Libertarianism in America

[sentinel]

Libertarianism is completely incapable of being practical. Libertarianism idealizes the right to property, but the government in libertarian political thought lacks the tools neccessary to secure that right.

I like the "idea" that people have of libertarianism, but that is not what libertarianism is, and this idea is not what Hayek and Milton Friedman had in mind when they outlined their own libertarian political theory --which by the way, was incoherent. Hayek's "worst fear" was right when people it to the test --way to much government intervention, full control over the economy led to the sh**tter, but they also prove during these tests (I think the economist who tested these theories was Poliyani but I'm probably spelling that wrong) that significant government intervention could help the economy.

[sentinel]

Libertarianism is completely incapable of being practical. Libertarianism idealizes the right to property, but the government in libertarian political thought lacks the tools neccessary to secure that right.

I like the "idea" that people have of libertarianism, but that is not what libertarianism is, and this idea is not what Hayek and Milton Friedman had in mind when they outlined their own libertarian political theory --which by the way, was incoherent. Hayek's "worst fear" was right when people it to the test --way to much government intervention, full control over the economy led to the sh**tter, but they also prove during these tests (I think the economist who tested these theories was Poliyani but I'm probably spelling that wrong) that significant government intervention could help the economy.

Sorry, nothing you've said in this post at all backs up your attack on libertarianism.

Sorry, didn't cite my source. Would you like MLA format?

Go read Redefining American Liberalism by James Young. See the chapter on the rise of conservatism in America.

[sentinel]

Libertarianism is completely incapable of being practical. Libertarianism idealizes the right to property, but the government in libertarian political thought lacks the tools neccessary to secure that right.

I like the "idea" that people have of libertarianism, but that is not what libertarianism is, and this idea is not what Hayek and Milton Friedman had in mind when they outlined their own libertarian political theory --which by the way, was incoherent. Hayek's "worst fear" was right when people it to the test --way to much government intervention, full control over the economy led to the sh**tter, but they also prove during these tests (I think the economist who tested these theories was Poliyani but I'm probably spelling that wrong) that significant government intervention could help the economy.

Sorry, nothing you've said in this post at all backs up your attack on libertarianism.

Sorry, didn't cite my source. Would you like MLA format?

Go read Redefining American Liberalism by James Young. See the chapter on the rise of conservatism in America.

or go read Milton Friedman's work or Hayek's work and then Poliyani's work.

I'm probably spelling the last guys name wrong.

[sentinel]

Libertarianism is completely incapable of being practical. Libertarianism idealizes the right to property, but the government in libertarian political thought lacks the tools neccessary to secure that right.

I like the "idea" that people have of libertarianism, but that is not what libertarianism is, and this idea is not what Hayek and Milton Friedman had in mind when they outlined their own libertarian political theory --which by the way, was incoherent. Hayek's "worst fear" was right when people it to the test --way to much government intervention, full control over the economy led to the sh**tter, but they also prove during these tests (I think the economist who tested these theories was Poliyani but I'm probably spelling that wrong) that significant government intervention could help the economy.

Sorry, nothing you've said in this post at all backs up your attack on libertarianism.

Sorry, didn't cite my source. Would you like MLA format?

Go read Redefining American Liberalism by James Young. See the chapter on the rise of conservatism in America.

This thread is about libertarianism, not conservatism or liberalism.

I'm not a dumb sh**t. Do you think I'm pulling this out of my ass? I know what the thread is about thats why I'm discussing it. Clearly, if I'm referencing something it must talk about whatever I mentioned.

Young doesn't just talk about liberalism in the book, although it is based mostly around Lockean, laissez-faire and reform liberalism, he does give the other side including going into depth about conservatism, neoconservatives, libertarianism and other topics.

[sentinel]

Libertarianism is completely incapable of being practical. Libertarianism idealizes the right to property, but the government in libertarian political thought lacks the tools neccessary to secure that right.

I like the "idea" that people have of libertarianism, but that is not what libertarianism is, and this idea is not what Hayek and Milton Friedman had in mind when they outlined their own libertarian political theory --which by the way, was incoherent. Hayek's "worst fear" was right when people it to the test --way to much government intervention, full control over the economy led to the sh**tter, but they also prove during these tests (I think the economist who tested these theories was Poliyani but I'm probably spelling that wrong) that significant government intervention could help the economy.

Sorry, nothing you've said in this post at all backs up your attack on libertarianism.

Sorry, didn't cite my source. Would you like MLA format?

Go read Redefining American Liberalism by James Young. See the chapter on the rise of conservatism in America.

This thread is about libertarianism, not conservatism or liberalism.

