A libertarian paradox?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

What point could there possibly be to make that is rooted in a premise that is blatantly false? Beck and Palin are not, and never have been, libertarians.

But they are perceived as such by the wider public.

The wider public has never even heard of libertarianism.

That segment of the wider public that has, then. If they have, it is because people like Glenn Beck have peddled themselves as such.

Yes, but so what? Beck is a liar, a neocon wolf-in-sheep's-clothing.

[Хahar 🤔]

What point could there possibly be to make that is rooted in a premise that is blatantly false? Beck and Palin are not, and never have been, libertarians.

But they are perceived as such by the wider public.

The wider public has never even heard of libertarianism.

That segment of the wider public that has, then. If they have, it is because people like Glenn Beck have peddled themselves as such.

Yes, but so what? Beck is a liar, a neocon wolf-in-sheep's-clothing.

Indeed. But he claims to be a libertarian, and so the public identifies libertarianism with him.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

What point could there possibly be to make that is rooted in a premise that is blatantly false? Beck and Palin are not, and never have been, libertarians.

But they are perceived as such by the wider public.

The wider public has never even heard of libertarianism.

That segment of the wider public that has, then. If they have, it is because people like Glenn Beck have peddled themselves as such.

Yes, but so what? Beck is a liar, a neocon wolf-in-sheep's-clothing.

Indeed. But he claims to be a libertarian, and so the public identifies libertarianism with him.

Again, so what? If Barack Obama began advertising himself as a libertarian, would that make him one?

[Хahar 🤔]

What point could there possibly be to make that is rooted in a premise that is blatantly false? Beck and Palin are not, and never have been, libertarians.

But they are perceived as such by the wider public.

The wider public has never even heard of libertarianism.

That segment of the wider public that has, then. If they have, it is because people like Glenn Beck have peddled themselves as such.

Yes, but so what? Beck is a liar, a neocon wolf-in-sheep's-clothing.

Indeed. But he claims to be a libertarian, and so the public identifies libertarianism with him.

Again, so what? If Barack Obama began advertising himself as a libertarian, would that make him one?

No, but he does not. Glenn Beck does. And it is Glenn Beck's ideology that shall subsume libertarianism.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

What point could there possibly be to make that is rooted in a premise that is blatantly false? Beck and Palin are not, and never have been, libertarians.

But they are perceived as such by the wider public.

The wider public has never even heard of libertarianism.

That segment of the wider public that has, then. If they have, it is because people like Glenn Beck have peddled themselves as such.

Yes, but so what? Beck is a liar, a neocon wolf-in-sheep's-clothing.

Indeed. But he claims to be a libertarian, and so the public identifies libertarianism with him.

Again, so what? If Barack Obama began advertising himself as a libertarian, would that make him one?

No, but he does not. Glenn Beck does. And it is Glenn Beck's ideology that shall subsume libertarianism.

So then we'll get a new name. Honestly, what is the point of this?

[Associate Justice PiT]

What point could there possibly be to make that is rooted in a premise that is blatantly false? Beck and Palin are not, and never have been, libertarians.

But they are perceived as such by the wider public.

The wider public has never even heard of libertarianism.

That segment of the wider public that has, then. If they have, it is because people like Glenn Beck have peddled themselves as such.

Yes, but so what? Beck is a liar, a neocon wolf-in-sheep's-clothing.

Indeed. But he claims to be a libertarian, and so the public identifies libertarianism with him.

Again, so what? If Barack Obama began advertising himself as a libertarian, would that make him one?

No, but he does not. Glenn Beck does. And it is Glenn Beck's ideology that shall subsume libertarianism.

So then we'll get a new name. Honestly, what is the point of this?

     Which may be necessary if Glenn Beck is running around pretending to be one of us. He has as much of a claim to being a libertarian as I do to being a monarchist.

[Scam of God]

How utterly unsurprising this thread is. Mint does his usual thing of sucking conservatives to the roots, Libertas joins him, and all of you act like these two are the libertarian voices of moral authority here.

[dead0man]

You forgot to mention Lief reminding us once again he doesn't have a clue about libertarianism or libertarians and Xahar dropping by to pot stir.  Oh and Enziggy stopping in to insult people and add nothing to the conversation.  These are all very standard parts of any libertarian discussion on Atlas.

[Scam of God]

Oh and Enziggy stopping in to insult people and add nothing to the conversation.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that you're a hired gun, and so owe your livelihood to the State. Lord forbid I every bring it up ever again.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

How utterly unsurprising this thread is. Mint does his usual thing of sucking conservatives to the roots, Libertas joins him, and all of you act like these two are the libertarian voices of moral authority here.

So who is?  You?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

How utterly unsurprising this thread is. Mint does his usual thing of sucking conservatives to the roots, Libertas joins him, and all of you act like these two are the libertarian voices of moral authority here.

"Sucking conservatives to the roots"?

[Mint]

How utterly unsurprising this thread is. Mint does his usual thing of sucking conservatives to the roots, Libertas joins him

I like how you resort to ad hominems (mocking my personal life too, classy) without ever pointing out how anything I said was factually wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Point out where I ever claimed to speak for all libertarians. I don't even apply the label to myself lately, other people do.

[dead0man]

Oh and Enziggy stopping in to insult people and add nothing to the conversation.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that you're a hired gun, and so owe your livelihood to the State. Lord forbid I every bring it up ever again.

Well that certainly proved me wrong.  <snicker>

[crat]

I know I'm new here, but a lot of this seems like watching a bunch of little boys play cops & robbers...

"I got you, you're dead!" 
"Nuh-uh, you missed!"

