― Dan I. (Dan I.), Tuesday, 27 August 2002 02:05 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tim Bateman, Tuesday, 27 August 2002 10:30 (twenty-one years ago) link
This is a very familiar complaint about Libertarians, and I have a suspicion that it comes from the European lack of understanding of individual rights which exist from the start, rather than 'rights' which are gifts from the state (i. e. the politicians who run the U. K. on behalf of the Queen, who has a lifetime lease from God). As we see in this thread, there are legitimate holes in the Libertarian position without making up exagerated and silly ones.
― tim 'I'm begining to get tired of being in the position of defending Libertarian, Tuesday, 27 August 2002 10:36 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 27 August 2002 11:18 (twenty-one years ago) link
NB no offense but this is precisely the sort of stupid, childish, head-in-sand rhetorical posturing that I'm saying annoys me so much. You live in a one-person/one-vote democracy and it's fucking ridiculous to pretend otherwise; if you want to talk about the influence of economic clout and campaign contributions on election results, then talk about it, but it's so fucking pointless to do the 13-year-old's cynical eye-covering "ner-ner-ner the system's fucked anyway so who cares" thing. I mean, look at that statement, it's my exact problem: people make these claims that are provably untrue except as vague metaphors for rhetorical effect, and then they present them as actual supports for arguments about real government?
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 27 August 2002 14:16 (twenty-one years ago) link
But how can you count on the privatizers to provide these services so that all can benefit, including those who most need them?
I realize I'm totally speaking in self-interest here, and from an American perspective -- I'm working without insurance right now, because I simply can't afford to pay the premiums and my rent. And I'm not exactly earning Wal-Mart wages.
I guess it's that Darwinist aspect of libertarianism is, to me, really disconcerting. Many who identify themselves as Libertarians to me are already in an economic position where they can say "Well, I can manage, I'm okay." It seems short-sighted and really damaging to the culture as a whole -- any social contract that might have existed before is absolutely shredded by these philosophies.
― maura (maura), Tuesday, 27 August 2002 14:33 (twenty-one years ago) link
New Zealand is something of a testbed for bonkers libertarianism, as they've been deregulating everything that moves and cutting away all government intervention in the economy and social welfare provision.
amusingly the process has seen New Zealand slide inexorably down the league tables of national wealth per capita.
― DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 27 August 2002 15:04 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tim (Tim), Tuesday, 27 August 2002 15:09 (twenty-one years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 27 August 2002 17:53 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 27 August 2002 18:18 (twenty-one years ago) link
Collectivism is falling to pieces - in NZ, anyway, it happened when compulsory unionism got thrown out, and the current leftish govt is doing much for it.
how about "the current leftish govt isn't helping to stop the slide"
"Aside: You don't think people's votes are weighted to correspond to their assets now?"
NB no offense but this is precisely the sort of stupid, childish, head-in-sand rhetorical posturing that I'm saying annoys me so much.
Point taken - in this context it's a useless statement.
― B:Rad (Brad), Tuesday, 27 August 2002 20:49 (twenty-one years ago) link
― B:Rad (Brad), Tuesday, 27 August 2002 21:36 (twenty-one years ago) link
Its true that New Zealand economy post 1984 and the Second labour government has been viewed as a test bed for deregulation of the economy. However something had to be done , we were in a real mess in 83 though clearly you dont remember those days?We had "petrol free" days, (you could only purchase fuel on certain days), crippling state debt and inflation and interest rates out of control.
What is in question is the "rate" and "order" of change that occured, not whether such change was necessary. Its true that few other countries have gone such a rapid transformation of their economy, still compare our current welfare, health and education provisions to the USA and Id say we have got the balance about right(except student loans).
I dont find it all that funny. Economists of all persuasions agree that the NZ economoy under Muldoon needed drastic attention. To argue that increased govt spending and state asset provsion would have helped us is absurd. The loss of the access to the British market after EEC in 73 and reducded world demand for commodity prices, an aging unskilled poulation, increasing public debt to sustain an out of control welfare state etc etc has been whats crippled us. Our company tax structure, geographic isolation and small skilled labour and capital base are also going to make it difficult for us to compete in the future.
But hey blame de-regulation if you like. ps I voted labour too
― Kiwi, Tuesday, 27 August 2002 22:22 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tim Bateman, Wednesday, 28 August 2002 09:33 (twenty-one years ago) link
clue: what does the word "absolute" mean to you?
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 12:46 (twenty-one years ago) link
If the principle is conceded that it is legitimate for the state to curtail certain individual freedoms for the public good, then "Libertarianism" must be argued as a relative, not an absolute position.
