Why are *so many* Libertarians so smug and annoying?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:50:17 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Why are *so many* Libertarians so smug and annoying?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: Why are *so many* Libertarians so smug and annoying?  (Read 21893 times)
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: September 20, 2017, 11:35:01 AM »

Libertarians subscribe to an ideology that emphasizes people caring for themselves ... this is obviously going to piss a lot of people off.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: September 20, 2017, 06:59:09 PM »

Libertarians subscribe to an ideology that emphasizes people caring for themselves ... this is obviously going to piss a lot of people off.
Well, yeah, when you're a single parent working two jobs to support your family and some pasty string bean wearing a bowtie knowingly intones that you should be thrown off Medicaid because 'something something personal responsibility' it's only natural that you will regard that person as an entitled a**h*le.

As for the OP, all true believers are smug and annoying; such is the fate of those who decide they've figured everything out and are waiting for the mindless rabble to catch up with their brilliance. The difference is that whereas the membership of each of the major parties is quite large, thus diluting the smugness of the true believers is with the watery allegiance of casual voters, the Libertarians are a small party, and so true believers make up a larger percentage of their vocal supporters.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,551
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: September 21, 2017, 03:45:23 PM »

Libertarians subscribe to an ideology that emphasizes people caring for themselves ... this is obviously going to piss a lot of people off.

They believe the free market fairies will grant everyone enough to live and prosper and ignore the fact that the free market (which doesn't truly exist in the way they think it does) has one goal of profit and doesn't care who it buries along the way.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,114


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: September 23, 2017, 05:17:53 PM »

Libertarians aren't really a thing anymore. They've mostly drifted into fascism.

Libertarianism is *literally* the opposite of fascism, except the only difference is that Nazis are national socialists and not just socialists.

My brain just exploded...
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: September 23, 2017, 08:07:45 PM »

Libertarians aren't really a thing anymore. They've mostly drifted into fascism.

Libertarianism is *literally* the opposite of fascism, except the only difference is that Nazis are national socialists and not just socialists.

Sheesh.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: September 24, 2017, 12:11:47 AM »

I just realized the OP still posts here....how embarrassing this must be.  He STILL hasn't responded.

lol

It's OK though; most of the people whom I was originally thinking of when I started this thread have metamorphosised into the white supremacist/"Alt Right" horror that we all have come to know so well. Which makes sense when you think about it, since Ron Paul himself is basically a neo-Confederate (remember those newsletters??). This is what happens when you think civil rights/human rights are subordinate to (private) property rights.

But don't worry, I don't see you as being part of the aforementioned group! Even if you are a contrarian Gen X'er with terrible politics, you're certainly no "deplorable."Smiley

Wow! You're so smart that humor(including irony) is lost on you!!!
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,425
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: September 26, 2017, 06:10:50 PM »

I just realized the OP still posts here....how embarrassing this must be.  He STILL hasn't responded.

lol

It's OK though; most of the people whom I was originally thinking of when I started this thread have metamorphosised into the white supremacist/"Alt Right" horror that we all have come to know so well. Which makes sense when you think about it, since Ron Paul himself is basically a neo-Confederate (remember those newsletters??). This is what happens when you think civil rights/human rights are subordinate to (private) property rights.

But don't worry, I don't see you as being part of the aforementioned group! Even if you are a contrarian Gen X'er with terrible politics, you're certainly no "deplorable."Smiley

Wow! You're so smart that humor(including irony) is lost on you!!!

This is very cute coming from a garbage-tier poster.
Logged
JonHawk
JHawk
Rookie
**
Posts: 213


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: September 26, 2017, 09:09:33 PM »

I've noticed many libertarians who are young, end up becoming more right-wing in the future. Libertarianism seems the default option for many <20year olds, mostly males.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: September 26, 2017, 10:15:42 PM »

I've noticed many libertarians who are young, end up becoming more right-wing in the future. Libertarianism seems the default option for many <20year olds, mostly males.
If you are conservative, but are not afraid of brown people, homosexuals and weed, it's an easy choice to make.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: September 27, 2017, 08:00:20 AM »

No, I mean the alt-right is mostly made up of former libertarians. It's where the Paulites of 2008 and 2012 went.

