Why hate Libertarians?

[wolly.green]

You must live in a church if you think that is sadistic.

You know you're way less annoying now that I know you're a troll.

 

[sprinkles]

You know you're way less annoying now that I know you're a troll.

Whatever. I wasn't trying to be a troll but I decided I might as well go ahead and be one when you mock me so readily. I mean why bother trying to explain myself to somebody who clearly doesn't want me to.

 

[Lurk]

Okay, I will admit to bias, and I'm sorry for being a *cough* bitch earlier.

Every libertarian I've known is basically an objectivist; and every one has been very angry! See the world through my eyes for a moment: I live in TN, and most of the people I know are rude and entitled white people. Working class and middle class white people.

They consider following any law a violation of their liberty. Abuse and neglect of kids and pets...these people look at both as their property, and they are certainly treated as objects.

I actually wish we had a stronger police force here. I can't believe I think that, but I do.

People can't be trusted to be decent. They must be compelled.

Anyway, I was an ass. I'm sorry...I feel like shit.

 

[wolly.green]

Whatever. I wasn't trying to be a troll but I decided I might as well go ahead and be one when you mock me so readily. I mean why bother trying to explain myself to somebody who clearly doesn't want me to.

If you're being genuine here, I'm sorry. Sometimes I can't tell if I'm being rude until someone gets hurt.

Okay, I will admit to bias, and I'm sorry for being a *cough* bitch earlier.

Every libertarian I've known is basically an objectivist; and every one has been very angry! See the world through my eyes for a moment: I live in TN, and most of the people I know are rude and entitled white people. Working class and middle class white people.

They consider following any law a violation of their liberty. Abuse and neglect of kids and pets...these people look at both as their property, and they are certainly treated as objects.

I actually wish we had a stronger police force here. I can't believe I think that, but I do.

People can't be trusted to be decent. They must be compelled.

Anyway, I was an ass. I'm sorry...I feel like shit.

Thanks for that.

Anyway, yes. We are living in a cruel and bitter world. Us humans are such fragile creatures. We have so many needs that must be satisfied in order to survive. Needs like food, water, shelter and so on. Without them, we die. But these are just our physical needs. We also have a lot of emotional needs. Needs like love, support and acceptance. Without them, we cannot thrive and grow into happy, fulfilled adults. Without love, we cannot feel secure and thus cannot experience happiness. In a world without love, support and acceptance, there is only fear. This is the kind of world we live in. And this is the reason people are so cruel. They are cruel because they suffer. And they suffer because they do not understand the importance of love. Love is one of the most valuable, yet most squandered natural resource! If only we all understand this, we could end this shit show.

 

[sprinkles]

If you're being genuine here, I'm sorry. Sometimes I can't tell if I'm being rude until someone gets hurt.

I'm genuine but you already admitted that I'm annoying.

 

[MrWonka]

I don't see how this is a problem. Ron Paul is inconsistent, not libertarianism

This is the standard trope reply you get from virtually every libertarian. They point to how we should be collecting taxes revenue off of Weed not paying to ban it.

The biggest flaw with this argument is that it falsely assumes that some problems have no solution.

No, it doesn't. The solution is government regulation.

The first obvious problem is that you assume the only way to inject stability into an unstable situation is to use government force. That sometimes, the only way to achieve results that are good for everyone is to impose laws. But why should that be the case? I don't have solution myself,

So you're saying I'm flawed because I'm assuming there is no other way to solve the problem, but you yourself can't come up with a better solution to the problem. Tell you what. Let me know when you come up with a better solution that doesn't involve the government, and then we'll talk. Until then my argument for why libertarianism is naive stands.

the only way solve societies problems is to use coercion?

Coercion was happening anyways. The only difference is that it was one or two asshole bars that decided to do be shady that coerced every other bar into being shady as well.

Whether you like it or not the reality is that the so called "free" market constantly forces people do do things against their will. As in the scenario I put forward almost all the bar owners wanted to do something, but because smoking patrons had leverage they couldn't do it. While they theoretically had a choice, they didn't realistically have a choice. Your free market was an illusion that was actually preventing a better solution.