This may seem so obvious as not to be important; not so, because the continual, often deliberate and manipulative, confusion of abolute and relative is a ongoing part of the modus operandi. As previously said, much Libertarian rhetoric is based on the assumption that abstract principles like "freedom" and "individual liberty" are self-evidently and purely good things, that we can't have too much of them. If the "real" argument is something along the lines of, "well we accept that there has to be a trade-off between individual liberty and public good, but we think the line has been drawn in the wrong place", then that is the argument that libertarians are required to make. Not the simplistic and quasi-mystical invocation to pure principle that some use cynically and others, more worringly, actually seem to believe.
― ArfArf, Wednesday, 28 August 2002 12:58 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 13:12 (twenty-one years ago) link
― ArfArf, Wednesday, 28 August 2002 13:58 (twenty-one years ago) link
ArfArf is (korrektly) pointing out that libertarians also often play such games with definition, so the unfairness is not that unfair after all.
― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 15:51 (twenty-one years ago) link
So it's not entirely just a caricature of their absolutism: they've actively assembled themselves as such and are happy to sink further into it. This is true of really any fringe party in the U.S. -- the only way to work the fringe is with some clever easily-digested panacea like "yes we are the flat-tax party," which occasionally makes them good launching pads for issues but rarely makes for a widely coherent platform.
― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 16:07 (twenty-one years ago) link
Of course, the other side of the statement you put in as a 'position paper' (i. e. you don't believe it or claim anyone else does but it's there to make a point) is that in a Libertarian 'society' each child would have the absolute social liberty not to be killed by serial child killers. Or, as I sometimes put it, negative rights supersede positive rights. This is just a different side of the coin from Ayn Rand's 'mutual uncoerced consent.'
Hmmm. Does 'absolute social liberty' have any meaning 1 to a Libertarian 2 at all?
― Tim Bateman, Friday, 30 August 2002 09:41 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tim Bateman, Friday, 30 August 2002 09:43 (twenty-one years ago) link
Following are two quotes from http://www.self-gov.org/libfaq.html
Drugs:All of the hard drugs were legal before 1914, and there were few addicts. Studies show that even addicts can be productive, and also that they do not engage in crime when they can get their drugs inexpensively.
"We have addicts today despite drug criminalization. We also have the violence that is caused by drugs being illegal. Let's decriminalize drugs so we stop the violence and get help to those who need it."
I subcribe to this point of view, all drugs should be made legal. I want total souvereignity over my own body.
Guns:"Libertarians,, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too. "
I do not subscribe to the typically American point of view to gun ownership. Cfr Bowling for Columbine http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/flash-01.php
Take the skinheads bowling! --Camper Van Beethoven
― Jan Geerinck (jahsonic), Thursday, 27 February 2003 11:56 (twenty-one years ago) link
fuck libertarians, fuck them all three holes.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 13 August 2007 22:58 (sixteen years ago) link
blimey get me on this thread
― mark s, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:01 (sixteen years ago) link
The dude I was talking about in the batshit facebook thread considers himself a libertarian..
― W4LTER, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:04 (sixteen years ago) link
guess what's in my other window: facebook libertarians.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:05 (sixteen years ago) link
Groups 30 of 67 groups.See All
Libertarian Conservatives ▪ I ♥ Brisbane ▪ Have you ever disgraced yourself at a Law related function? ▪ SYDNEY IS BETTER THAN MELBOURNE! ▪ Mr Gormsby's Class 5F ▪ Ludwig Von Mises Appreciation Society(1881-1973) ▪ Global Warming is a Hoax ▪ I proudly support the State of Israel & I don't care that it's not trendy! ▪ Right-wingers have more fun ▪ Pro Tobacco ▪ ANTI-united nations, anti-EU ▪ In Support of the Death Penalty ▪ Capitalist Student Network ▪ Sydney University Liberal Club ▪ Abolish Welfare! ▪ The Justice J. D. Heydon Appreciation Society ▪ WorkChoices sucks - the labour market is STILL overregulated ▪ Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy ▪ The movement to legalise duelling ▪ I oppose WorkChoices on federalist grounds ▪ I always wear sun glasses because the sun never sets on the British Empire ▪ Young Liberal Movement ▪ Richard Dawkins Created the Meme ▪ The Will Ferrell is GOD Collective ▪ Chief Justice Harry Gibbs Appreciation Society ▪ Proud WASPs ▪ Justice Callinan Fan Club ▪ Flat Rate Tax ▪ The Anglo Saxon Group ▪ I support John Howard
― W4LTER, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:07 (sixteen years ago) link
hahaha i support palestine (like a football club) only because it's trendy.