Far be it from me to offer a word in defense of libertarians - “I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough" - but this has less to do with sincere and self-professed libertarians moving toward fascism than with the grotesque grab-bag that comprised Paul's coalition: Buchananites, survivalists, anti-vaxers, 9/11 truthers, anti-fluoride people, neopagans, and every other variety of marginalized, conspiracy-spinning oddball.

No true Scotsman. The Paulite coalition may have been full of cranks, but that hardly means it wasn't full of sincere libertarians either. Austrian economics is kinda inherently cranky.
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: October 11, 2017, 02:06:34 PM »

I'm going to play devil's advocate here since I once was a hopefully far less smug or annoying version of what you describe and moved extensively in those circles in my young and reckless days.

Regarding Jefferson and Locke, I think there is a tendency among what I might call the "wrong kind of libertarians" to basically just take a bunch of paragraphs from the Federalist Papers or any other colonial era writing out of context and try to shoehorn it into their very 'Murica view that this country was founded to be all about stockpiling deadly weapons and rebelling against governments and defending our "God-given Constitutional freedoms" (because God totally wrote the Constitution and the world of the Biblical Middle East was such a liberty-lovin' place with its slavery and theocracy and absolute monarchy and high taxes imposed by Caesar). This sort of mentality seems disturbingly common among a lot of ex-military guys, particularly the kind who support people like Ron Paul and Adam Kokesh. Kind of ironic considering they are also the very people who literally personify the notion of the State as the sole holder of the "legitimate" use of force and violence.

What those people adhere to is a bizarre form of what you might call "anti-state authoritarianism."

But if you're interested in what might be called "classical liberal" writing, I would recommend Frederic Bastiat or Lord Acton. There's also that Scotsman by the name of Adam Smith. And, if you're looking for something witty, H. L. Mencken. I also still have a copy of David Boaz's The Libertarian Reader from ages ago, which is an anthology of writings that I think sum up what "real" libertarians actually base their philosophy on.

Wow this answer came out before anyone who openly identifies as Libertarian, yet we are the smug ones?

Most people who agree with Ron Paul also like Bastiat, HL Mencken, Lord Acton, and so forth. Tom Woods mentions Mencken all the time - and Bastiat's The Law and his other writings are definitely supported by Rothbardian / Mises scholars and followers.

The people the radical libertarians have issues with are those like Milton Friedman (monetarist & strong supporter right or wrong of any GOP president), Ayn Rand acolytes like Leonard Peikoff (blind to US foreign policy & imperialism), and John Stuart Mill (utilitarianism leading to socialism).

My LP friend is a friend of Adam Kokesh. I am lukewarm on him due to his attention-seeking exploits though what I've read of his writing is OK - the first few pages of his new essay book - Freedom.

Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: October 11, 2017, 02:33:09 PM »

I've noticed many libertarians who are young, end up becoming more right-wing in the future. Libertarianism seems the default option for many <20year olds, mostly males.
If you are conservative, but are not afraid of brown people, homosexuals and weed, it's an easy choice to make.

But is it conservative necessarily? Those issues are the sort of cultural libertarian issues that have a wide degree of agreement with the left and many of the Fox Business / National Review republicans.

But when you talk about auditing, limiting the mission of the Fed, not even the Ron Paul mantra of ending the Fed, the bond/stock/housing bubble, or about ZIRP / Q.E. and the negative impacts on small-scale savers then you are delving into a territory that makes you a 'right winger' even if many big-business GOP people as well as the NPR Marketplace / Bloomberg Business Dems are happy to see the Fed managing the economy, the low unemployment figures, and are cheering all the big gains on Wall Street.