One common answer is: 'some problems simply cannot be solved'.

blah blah blah blah blah

I problem did have a solution. You just don't like it because it was the government that solved it. It doesn't jive with your narrative about the government being evil and free markets being awesome. Let us know when you come up with a better solution to the problem that doesn't involve the government, and we'll talk. Until then it's time for you to admit to the reality that libertarianism isn't as brilliant as you thought it was.

So getting back your bar example, government is one way to solve the instability of a smoking ban. But why should that be the only solution? As I showed above, it is simply irrational to claim that there are no other solutions.

Yet you can't provide one, and over the whole course of human civilization neither has anybody else.

Human rationality is capable of discovering truth. That much we know. It may take a long time to solve the smoking ban dilemma without government,

Why would we bother looking for a solution that doesn't require government when the government solved the problem so easily already? After about 6 months of libertarians and smokers bitching everybody got over it, and everyone is fine with it now. The only problem seems to be that you can't admit to the merits of anything the government did. Admitting that the government easily solved a problem that the free market struggled with would require you to admit you silly ideology isn't all it's cracked up to be. Just let go of your cognitive dissonance, and we can all move forward.

This is a very naive thing to say.

The government solved a problem, that you have no good free market solution for. Until you come up with a better one, you don't get to call me naive.

 

[James]

I think @wolly.green has made some very good points, but I always welcome alternate views, they make us examine our ideas and opinions.

I personally quite admire most libertarian ideals, except where I think they are (Currently at least) somewhat impractical.

Govts that effectively regulate business, organise health, education etc, law and order, taxes and defence - and do so in a democratic way are to my mind, good things. Govts that lock up pro democracy citizen's, dominate their people through fear and intimidation (as sadly some do on an industrial scale) are a scourge.

My ideal is a small scale govt that efficiently does the "good stuff" by democratic consent. But no more than that. One that is truly in service to its people, but where the populace hold the power, and can remove them democratically - whenever they wish.

Left and right wing authoritarian govts, have been responsible for terrible atrocities against their own people. The more power they have, the more inclined they seem to be to abuse it.

 

[MrWonka]

My ideal is a small scale govt that efficiently does the "good stuff" by democratic consent. But no more than that.

That is the exact government that everyone wants. Liberals, Libertarians, Democratic Socialists, Republicans, Green party members, Independents. They'll all tell you that's the government they want. The only difference is in determining what is the "good stuff."

Libertarians will tell you they want the smallest government, but if you look at the people that gravitate towards Libertarianism it's almost exclusively suburban white boys. Why? Because less government control puts more hands in the power of private citizens, and which private citizens have the most power? Wealthy white men.

People want the government to protect them from the people they can't protect themselves from. That is why the people who naturally have the least power want more government, whereas the people who naturally have the most power want less of it.

 

[James]

That is the exact government that everyone wants. Liberals, Libertarians, Democratic Socialists, Republicans, Green party members, Independents. They'll all tell you that's the government they want. The only difference is in determining what is the "good stuff."

Libertarians will tell you they want the smallest government, but if you look at the people that gravitate towards Libertarianism it's almost exclusively suburban white boys. Why? Because less government control puts more hands in the power of private citizens, and which private citizens have the most power? Wealthy white men.

People want the government to protect them from the people they can't protect themselves from. That is why the people who naturally have the least power want more government, whereas the people who naturally have the most power want less of it.

I understand what you say, and tyranny via corporatism is just as bad as via govt, but I'm not a rich suburban white boy. I'm an old fashioned, middle aged, union guy.

I know what you mean about the wealthy and their fixation for scrapping regulation. All criminals would like to do that, some may have expensive suits but they're still crooks to me.

In truth though I don't agree that the rich "have the most power" but they've been highly effective in persuading people of that. When people organise and peacefully resist, such as in a trade unions, it's amazing how quickly that illusion fades.

I'm sure it's a scary thought for them. Sadly they're also quite adept at using "the govt" and state against such protests, which for me is yet another reason to limit govt power, to only that which is necessary.