Maybe I'll just lurk just outside the fray and avoid any stray bullets, occasionally lobbing a grenade and running away like the little brother you guys didn't want to bring along to play anyway.

*PEW-PEW*

[Bo]

The central point of libertarianism is that government should be there only to ensure that individuals do not infringe on eachother's rights.

Agreed.

[Earth]

The central point of libertarianism is that government should be there only to ensure that individuals do not infringe on eachother's rights.

     Not only that, but dedicated anarcho-capitalists have argued that pressure from one's peers & private law enforcement would discourage acts of aggression between individuals without government. Not to say I agree with them, but as far as I can tell the notion that only government can oppress people has no existence except as an anti-libertarian strawman.

The problem is Libertarians continually disregard that exact idea; that their positions actually increase oppression from hands other than governmental. This point doesn't fit the equation because it negates their assumptions. Otherwise, this confusion of 'liberty' with extreme freemarketeering wouldn't exist.

The problem is compounded by self described libertarians, who for one reason or another, don't actually line up with a capital L, libertarian outlook.

[dead0man]

The central point of libertarianism is that government should be there only to ensure that individuals do not infringe on eachother's rights.

     Not only that, but dedicated anarcho-capitalists have argued that pressure from one's peers & private law enforcement would discourage acts of aggression between individuals without government. Not to say I agree with them, but as far as I can tell the notion that only government can oppress people has no existence except as an anti-libertarian strawman.

The problem is Libertarians continually disregard that exact idea; that their positions actually increase oppression from hands other than governmental.

At least that's what you guys keep telling us.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does it matter to the likes of you and Lief what label we/they call themseleves?  You've already come to your conclusions.

[Scam of God]

The central point of libertarianism is that government should be there only to ensure that individuals do not infringe on eachother's rights.

     Not only that, but dedicated anarcho-capitalists have argued that pressure from one's peers & private law enforcement would discourage acts of aggression between individuals without government. Not to say I agree with them, but as far as I can tell the notion that only government can oppress people has no existence except as an anti-libertarian strawman.

The problem is Libertarians continually disregard that exact idea; that their positions actually increase oppression from hands other than governmental. This point doesn't fit the equation because it negates their assumptions. Otherwise, this confusion of 'liberty' with extreme freemarketeering wouldn't exist.

The problem is compounded by self described libertarians, who for one reason or another, don't actually line up with a capital L, libertarian outlook.

Which is why libertarianism has to be coupled with positive empowerment, on the individual level, to be realistically viable. It is quite fine to oppose the State - but not enough. Hence I regard strains of libertarian socialism or syndicalism to be more applicable than nonsensical Randianism.

If the government were, say, shrunk to a tenth of its current size in all departments this morning, you'd have a glut of unemployment such as never has been seen. I'd like to find ways around this, by developing the technology that lets individuals employ themselves and control their own destinies to as great an extent as possible. That's how you preserve liberty in all of its forms.

[Earth]

The problem is Libertarians continually disregard that exact idea; that their positions actually increase oppression from hands other than governmental.

At least that's what you guys keep telling us.

Then what's the response from your point of view?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I've already come to my conclusions (as have you), but my point is people who identify with the label of libertarian, but aren't actually, would do themselves a favor by separating from it.

Which is why libertarianism has to be coupled with positive empowerment, on the individual level, to be realistically viable. It is quite fine to oppose the State - but not enough. Hence I regard strains of libertarian socialism or syndicalism to be more applicable than nonsensical Randianism.

If the government were, say, shrunk to a tenth of its current size in all departments this morning, you'd have a glut of unemployment such as never has been seen. I'd like to find ways around this, by developing the technology that lets individuals employ themselves and control their own destinies to as great an extent as possible. That's how you preserve liberty in all of its forms.

I agree.

[dead0man]

The problem is Libertarians continually disregard that exact idea; that their positions actually increase oppression from hands other than governmental.

At least that's what you guys keep telling us.

Then what's the response from your point of view?

Just because a person wants less govt control over their life doesn't mean they want more corporate control over it.  I don't see where generic libertarian positions come across as wanting more oppression from someone other than the govt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I've already come to my conclusions (as have you), but my point is people who identify with the label of libertarian, but aren't actually, would do themselves a favor by separating from it. [/quote]Of course.  Really I'd like somebody to come up with a new name, the spin from fan boys of the Dems and Pubs (and poser fans of Rand) seem to have permanently soiled the name.

[Scam of God]

Just because a person wants less govt control over their life doesn't mean they want more corporate control over it.  I don't see where generic libertarian positions come across as wanting more oppression from someone other than the govt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But there has to be some sort of mechanism there to prevent that, I think he's saying. And I concur - it does no good to replace the State monopoly of force with one wielded by industry.

[dead0man]

Sure, of course.  But what is that mechanism?

[Scam of God]

Sure, of course.  But what is that mechanism?

As I've said before: a volunteerist form of socialism, predicated around offering to the workers the ability to compete directly with established financial interests. We're already pretty close to having the technological level necessary for this.

[dead0man]

Sure, sounds good.  As long as it's shrinking the size and power of the govt (especially in the areas I hold dear, mainly the victimless crime, guns and taxes stuff) and doesn't create any new restrictions on my liberty or the liberty of the free market I'd be on board with pretty much anything.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Sure, sounds good.  As long as it's shrinking the size and power of the govt (especially in the areas I hold dear, mainly the victimless crime, guns and taxes stuff) and doesn't create any new restrictions on my liberty or the liberty of the free market I'd be on board with pretty much anything.