Personally, I think that libertarians / classical liberals that strive too hard to force a certain image on society at large are overly idealistic and potentially could have a dangerous repercussion. The ideal for themselves and reality are two different things and to force it on others unwillingly is not a voluntary exchange that is another key talking point.

For instance certain classical liberals may be alarmed by the Catalan secession vote as the future society is decidedly left of center and fear a reduction in personal liberty and want to avoid secession at all costs.

Radical libertarians / purists are more likely to accept self-determination for what it is and hope to have a dialog with some others and perhaps with consistent messaging the person on the other side can be a fellow traveler on being anti-war, anti-imperialist, against subsidies, and so forth despite being so at odds over issues that are at the core of what it means to be libertarian like the non-aggression principle and private property rights.
 



Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: October 11, 2017, 02:48:25 PM »

The trouble is, a lot of internet libertarianism was a bit too cutsey with its bumper sticker ideology - you know, the "we want married gays defending their weed with guns!" thing - which in itself was a fairly superficial reflection of the ideology itself. Of course, all ideologies like their meme based mantras, but to me it seems that libertarianism was remarkably glib, all things considered.

Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: October 11, 2017, 04:07:05 PM »

The trouble is, a lot of internet libertarianism was a bit too cutsey with its bumper sticker ideology - you know, the "we want married gays defending their weed with guns!" thing - which in itself was a fairly superficial reflection of the ideology itself. Of course, all ideologies like their meme based mantras, but to me it seems that libertarianism was remarkably glib, all things considered.


One well publicized Libertarian candidate, Larry Sharpe, 2016 LP VP runner up, who is running for governor of NY state is saying he will not use 'taxation is theft' in his campaign. It turns too many people off and they shut down and will not listen to rest of what you are saying as you are deemed a 'crank'.

Personally, I find the Occupy Democrat / Other 98% Facebook liberal sites likewise very inconsistent and guilty of confirmation bias and hyper partisanship - the same thing can be spun as a good thing for Obama but a negative for Trump. I am dismayed that many of my IRL friends & relatives habitually share their articles - if someone is wrong and the person a reasonable one and a simple link - like saying the story is an old one or the data they have is not entirely accurate they may thank me or like my response. Do I change their views - almost certainly not but will they post something with a blatant inaccuracy all the while citing they are following the party that believes in facts and is the party of science - probably they may want to look harder the next time round. And at the end of the day these people are people I know and love and we share common interests and generally want to see each other succeed in life and actively help them out on a personal level.

The conservative pro-police, pro-military, thin blue line followers while not smug are very assuming that the people they are upholding in the military for instance share there hyper-patriotism and worship of the flag and anthem and are taken aback if a veteran thinks twice about the blind platitude of 'thank you for your service' or considers siding with the protesters and does not agree entirely with the 'fighting for our freedoms' line particularly in the post-Cold War era. I have some friends and relatives like this but fewer of them are online - due to perhaps their age.

So as you mention it is a common thing for all groups - perhaps many non-libertarians are uncomfortable with the views that don't support the traditional ones you would see in the NY Times or hear from the Chamber of Commerce?




Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: October 12, 2017, 10:01:16 AM »

I think the big problem with the bumper sticker Libertarian phrases is they don't really reflect the ideology as a whole, and therefore create the confusion that really showed up the Libs in 2016. I find leftist and liberal mantras annoying and trite as well, but they are "honest" in the sense you get a picture of what liberals like (gun control, minimum wage, lgbt rights, single payer, climate change etc) and what they don't like.

A lot of libertarian propaganda (using the term in its neutral sense) tried to emphasise its role as an almost centrist ideology: the phrase fiscally conservative but socially liberal comes to mind. But unfortunately it's not really an accurate portrayal of libertarianism, and it led the party into a very awkward ticket in 2016, where libertarianism just became a messy coalition of woke conservatives making kissy faced appeals to establishment conservatives while also trying to keep their devotees.