People attach different meanings to terms, especially in different countries. I certainly do believe that honest democratic govt is vital, and can be a crucial force for good in society.

 

[wolly.green]

I understand what you say, and tyranny via corporatism is just as bad as via govt, but I'm not a rich suburban white boy. I'm an old fashioned, middle aged, union guy.

I know what you mean about the wealthy and their fixation for scrapping regulation. All criminals would like to do that, some may have expensive suits but they're still crooks to me.

In truth though I don't agree that the rich "have the most power" but they've been highly effective in persuading people of that. When people organise and peacefully resist, such as in a trade unions, it's amazing how quickly that illusion fades.

I'm sure it's a scary thought for them. Sadly they're also quite adept at using "the govt" and state against such protests, which for me is yet another reason to limit govt power, to only that which is necessary.

People attach different meanings to terms, especially in different countries. I certainly do believe that honest democratic govt is vital, and can be a crucial force for good in society.

What are your thoughts on the purpose of democracy? Ive read a lot of Karl Popper and happen to agree with him.

In his book The Open Society and it's Enemies, Karl Popper asks us to consider the distinction between two kinds of governments. Those that can be replaced without bloodshed – by peaceful means such as referendum or election – and those cannot be replaced without a successful revolution. The first he calls a democracy, and the second he calls a Tyranny. In his view, the primary purpose democracy is to develop and protect political institutions and traditions that are capable of avoiding tyranny.

"Seen in this light, the theory of democracy is not based upon the principle that the majority should rule; rather, that various equalitarian methods of democratic control, such as general elections and representative government, are to be considered as no more than well-tried and, in the presence of a widespread traditional distrust of tyranny, reasonably effective institutional safeguard against tyranny, always open to improvement, and even providing methods for their own improvement."

 

[James]

What are your thoughts on the purpose of democracy? Ive read a lot of Karl Popper and happen to agree with him.

In his book The Open Society and it's Enemies, Karl Popper asks us to consider the distinction between two kinds of governments. Those that can be replaced without bloodshed – by peaceful means such as referendum or election – and those cannot be replaced without a successful revolution. The first he calls a democracy, and the second he calls a Tyranny. In his view, the primary purpose democracy is to develop and protect political institutions and traditions that are capable of avoiding tyranny.

"Seen in this light, the theory of democracy is not based upon the principle that the majority should rule; rather, that various equalitarian methods of democratic control, such as general elections and representative government, are to be considered as no more than well-tried and, in the presence of a widespread traditional distrust of tyranny, reasonably effective institutional safeguard against tyranny, always open to improvement, and even providing methods for their own improvement."

I think I'd agree that without free and fair elections, no govt can be called a democracy. Although the news is often "war, death, famine" etc democracy has been on the rise globally since the end of the second world war.

I think this is reflected in the reduction in extreme poverty etc. Democracies aren't free from problems, but I think as they develop there is great potential for further improvement.

For me the whole point of having a more "libertarian" view should be that there is a culture of freedom and independence. In essence, I think that is more important in its way than any legal system, since people can break laws, and the clever and wealthy are often able to escape and evade punishment.

Once a cultural "norm" is established I think that's a very powerful steer for the majorities behaviour. I think you can see that in many countries, and to me is far preferable than a domineering govt.

I think in its ideal form, democracy gives people as much freedom and control of their own lives as possible, whilst recognising that some level of collective organisation, and law and order is necessary.

I think it's easy to take things like that for granted, whilst we have such freedoms.

 

[MrWonka]

In truth though I don't agree that the rich "have the most power" but they've been highly effective in persuading people of that. When people organise and peacefully resist, such as in a trade unions, it's amazing how quickly that illusion fades.

Right, but the point is that you need to organize. They don't. They have power as individuals, whereas you need to work together in order to fight back. That's why they're so hell bound and determined to destroy trade unions.

 

[James]

Right, but the point is that you need to organize. They don't. They have power as individuals, whereas you need to work together in order to fight back. That's why they're so hell bound and determined to destroy trade unions.

I agree, but I think the underlying truth is their "power" comes from people, accepting they have that authority. They don't. They're not scared of unions in monetary terms, they're scared people will realise the truth. With out us accepting it, their authority is non existent. And being mainly control freaks that's very scary for them.