I'm not a dumb sh**t. Do you think I'm pulling this out of my ass? I know what the thread is about thats why I'm discussing it. Clearly, if I'm referencing something it must talk about whatever I mentioned.

Young doesn't just talk about liberalism in the book, although it is based mostly around Lockean, laissez-faire and reform liberalism, he does give the other side including going into depth about conservatism, neoconservatives, libertarianism and other topics.

This is a discussion forum. I'm asking you to discuss why you think libertarianism is wrong and "incapable of being practical." I don't care what author so-and-so said.

I mentioned it in my earlier post, but honestly, I hate political theory --its boring. Having thought I backed myself up enough for a brief comment, your asking me to back myself up more led me to believe that you wanted some nicely cited sources.

It's mainly incapable of being practical because the government fails to have the power to secure basic rights such as property. If the government had extensive rights to protect property then it would be going against libertarian ideas. On top of that libertarianism pushes for laissez-faire liberalism (in the form of unrestricted capitalism) which creates a huge incentive for socialism --which emerges from a desire to control the creative destructiveness that is capitalism.  It's creating its own worst enemy.

[sentinel]

Libertarianism is completely incapable of being practical. Libertarianism idealizes the right to property, but the government in libertarian political thought lacks the tools neccessary to secure that right.

I like the "idea" that people have of libertarianism, but that is not what libertarianism is, and this idea is not what Hayek and Milton Friedman had in mind when they outlined their own libertarian political theory --which by the way, was incoherent. Hayek's "worst fear" was right when people it to the test --way to much government intervention, full control over the economy led to the sh**tter, but they also prove during these tests (I think the economist who tested these theories was Poliyani but I'm probably spelling that wrong) that significant government intervention could help the economy.

Sorry, nothing you've said in this post at all backs up your attack on libertarianism.

Sorry, didn't cite my source. Would you like MLA format?

Go read Redefining American Liberalism by James Young. See the chapter on the rise of conservatism in America.

This thread is about libertarianism, not conservatism or liberalism.

I'm not a dumb sh**t. Do you think I'm pulling this out of my ass? I know what the thread is about thats why I'm discussing it. Clearly, if I'm referencing something it must talk about whatever I mentioned.

Young doesn't just talk about liberalism in the book, although it is based mostly around Lockean, laissez-faire and reform liberalism, he does give the other side including going into depth about conservatism, neoconservatives, libertarianism and other topics.

This is a discussion forum. I'm asking you to discuss why you think libertarianism is wrong and "incapable of being practical." I don't care what author so-and-so said.

I mentioned it in my earlier post, but honestly, I hate political theory --its boring. Having thought I backed myself up enough for a brief comment, your asking me to back myself up more led me to believe that you wanted some nicely cited sources.

It's mainly incapable of being practical because the government fails to have the power to secure basic rights such as property. If the government had extensive rights to protect property then it would be going against libertarian ideas. On top of that libertarianism pushes for laissez-faire liberalism (in the form of unrestricted capitalism) which creates a huge incentive for socialism --which emerges from a desire to control the creative destructiveness that is capitalism.  It's creating its own worst enemy.

The mere existence of government as it exists today is a violation of property rights.

So are you advocating for the elimination of government all together?

Libertarianism is completely incapable of being practical. Libertarianism idealizes the right to property, but the government in libertarian political thought lacks the tools neccessary to secure that right.

I like the "idea" that people have of libertarianism, but that is not what libertarianism is, and this idea is not what Hayek and Milton Friedman had in mind when they outlined their own libertarian political theory --which by the way, was incoherent. Hayek's "worst fear" was right when people it to the test --way to much government intervention, full control over the economy led to the sh**tter, but they also prove during these tests (I think the economist who tested these theories was Poliyani but I'm probably spelling that wrong) that significant government intervention could help the economy.

Libertarianism:
1.   a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2.   a person who maintains the doctrine of free will.

What you said is a narrow view of what libertarianism is.  You say that in libertarian thought, government lacks the tools to ensure oh-so-idealized property ownership.  That is not the case.  Most libertarians believe that there needs to be government - just not a government that demands part of your paycheck and tells you what you can and cannot do in your own home.

The definition you just posted is a narrow view of what libertarianism is, hell, it looks like you pulled it off dictionary.com which isn't a great center for political thought.

I never said libertarians were anarchists, but the libertarian government lacks the tools neccessary to get the job done --if it does, then its going against the very idea of libertarianism.

 Everyone would prefer the government not to demand part of your paycheck and for the government to not tell them what to do in their own home. Does that make everyone a libertarian? I'm not a libertarian and I'd prefer that.