If libertarianism is going to take off as a popular ideology, it needs more mantras than being secular and pro-marijuana, neither of which are going to be huge issues that will swing the population as a whole.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,425
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: October 12, 2017, 01:43:20 PM »

I think the big problem with the bumper sticker Libertarian phrases is they don't really reflect the ideology as a whole, and therefore create the confusion that really showed up the Libs in 2016. I find leftist and liberal mantras annoying and trite as well, but they are "honest" in the sense you get a picture of what liberals like (gun control, minimum wage, lgbt rights, single payer, climate change etc) and what they don't like.

A lot of libertarian propaganda (using the term in its neutral sense) tried to emphasise its role as an almost centrist ideology: the phrase fiscally conservative but socially liberal comes to mind. But unfortunately it's not really an accurate portrayal of libertarianism, and it led the party into a very awkward ticket in 2016, where libertarianism just became a messy coalition of woke conservatives making kissy faced appeals to establishment conservatives while also trying to keep their devotees.

If libertarianism is going to take off as a popular ideology, it needs more mantras than being secular and pro-marijuana, neither of which are going to be huge issues that will swing the population as a whole.

The problem is that being secular and pro-marijuana is already popular - especially among the younger generations, including among younger Republicans to an increasing extent. So what else can Libertarians campaign on?

It's hard enough for a remotely coherent small third party to develop among Libertarians. Imagine them trying to build a mass party (or "realistically", take over one of the two major ones).

IMO the future of Libertarianism in mainstream American politics is them becoming a competing faction (or rather, factions - Libertarians are like modern Marxists in that sense) within the Republican Party, while their most popular ideas (which are few, as you alluded to) are completely assimilated into the coalitions of both major parties, to one extent or another.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,425
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: October 12, 2017, 01:55:33 PM »

Also: trying to achieve political power purely via ideological rigidity is impossible in most places, and in the US system in particular. The only way to build a mass coalition is through...well, mass politics, which are inherently populist and thus repugnant to people whose ideology leans toward extreme individualism and dogmatically anti-government positions.

Or, to put it another way; you're never going to win many votes with a platform of "the government exists solely to preserve and protect private property rights - especially not in this era of record-breaking economic inequality, steep decline in social mobility for most of the population, and a form of politics that is forming as a result, and across the political spectrum.
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: October 18, 2017, 11:54:17 AM »

I think the big problem with the bumper sticker Libertarian phrases is they don't really reflect the ideology as a whole, and therefore create the confusion that really showed up the Libs in 2016. I find leftist and liberal mantras annoying and trite as well, but they are "honest" in the sense you get a picture of what liberals like (gun control, minimum wage, lgbt rights, single payer, climate change etc) and what they don't like.

A lot of libertarian propaganda (using the term in its neutral sense) tried to emphasise its role as an almost centrist ideology: the phrase fiscally conservative but socially liberal comes to mind. But unfortunately it's not really an accurate portrayal of libertarianism, and it led the party into a very awkward ticket in 2016, where libertarianism just became a messy coalition of woke conservatives making kissy faced appeals to establishment conservatives while also trying to keep their devotees.

If libertarianism is going to take off as a popular ideology, it needs more mantras than being secular and pro-marijuana, neither of which are going to be huge issues that will swing the population as a whole.

Of course the question is should it become a party to get elected and play the middle like Bill Weld mold or should it continue to be a party of principle unlike either the Democrats or GOP who are in it for power and control of interest group politics.

Milton Friedman said the party that made the most gains over the past 100 years was not the Democratic or Republican party but rather the Socialist party through the gradual growth of the state apparatus and many of their core beliefs into not only the Democratic platform but the Republican platform. Look it up. I am sure you are aware of it.