 

[James]

@sprinkles great article - thank you.

Here in the UK today, the Unison trade union won at the supreme court, against the illegal imposition of tribunal fees, on workers fighting mistreatment and dismissal at work. When I see how far these people bend and break the law, it only reinforces my view on their corrupt activities. Oh, and the govt will now have to repay the money they took.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jul/26/union-supreme-court-fees-unfair-dismissal-claims

WASHINGTON — The Labor Department on Wednesday released the final version of a rule requiring employers to disclose relationships with the consultants they hire to help persuade workers not to form a union or support a union’s collective bargaining position.

 

[James]

That's why we need some rules. Sure they break them anyway, but at least when they get caught there is legislation on the books.

100% agree. Employers who value their staff, and commit to good industrial relations generally thrive. The half assed ones who don't ? They maybe make a fast buck, but they'll never last longer term.

They're over taken by better companies who do.

 

[James]

I dunno about that, man. Here they just export labor to China or some such. They can only get away with treating our people like shit so much, so they just go somewhere that people will tolerate it.

True, but I'm going to enjoy the small victories. Eventually the Chinese people, and other oppressed countries will resist their regimes. I think the internet made that inevitable. I just hope it happens peacefully.

 

[James]

@sprinkles that's a painful reminder of the harsh nature of the world. But it could also be a picture of the next Mandela or Ghandi. Where there's life there's hope.

 

[James]

@James
It's also interesting that I've seen some anti union sources claim that unions left unchecked would eventually make impossible demands that sink corporations.

Which is stupid because if you sink your own employer then you're out of a job for sure.

Of course and no responsible trade unionist, ever seeks to do that. As for those who are "anti union" it's usually because they've been presented with propaganda rather than the facts.

Unions aren't perfect. But if you ask people do they like holiday pay, sick pay, pensions, equality, decent conditions to work in etc? Who doesn't want that? They weren't just given to people. They came from the progress trade unions made.

Good unions give back to their employers, they help with training, they help workers morale and health. They cooperate with the employer and even lead in changes and help innovate.

Successful progressive business, usually have good industrial relations. Just banning a union, doesn't make the problems they raise go away.

 

[Darc]

Yeah, I'm sort of a Libertarian and everyone hates me for it.

I mean well, it's not about being against the state completely...just that there's not this great or large emphasis on control. There's too many different ways of looking at things, and what you get is basically THAT person's opinions being imposed on everyone and I can't really handle that. I like the idea of libertarian socialism, and I think, "just to hell with all of this nonesense and bullcrap" and just let life happen and for people to be themselves.

So I am kind of fond of Libertarian socialism. That's sort of my dream, but I feel it could only exist sort of hidden away from the rest of the world in a small little pocket somewhere, like in small little nations or states somewhere. Sort of Like Montreal, it's really nice example of that, and perhaps Brazil, maybe France a bit.

The rest of the world can deal with their absolute and utter nonesense, uptightness, and desire to control everything for whatever neurotic reason it is.

 

[Darc]

I look at the world now, and I look at what falls for business these days and I cannot help but think that it's a little ridiuclous and silly. I have a really hard time seeing how anyone could take it that seriously anymore, but the sad fact is that there are still many individuals who are trying to carry on the charade and I just wonder "what's the point?"

It's obvious that the world has become more peaceful overall, and is tired of it. The only problem is that the problem with capitalism is the same problems with liberalism and the far left, and nobody refuses to each other, so I suppose the old adage "survival of the fittest" takes precedence and you simply just wait for all the carnage to unfurl from the side lines until it's over and rummage or wander around the wreckage at least. At least they do, in some weird way we can have some semblance of sanctity for ourselves I mean really, what is there to do anymore? and really, still too many refuse to see it. So I just wonder how long the world can continue on like this.

It's just hard not to think that they are all pathetic at this point. I personally can never really understand the pleasure derived from capitalism or the compulsive need to make it the main focal point of human existence. It's like some weird bug that just won't go away in the rear of their consciousness or vision.