Why hate Libertarians?

Eventhorizon said:
Wow. This hurt.
I guess I am not sophisticated and would just have to hope I could fall back on my intellect to make it in life. I think I would be fine with living that way so yeah, let's bring it on. Seriously, In a world where people only had themselves to rely on I would be a tycoon while the majority of the rest of the population died. You'd be ok though the. I like you and would let you work for me. There would have to be ground rules though. Id want to make sure I was getting my money's worth. Be to work on time etc... but at least you wouldn't die where if you had to rely on yourself I don't see you lasting more than a month.
Click to expand...

In a world where you had only yourself to rely on, how are you hiring employees? See this is just what I'm talking about.
 
acd said:
What's stopping you from being a tycoon right now?
Click to expand...

My comments were based on a survival situation where if you are not that way you won't survive. I currently do not have to be that way.
 
the said:
In a world where you had only yourself to rely on, how are you hiring employees? See this is just what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
I would excell past most people and be able to hire. Id have to anyway to make up for my unsophisticated ways.
 
Eventhorizon said:
My ccomments based on a survival situation where if you are not that way you won't survive. I currently do not have to be that way.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a cop out, man. So you're just fit enough, but content not to be the fittest... Because you rely on govt regulation etc to live comfortably lol.
 
Eventhorizon said:
I would excell past most people and be able to hire. Id have to anyway to make up for my unsophisticated ways.
Click to expand...
Oh, so you would actually have to rely on others. So really you are just talking out your ass right now.

And I hope you can understand that when I say you are not sophisticated I mean that your ideas are like those of a simpleton and are not thought out. At best, they are poorly communicated.
 
Last edited:
acd said:
Sounds like a cop out, man. So you're just fit enough, but content not to be the fittest... Because you rely on govt regulation etc to live comfortably lol.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere Intjs can be lazy unless they are interested in something. I don't like money. I just like what money can do. If I had interest in something I might pursue it.
 
Horatio said:
That's the basis of true Libertarianism as far as I know, and works great as a personal social philosophy. As a political ideology, it doesn't necessarily work because the total lack of regulation can lead to all kinds of messes.

Libertarianism assumes that everyone would act fair and just towards one another and we know that's definitely not the case.
Click to expand...

There are a few problems with this argument. First is that Elites have significant influence over the creation of new laws. This is important because it means they have the ability to create laws that give them an unfair competitive advantage over everyone else. For example:

1. Monsanto Director was Deputy Assistant to President Reagan, and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
(1986-1988).
2. Former Monsanto lawyer later became a Supreme Court justice (that voted in 2012 to uphold USDA’s decision to deregulate GE alfalfa without the required Environmental Impact Statement.)
3. Monsanto Director appointed by President Obama to Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations (2012)
4. Monsanto Director was on Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (2012)
5. Monsanto Director was a member of the Cincinnati Business Advisory Council (2011)

It's easy to see just how Monsanto rose to global dominance. They manipulate government power to give themselves an unfair competitive advantage. What's more, by suppressing the right to form Unions, Corporations have effectively destroyed one of the only weapons the working class has to fight back

"Libertarians generally support a government formed by the consent of the governed and designed to achieve certain limited purposes. Both the form of government and the limits on its powers should be specified in a constitution, and the challenge in any society is to keep government constrained and limited so that individuals can prosper and solve problems in a free and civil society. (Cato Institute)

If we lived in a truely Libertarian society, it's hard to see how Monsanto could ever have achieved global dominance. It's also difficult to see how big corporations would ever have been able to suppress our right to come together and form Unions. You call me naive for being a Libertarian, but from my perspective it is you that is naive. Anyway, there is also the banking system to consider, and it's affects on poverty and human suffering. But that's another problem altogether.
 
Last edited:
the said:
Oh, so you would actually have to rely on others. So really you are just talking out your ass right now.

And I hope you can understand that when I say you are not sophisticated I mean that your ideas are like those of a simpleton and are not thought out. At best, they are poorly communicated.
Click to expand...
Here I thought we were on good terms.
No, my hiring would have nothing to do with my need. Only my desire to help others less fortunate and in your case, less adept and able.
 
@wolly.green Despite your view that it is internally consistent, what are your thoughts on the plausibility of enough people buying into any political ideology to the degree that it will work successfully for the nation that adopts it without being influenced or broken by people who do not share those ideals? I think it's a universal problem that faces any ideology. Sure it would work fine if everyone had the same values, but they never do. If you don't see that as a problem, then can you explain how you think that a libertarian society (on a national level) could function successfully despite said differences?

As far as companies like Monsanto etc, I'm wondering how they would actually be prevented from being as pervasive and exploitative as they currently are if under a libertarian government. Wouldn't minimal regulation under a libertarian government simply work as an alternate path to their objective rather than actually preventing them from becoming as powerful as they are?
 
the said:
We are on good terms, but you say a lot of stupid shit.
Click to expand...
Oh please. Tell me one stupid thing I have said.
 