― max, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:13 (sixteen years ago) link
lol richard dawkins, NO SURPRISE THERE.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:16 (sixteen years ago) link
proud member since oct 06
― Just got offed, Monday, 13 August 2007 23:19 (sixteen years ago) link
libertarianism in america = fundamentally a misreading of jefferson, who wanted a republic of local township-republics, who would vote on everything to do with themselves, athens-style, and leave only the major stuff (defense, welfare, etc) to the feds.
libertarians read this as getting RID of government, when it's really just a radical redistribution of it. their "ideal" country would provide no means of breaking up monopolies or even overthrowing a tyrant because libertarians fundamentally deny what hannah arendt took to be the most important thing in politics - the right of citizens to come together to make something happen, which they dismiss as "collectivism." (reducing all human experience to "collectivism" and "individualism," as libertarians inevitably do, is also pretty dumb: one could fairly argue that both existed in nazi germany.) an actual libertarian state would be impossible for the simple fact that libertarians wouldn't admit any laws to check the power of ANYONE "outside the state," so there'd be no way to prevent any ambitious and talented businessman from essentially running the country.
libertarians also assume that economics ALWAYS precedes politics, which is why their screeds (when they're not entertainingly arguing that blackmail should be legalized) are so unreadable.
― J.D., Monday, 13 August 2007 23:59 (sixteen years ago) link
Libertarians are cute, like handicapped puppies. They're special.
― milo z, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 00:07 (sixteen years ago) link
more's the shame, then, that ofttimes (with some notable exceptions) their grasp of economics is pretty shitty. (i.e., there's a reason why the Austrian School isn't exactly in the mainstream among academic economists and it isn't b/c academic economists are closet "collectivists"/Commies.)
― Eisbaer, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 00:11 (sixteen years ago) link
Given that no-one is self-identifying as libertarian, isn't this a strawman thread? I would at least start to defend *aspects* of libertarianism, but the thread is already marred by unhelpful simplifications.
― paulhw, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 00:15 (sixteen years ago) link
Less strawman than gangbang, I'd say.
― milo z, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 00:18 (sixteen years ago) link
Milo OTM.
― Dandy Don Weiner, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 01:45 (sixteen years ago) link
anyone who wants to defend libertarianism or refute any of my points is entirely welcome.
― J.D., Tuesday, 14 August 2007 02:39 (sixteen years ago) link
an actual libertarian state would be impossible for the simple fact that libertarians wouldn't admit any laws to check the power of ANYONE "outside the state," so there'd be no way to prevent any ambitious and talented businessman from essentially running the country.
my understanding of libertarianism is that they believe that government exists to prevent people from violating the rights of others. if government couldn't pass laws to check the power of private citizens, wouldn't that just be anarchy?
― elan, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 03:50 (sixteen years ago) link
also i don't think that libertarians deny citizens a right to do things together. maybe you meant they don't want government to make citizens do things together?
― elan, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 03:53 (sixteen years ago) link
i'm not a libertarian but this is some stupid straw-man bullshit, like saying that republicans are gonna steal the 2008 general election.
― elan, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 03:54 (sixteen years ago) link
Ahh well, I guess at least we've learnt that Will Ferrell is acceptable to libertarians.
― W4LTER, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 03:57 (sixteen years ago) link
since libertarians inevitably oppose any effort to interfere with businesses' right to do whatever they want (rarely bothering to distinguish between, say, enron and the mom and pop store down the street), it's hard to see how their high and mighty john stuart mill principles really translate into anything, in practical terms, except "every dog for himself." as for anarchy, plenty of the best-known libertarian thinkers basically were anarchists - murray rothbard, for one.
government "making people do things together" is mainly an issue in the kind of society libertarians claim they want - a society where the citizens ask nothing and get nothing from their government. a country where people are actually involved in their government, on a community by community level, isn't likely to give way to tyranny (and the fact that the united states, despite the fact that the vast majority of cities don't measure up to jefferson's ideal of the township-community, has never fallen under a dictatorship is some testament to the effectiveness of this system).
by contrast, all libertarians can offer is some dickensian ideal state where every businessman is a benevolent ebenezer scrooge (post-conversion) who takes care of any problems we might have (and hey, if you're not satisfied, you could always just become rich yourself!) libertarians are right about a lot of the problems in america, but they're clueless when it comes to what to do about them.