Many libertarians are pointing out that if the LP just position themselves as moderates between Dem & GOP they will end up fighting the fight on Dem/GOP terms and that is a losing game. Right now is a key time and that's why some are trying to stake the claim of the key voices from within the party to maintain the a good deal of principle and radical aspects that were there from back in 1971 in Murray Rothbard's living room.

Of course we have our own squabbles with pragmatics, socialists, and so on trying to take the party in another direction and inevitably someone who maybe has no knowledge of any of the key figures of the past tradition - like Johnson & Weld will show up again next year and 2020.
Logged
vanguard96
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: October 18, 2017, 12:07:47 PM »

I think the big problem with the bumper sticker Libertarian phrases is they don't really reflect the ideology as a whole, and therefore create the confusion that really showed up the Libs in 2016. I find leftist and liberal mantras annoying and trite as well, but they are "honest" in the sense you get a picture of what liberals like (gun control, minimum wage, lgbt rights, single payer, climate change etc) and what they don't like.

A lot of libertarian propaganda (using the term in its neutral sense) tried to emphasise its role as an almost centrist ideology: the phrase fiscally conservative but socially liberal comes to mind. But unfortunately it's not really an accurate portrayal of libertarianism, and it led the party into a very awkward ticket in 2016, where libertarianism just became a messy coalition of woke conservatives making kissy faced appeals to establishment conservatives while also trying to keep their devotees.

If libertarianism is going to take off as a popular ideology, it needs more mantras than being secular and pro-marijuana, neither of which are going to be huge issues that will swing the population as a whole.

The problem is that being secular and pro-marijuana is already popular - especially among the younger generations, including among younger Republicans to an increasing extent. So what else can Libertarians campaign on?

It's hard enough for a remotely coherent small third party to develop among Libertarians. Imagine them trying to build a mass party (or "realistically", take over one of the two major ones).

IMO the future of Libertarianism in mainstream American politics is them becoming a competing faction (or rather, factions - Libertarians are like modern Marxists in that sense) within the Republican Party, while their most popular ideas (which are few, as you alluded to) are completely assimilated into the coalitions of both major parties, to one extent or another.

I don't think it is realistic as a elected party on a wide scale. However for me it is for outreach with others to share ideas and promote the free market and decentralized lives for many particularly on a local and issue by issue level. For instance interjecting a different take than the established view on Michigan's overpriced no-fault insurance reform is a classic point. In the GOP that view is tempered by interest politics and maybe you never get that view out to the wider public in news articles and other publications as you are swallowed up by the GOP person tied to big medicine interests.  Dems too are heavily tied to appeals to emotion to keep the status quo once a big benefits package is extended to another voting block.

I thought about it, but I don't have enough in common with the great majority of the GOP to cede on so many issues to the majority in a play to keep power.

The issue is that the Libertarian party's main tenet is to not have power centralized in their hands. It doesn't mesh well with the current corporatist state pay to play model, unfortunately.

If it ceases to serve the function of providing an exchange on ideas that are important on a personal level for liberty then I don't think I will be involved but for now I get a value out of it.

If pragmatics or heaven forbid libertarian socialists start to have too great an influence I may have to reconsider too. Fortunately the latter is a very small group so we focus attention on the Bill Weld defenders and their ilk.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,425
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: November 20, 2017, 02:32:07 PM »

Mini-bump:

In my not-so-humble opinion, there's something disturbingly authoritarian (not merely undemocratic) about Libertarianism (as American businessmen and their many allies and advocates - paid and unpaid - in certain economics departments and on the Internet, etc. define the term) in its insistence that the only legitimate functions of the State are (a) national defense, and the closely related (b) protection and upholding of private property rights.

These are literally the most authoritarian functions of the State: punishing people who are or are deemed to be security threats as well as punishing people who infringe on the legally and politically defined and enshrined rights of property owners. Can anyone honestly dispute that dogmatically upholding private property rights will inevitably protect a tiny, already extremely powerful economic elite (ie. the people who own the most property - land, wealth, financial assets, means of production/capital, etc.) from everyone else?