Sloe Djinn said:
@wolly.green Despite your view that it is internally consistent, what are your thoughts on the plausibility of enough people buying into any political ideology to the degree that it will work successfully for the nation that adopts it without being influenced or broken by people who do not share those ideals? I think it's a universal problem that faces any ideology. Sure it would work fine if everyone had the same values, but they never do. If you don't see that as a problem, then can you explain how you think that a libertarian society (on a national level) could function successfully despite said differences?

As far as companies like Monsanto etc, I'm wondering how they would actually be prevented from being as pervasive and exploitative as they currently are if under a libertarian government. Wouldn't minimal regulation under a libertarian government simply work as an alternate path to their objective rather than actually preventing them from becoming as powerful as they are?
Click to expand...

There are a few problems I see with this response, not that I disagree with your main point.

First, I disagree that Libertarianism is an idiology. An idiology is a belief system that resists change. One prime example is Plato's Republic. In The Republic, Plato explicitly states that any deviation away from his ideal class system is a degradation away from perfection. In other words, questioning the established political order is strictly forbidden. In the case of libertarianism, I can see nothing that prevents one from questioning anything. Under a Libertarian government, one is completely free to question their beliefs, political institutions and rulers.

Second, I completely agree that it is difficult to convince enough people to join Libertarianism. But as you have already stated, this is true of all political system. No matter which system you propose or how you think Society should be organized, there will always be a challenge of winning over the hearts and minds of the people. While it can be fruitful to discuss this challenge, it does not work as a criticism against libertarianism. You can not rule out libertarianism because its hard to persuade people, let alone accuse anyone of being selfish and naive for agreeing with its values. This is because "the problem of persuasion" can be used as a criticism against ALL systems. It is thus not really a criticism at all.

The situation above is similar to the problem of explaining some regularity in nature by saying "because god did it". The biggest flaw with explanations like that is they can be used to explain absolutely everything. If your theory explains everything, then you have no reason to choose that theory over countless others. Consider explanations like "because it is destiny" or "because of yin and yang". There is no reason to choose "because god did it" over any of these two alternatives because they all explain exactly the same evidence. Evidence can not be used to eliminate your options.

The same is true with criticising libertarianism with "it's difficult to persuade". It can be used to criticise all political systems. Therefore it cannot be used to criticise anything. It eliminates absolutely every option you can think of.
 
Last edited:
Eventhorizon said:
Oh please. Tell me one stupid thing I have said.
Click to expand...

Eventhorizon said:
But I guess the idea that you would still have to work for a living doesn't appeal to many liberals.
Click to expand...

Above is an easily accessible example for you, but I see examples in many threads - and often. The idea that liberals don't want to work is stupid.
 
the said:
Above is an easily accessible example for you, but I see examples in many threads - and often. The idea that liberals don't want to work is stupid.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
 
wolly.green said:
There are a few problems I see with this response, not that I disagree with your main point.

First, I disagree that Libertarianism is an idiology. An idiology is a belief system that resists change. One prime example is Plato's Republic. In The Republic, Plato explicitly states that any deviation away from his ideal class system is a degradation away from perfection. In other words, questioning the established political order is strictly forbidden. In the case of libertarianism, I can see nothing that prevents one from questioning anything. Under a Libertarian government, one is completely free to question their beliefs, political institutions and rulers.

Second, I completely agree that it is difficult to convince enough people to join Libertarianism. But as you have already stated, this is true of all political system. No matter which system you propose or how you think Society should be organized, there will always be a challenge of winning over the hearts and minds of the people. While it can be fruitful to discuss this challenge, it does not work as a criticism against libertarianism. You can not rule out libertarianism because its hard to persuade people, let alone accuse anyone of being selfish and naive for agreeing with its values. This is because "the problem of persuasion" can be used as a criticism against ALL systems. It is thus not really a criticism at all.

The situation above is similar to the problem of explaining some regularity in nature by saying "because god did it". The biggest flaw with explanations like that is they can be used to explain absolutely everything. If your theory explains everything, then you have no reason to choose that theory over countless others. Consider explanations like "because it is destiny" or "because of yin and yang". There is no reason to choose "because god did it" over any of these two alternatives because they all explain exactly the same evidence. Evidence can not be used to eliminate your options.

The same is true with criticising libertarianism with "it's difficult to persuade". It can be used to criticise all political systems. Therefore it cannot be used to criticise anything. It eliminates absolutely every option you can think of.
Click to expand...

Ok, so I acknowledge that the first part of my criticism isn't necessarily valid against libertarianism itself. What about the Monsanto thing?
 
Sloe Djinn said:
Ok, so I acknowledge that the first part of my criticism isn't necessarily valid against libertarianism itself. What about the Monsanto thing?
Click to expand...

This is the same problem as how to persuade enough people. If enough people agree, companies like Monsanto could never obtain the power they have. Remember, one of the most important qualities of a Libertarian government is that they can not supress our ability to form Unions or other Democratic institutions. This is the key powers that give big corporations so much influence over our lives.
 
I thought Libertarians would be against unions, with the way unions currently work. Or at least say that the company is free to ignore the union which makes the union pointless for practical purposes.

Edit:
Also I'm not sure where you live, but where I come from unions exist largely because of the government intervention. If unions were not protected, plenty of companies would fire the entire union whenever the union asks for anything that isn't favorable to the company. Some companies would absolutely love to do that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top