― J.D., Tuesday, 14 August 2007 05:08 (sixteen years ago) link
-- paulhw, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 00:15 (6 hours ago) Link
i guess you must be a libertarian.
louis, i'm toying with that. c-word though.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 06:51 (sixteen years ago) link
I think it was Boyd Rice, of all people, who said something along the lines of "Libertarians are just anarchists without the leather jackets."
That said, as far as pure logic goes, taking the study of rhetoric into account and all that, it's one of the more attractive political philosophies, wouldn't you agree?
― If Assholes Could Fly This Place Would Be An Airport, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:06 (sixteen years ago) link
Most of the anarchists I know (and most of the anarchists throughout history, I think) are left-leaning, so they do believe in collectivism and collective action, just not authority. I guess libertarianism is close to right-wing anarchism, but that has always been a weaker strand in the history of anarchism.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:32 (sixteen years ago) link
I guess anarchism and libertarianism have a similar philosophical idea in their core, but the conclusions and political actions they've reached from from that have been quite different.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:34 (sixteen years ago) link
those conclusions and political actions again: "let's sit this one out (feat.self-regarding commentary)"
― mark s, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:39 (sixteen years ago) link
i think only quite young and able-bodied people can really sign up for libertarianism.
― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:42 (sixteen years ago) link
young, able-bodied and COMIC BOOK GUY
― mark s, Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:46 (sixteen years ago) link
the problem that most <people> can't get their heads around is that there are many forms of <political idea> and that they often conflict with one another. so <political idea> is not really an achievable goal because one <political idea> may get in the way of another.
― wizzz! (amateurist), Thursday, August 18, 2016 4:11 AM (15 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
ftfy
― F♯ A♯ (∞), Thursday, 18 August 2016 18:23 (seven years ago) link
how is this not a Tim and Eric skit pic.twitter.com/Pv6knmMdqt— go birds 🦅 (@LarryWebsite) February 8, 2018
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 9 February 2018 05:46 (six years ago) link
hahahahahaha
― Men's Scarehouse - "You're gonna like the way you're shook." (m bison), Friday, 9 February 2018 06:06 (six years ago) link
i am a little concerned by that guy's indignation about needing a license to make toast and i kinda want him to have to pass a test before he can operate any technology with a heat source
― Men's Scarehouse - "You're gonna like the way you're shook." (m bison), Friday, 9 February 2018 06:07 (six years ago) link
No way
― flappy bird, Friday, 9 February 2018 06:27 (six years ago) link
they're doing a bit
Toasterman is insane looking though
guys you really need to watch more video clips from the libertarian convention
^^ this is also what I say to anyone who says I don't understand the libertarian party
there was also a moment where a nude fat man bounded across the stage and everyone loved it
― mh, Friday, 9 February 2018 15:19 (six years ago) link
omg that twitter thread has more clips
these are all... something
― mh, Friday, 9 February 2018 15:21 (six years ago) link
I take it back, it was a underwear-clad near-nude man, and he appears in that twitter thread :)
― mh, Friday, 9 February 2018 15:23 (six years ago) link
https://youtu.be/RqZVVvp95ncbest of toasterman
― mh, Friday, 9 February 2018 15:27 (six years ago) link
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmKViuyUcAA1CCg?format=jpg&name=small
Hell yeah baby! We stan our queen
― anvil, Friday, 6 November 2020 19:17 (three years ago) link
Nice!
― peace, man, Friday, 6 November 2020 19:21 (three years ago) link
so she’s clearly gotta be “Deep State” now on the Q, right??
― A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Friday, 6 November 2020 19:54 (three years ago) link
no
Legalize child labor.Children will learn more on a job site than in public school.— Libertarian Party NH (@LPNH) June 7, 2021
― A viking of frowns, (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Monday, 7 June 2021 22:28 (two years ago) link
Yes. Children should especially learn how to pick our crops. Since they are already low to the ground they are ideal for picking lettuce, strawberries, cucumbers and similar edibles. Their job site would be open air, they'll get lots of exercise, and they'll learn every day what it feels like to be devalued, exploited and abused. Invaluable lessons to carry them through their miserable lives.
― What's It All About, Althea? (Aimless), Monday, 7 June 2021 23:06 (two years ago) link
counterthought - children will learn more watching Libertarians being set ablaze and screaming for their lives
― Feta Van Cheese (Neanderthal), Monday, 7 June 2021 23:11 (two years ago) link
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/237/129/e97.jpg
― Joe Bombin (milo z), Monday, 7 June 2021 23:26 (two years ago) link