What good is "freedom" or "liberty" when you have to pay-to-play to have it in the first place -
- or any substantial amount of it, at least, especially in terms of economic and political power and influence? Is this state of affairs not inherently authoritarian?
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: November 20, 2017, 02:47:57 PM »

In response, do you prefer a snarky comment now, or would you rather I wait until I get off work and by that time forget to respond at all?
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: November 20, 2017, 02:58:29 PM »

ignoring the well poisoning first part
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Only in your world.

How is punishing people deemed by the state (your savior) to be dangerous to the rest of us be an authoritarian function, much less "literally <one of two of> the most authoritarian functions of the State"?  That makes no sense.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
This doesn't make sense in my world, but I can understand how certain types can come to that conclusion.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
yep, and they also protect my sh**t from getting taken by you, and your stuff from getting taken by those "extremely powerful economic elite" you love to rail against.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
much less so than any other reasonable alternative, at least to me.  Which system would you suggest is less authoritarian?  One of the many that took property from people "to be fair"?  Have any of them ever turned out ok?  I'm sure there are a couple of examples of modern liberal democracies taking over some industry or another and it not being a complete train wreck, but that doesn't seem to be what you're after here.  You seem to be wanting something a little....bigger...no?
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: November 20, 2017, 05:49:45 PM »

Mini-bump:

In my not-so-humble opinion, there's something disturbingly authoritarian (not merely undemocratic) about Libertarianism (as American businessmen and their many allies and advocates - paid and unpaid - in certain economics departments and on the Internet, etc. define the term) in its insistence that the only legitimate functions of the State are (a) national defense, and the closely related (b) protection and upholding of private property rights.

These are literally the most authoritarian functions of the State: punishing people who are or are deemed to be security threats as well as punishing people who infringe on the legally and politically defined and enshrined rights of property owners. Can anyone honestly dispute that dogmatically upholding private property rights will inevitably protect a tiny, already extremely powerful economic elite (ie. the people who own the most property - land, wealth, financial assets, means of production/capital, etc.) from everyone else?

What good is "freedom" or "liberty" when you have to pay-to-play to have it in the first place -
- or any substantial amount of it, at least, especially in terms of economic and political power and influence? Is this state of affairs not inherently authoritarian?

Roll Eyes
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,425
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: November 21, 2017, 12:22:10 PM »
« Edited: November 21, 2017, 12:24:26 PM by PR »

TIL I'm a Communist (heavily implied by dead0man's post) because "the State is my savior" and I want it to "take people's stuff" or something.

I'd encourage everyone here to look up the differences between personal property and private property. And that distinction is not merely a Marxist one (though yeah, they make a big deal of it, but they're not alone).
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,425
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: November 21, 2017, 12:24:52 PM »

Mini-bump:

In my not-so-humble opinion, there's something disturbingly authoritarian (not merely undemocratic) about Libertarianism (as American businessmen and their many allies and advocates - paid and unpaid - in certain economics departments and on the Internet, etc. define the term) in its insistence that the only legitimate functions of the State are (a) national defense, and the closely related (b) protection and upholding of private property rights.

These are literally the most authoritarian functions of the State: punishing people who are or are deemed to be security threats as well as punishing people who infringe on the legally and politically defined and enshrined rights of property owners. Can anyone honestly dispute that dogmatically upholding private property rights will inevitably protect a tiny, already extremely powerful economic elite (ie. the people who own the most property - land, wealth, financial assets, means of production/capital, etc.) from everyone else?

What good is "freedom" or "liberty" when you have to pay-to-play to have it in the first place -
- or any substantial amount of it, at least, especially in terms of economic and political power and influence? Is this state of affairs not inherently authoritarian?

Roll Eyes

#iamconvinced
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 12 queries.