libertarianism is only POSSIBLE under a governmental system willing to protect it. Power does not like a vacuum, and in the absence of a viable society to support individual liberty of any sort, what fills that vacuum is almost universally despotism.

Anyone who thinks this guy is a libertarian has their own definitions of what one is, and it isn't correct. Authoritarianism, it's opposite, is the death knell of a free society. A neoconservative is nothing more than an authoritarian in libertarian's clothing. This guy just wants to control the situation, like a good little parasite does, to control where the benefit flows (i.e. to HIM).

[leftstreet]

31. +1

Nicely done

[Odin2005]

34. You are a Left-Libertarian, a very different creature than the vile thing I talked about in the OP

I'm in agreement with you.

[Beer on a stick]

12. So you spoke w/ one guy, and this automatically bankrupts all libertarianism?

And then you conflate social darwinism with a very wide ranging philosophy that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.

Not exactly being intellectually honest, it seems.

[Odin2005]

30. By Libertarian I refer to stereotypical "up-by-yer-bootstraps" right-libertarianism

Not to Left-Libertarianism, Mutualist Anarchism, etc.

[Beer on a stick]

32. You're also conflating Libertarianism w/libertarianism.

[Boojatta]

14. Isn't government insurance of bank deposits an example of government insurance?

If all government insurance is welfare and undesirable, then government insurance of bank deposits is undesirable. When a bank becomes insolvent, causing a depositor to lose a substantial percentage of his or her savings, the depositor might be said to have "failed to achieve success within a capitalistic society."

[JHB]

18. So is enforcing contracts, providing venues for resolving disputes,...

...enforcing standards of weights and measures, etc., etc., etc.

[alfredo]

16. He must have been a coddled only child.

[DBoon]

27. possibly home schooled

in such a way as normal socialization was discouraged

[alfredo]

28. I know of a home schooler that pulled her kids out of school to keep them

away from black people. What a jerk she was. She was a fundy Republican. Her kids were silent and hid behind her like shy little kids, even though they were of school age.

[YoungAndOutraged]

24. How does barely getting paid = no financial discipline??

"Being poor is no excuse for not saving money."
You sure this guy didn't just post the script from an upcoming Saturday Night Live sketch or something? I guess that guy thinks poor people should save the money instead of buying luxury items like food. That guy sounds like the type that would be shocked that no one came to help him when he needed help, then complain about it.

[reflection]

25. Kick them in the face. n/t

[slackmaster]

35. My aunt is a retired music librarian, and she's a good person

:nuke:

[DailyGrind51]

41. Thom Hartman had it right....

He explained that Ayn Rand confused "economic" with "political" philosophy because she was not born in America and had only a Russian frame of reference. Libertarianism, like objectivism, assumes that economic and political freedom can co-exist, yet can provide no actual models to prove it.

[UTUSN]

42. BwahHaHAH!1 Just for your headline!1 n/t

[PM Martin]

43. The Randites have some extreme views on things.

I have never understood why libertarianism has any appeal anyways.

[Brickbat]

44. I love how Social Darwinists always assume they're the ones who will rise to the top. If that day

were to ever come, I think there would be a lot of really, really surprised Social Darwinists.

[lildreamer316]

45. Welcome to DU!

Good post.

[HughMoran]

49. That was a right-winger posing as a libertarian

Don't confuse the two.

[LatteLibertine]

50. Actually you're both right to a degree

Some people do make poor choices that keep themselves in bad economic situations and may actually exacerbate said situation. People that work towards improving their standard of living may not see a huge boost in their life time and their children may. I'm saying each generation may improve things for the next. Using myself as an example; my great grandfather was poor, my grandfather was poor/lower class, my father was middle class, myself and my sister are upper middle class.

I do agree with you that all poor people are not in situation Y because of X. I don't believe that's fair or correct. I also agree with you that in a nation as wealthy as ours there should be universal health care for all. Not a public option, not a "co op", universal health care for all.

[jpak]

54. Ron Paul is a Fucking Asshole and Teabaggers Suck ASS

Fuck You!!1111

[Wounded Bear]

56. OK, I didn't read all replies, but I thought I'd throw down...

I routinely grade out as "Liberal/Libertarian" on those tests that map people into 4 quadrants, you know lower left. :shrug:

I'm actually fairly "fiscally conservative" in that I believe that gov't should try to limit deficit spending. I do think that progressive taxation is a legitimate way to alleviate that for spending on necessary public programs like education and health care.

This whole anarchist/libertarian streak-which I see as extreme Right Wing-I see growing in America seems very self-centered and selfish and seems to aim to drive us all back to the Deadwood days, when anything you can get away with is OK. Selfishness is the ultimate in short-sightedness. And to issue blanket statements like "all poor people are lazy and ignorant" and "unsuccessful people don't deserve help" is just plain mean. They seem to take pleasure in attacking those who have no defense.

[nightgaunt]

58. Libertarianism, it isn't for the the weak, poor and uneducated

It applies the principles of Social Darwinism, a eugenic inspired pseudoscience to cull the population of those who aren't as aggressive, cutthroat, conniving and "without those special organs of empathy" which make them "superior" to those around them. They will have no compunction about using those around them as tools for their own wealth and security. If you aren't like them, they will use you, abuse you and throw you away when they are done. Some may even find killing to be an expeditious way if they can get away with it. Not always but it promotes a mind set that could lead to just that. Ah the Randian "superman" is the vicious and sophisticated killer of man, woman, child & society to get their way. If they like it, it is right for them. No interest in what it is like for us. Altruism is an abomination to them, a retched idea of the lesser people who feel for each other and help each other. It is what makes them "weak" and the Randian "superman" strong. For me Libertarianism just promoted that kind of mind set. Remember that classic Star Trek episode "Mirror/Mirror" when members of the Enterprise found themselves in a parallel universe where the UFD is instead replaced with a Terran-Vulcan Empire. Where assassination is used to move up in rank etc. A place populated by the followers of the Randian principle of the barbarian. Of the muscular and smart psychopath.

Do it all yourself they would say except that humans work best together not only for ourselves but for others as well and for Libertarians, it isn't something they generally support. I found such people to be too cold and insular and out for a Ferengian buck. Yes they were the representatives in the ST universe of the unbridled Capitalist.