Libertatian is the same pie in the sky dream of Communism

Is there an actual current or past society that a Libertarian would use as an example of what they seek? I can not think of one. It seems like the arguments for Communism saying "well it could work, we just have not really tried it yet". And also like true Communism there are numerous social and economic reasons why it probably can not work in the current world.

There is no successful society that removes tax and personal obligations to society in the way they want. People who really don't see the value and purpose of tax show they have no understanding of economics. Yet they person they seem hate the most is the "college liberal" who says their ideas are wrong. And they will also say to them "you don't understand how an economy works".

Correct me if I am wrong and list what a country you admire. It's just a childish view to me. Like to truly think you can and should do anything and you owe nothing it is even worse than the kid who took a freshmen government class and now says "the USSR had some good ideas". At least they are learning something even if they have more to learn.

 

It is hard to talk of libertarianism in an American context because most of the people in the US that call themselves ‘libertarian’ are actually right wing libertarians.

As I’ve pointed out on many occasions there are actually many forms of libertarianism. Now as I understand it left leaning libertarianism is all about helping others and so is very much in favour of types of equal, mutual and distributive societies, places where there is education and healthcare for all for example. It has an emphasis not only on individual freedom but also social equality.

Right wing libertarianism on the other seems to base its thinking more on Social Darwinist lines and is therefore more about helping one’s self, helping others is secondary at best or unimportant.

You could say that left wing libertarianism is akin to what is supposed to emerge from communism where there is no government because it isn’t needed because people have learnt to be nice and share things out equally because they think that is the best and right thing to do. It’s a fluffy utopian fantasy, you might say that their hearts if not their heads are in the right place.

The right wing libertarianism isn’t even about getting rid of government, it’s idea is ‘small government’ which when examined seemed to be that government should all be about protecting property rights but have nothing to do with protecting people from exploitation and greed.

The right wing libertarian theorists claim this would ‘free’ the drive and dynamism of the advantaged which would raise the living standards of all, but the truth is that many right wing libertarians see this as unlikely.

So many that promote right wing libertarianism know that are not even aiming for a utopia they seem to be aiming for a dystopian ideal where they realise most people would live in hardship. For example I’ve talked to a couple of right wing libertarians that have admitted they’d be happy to have a model of society where the disadvantaged suffered from want even unto death, and the silence when asked about this from many others is very telling.

At its core right wing libertarianism has no heart or head.

 

In a study of nearly twelve thousand self-described libertarians, compared with 21,000 conservatives and 97,000 liberals Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians , Iyer et al., working with John Haidt, found that libertarians were a distinct political species. Besides the obvious--greater valuing of liberty and individuality, on moral tests they they displayed less emotion, less empathy and less disgust than either conservatives or liberals. They appeared to use "cold" calculation to reach utilitarian conclusions about whether (for instance) to save lives by sacrificing fewer lives. One caveat: the libertarians in the study are those who self-identified as such on the YourMorals.org website. , so they may be particularly likely to be hard core ideologues. It isn' a scientific sample, in that it relied on self-selection. Still. the profile hardly seems surprising in light of the libertarians I've encountered.

 

Even the evangelical Bana Group concluded that Fundamentalist Christians have the worst social record in the developed world and are the backbone of the republican party. Sociologists discovered they tend to be patriarchs who apply morality in a deliberate and considered manner to other people, but not to themselves. A study of Wall Street traders revealed that, no matter what their espoused ethics, their work ethics went up and down with the stock market. Perhaps as many as 80% of the population or higher applies their morality to others, but not themselves, while studies have indicated that those few who regularly use their own two hands in service to their community or who grew up in extended families tended to live up to their own moral standards and faired better in the long run. John Boy's family knew what mattered.

In other words, modern science is currently documenting how society transforms our innate metaethics into abstract morality and teaches everyone how to lie better. Forty years of extensive studies concluded the republican party organizes like chickens, and that the amount of working memory you have is the only reliable criteria for assessing your career potential. You can run, but you cannot hide from the simple truth and modern science is about to master the mathematics of dealing with chickenshit chickens in ways they cannot comprehend. Primitives have been comparing civilized people to chickens since the invention of agriculture, but the computers are about to spit out the exact mathematics to make both Libertarians and hard core commies start defending each other.

 

This is a really great question. I've never had a straight answer to it. But consider some of the positions they take. They're all for
Legalized prostitution
Legalized heroin
Legalized gambling
Spontaneous (natural) order
Absolute enforcement (and obedience) of laws
Limited government
Free Markets

I realized a few years ago that this is essentially the plot driver list for the series Deadwood!

Think about it, during the 19th century we had a definite array of common ideas behind Frontier Justice. Back then horse thieves, rapists and murderers were executed. Prostitutes were a national treasure. And nobody told you what drugs you couldn't use.

 

Christians can claim many things, but modesty has never been a recognized Christian value except among minorities.

 

Does anybody a know an honest to goodness true Libertarian ?

I don't , although I do know a few people who call themselves Libertarian most really aren't in one area or other.

Now if one considers the libertarian Party's most recent Presidential candidates we see even the party itself may not know what it's manifesto states. Gary Johnson/William Weld and before that Johnson/Gray were anything but Libertarian.

In the last election they did have their best showing ever ( 4.4 million votes ) since their founding which suggests if they could find someone of true Libertarian cloth they would do far better but again most who voted for them had no idea what they were voting for anyway.

 

Libertarianism is not a political philosophy. There is nothing political about a philosophy that does not describe how to compromise on anything other than fighting over the definition of stupid and who is the best example. Libertarians made it illegal to vote for Mickey Mouse, because politics are not their specialty, which is producing rhetoric for fundamentalists and Neo-Nazis. Their rhetoric actually reflects old Soviet Union propaganda, we have one party today because nobody is to be trusted with your money.

 

While can respect your opinion I refer you to the Libertarian Party website which certainly appears to be a philosophical approach to governing.

https://www.lp.org/

 

Telling people what you hate is not a political statement, no matter what words you copyright. Shooting people in the head is not a political statement, but it can be politic to claim it is. Voting for whoever advertises the most is not the definition of a democracy. Liberty is another word for anarchy or Walmart if you can't agree on how to agree on anything. The Libertarian led republican party just bent over backwards electing a president they didn't want, because agreeing on anything is not what they are good at.

 

I took the time to read their platform and it seriously addresses most issues we find ourselves dealing with today. That party does not use the word hate but either of two words support or oppose - then fill in the blank.
My contention was originally that most who voted for them were unaware what their platform was in the first place.

 

Pray tell, what's their solution to Americans voting for whoever advertises the most in every election for over twenty years? What is their solution to their own fucking party leaders disapproving of their own president? Perhaps if we threw tea bags at them? I say make it legal to join the Mickey Mouse Club again and see just what Libertarian stands for.

 

They'll neither find solutions nor offer any to those questions as long as their rank and file continue to invest their energies in washed up rejects from the existing master class. With that said simply dismissing 31 positions on an array of major topics isn't in my view the best way to critique an outside party.
In fact a simple review of these points will reveal similar stances taken among the two master parties that own Washington DC.

Example :

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.


2.2 Environment

Competitive free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Governments are unaccountable for damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required.



3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.



Someone may not agree with these points however I found them to be clear and concise and pose no disrespect to those of differing viewpoints.

As for Americans voting for heavy advertisers it didn't start 20 years ago however the cost of such operations has quadrupled and will do so again. That's the main reason both master parties are owned by the donor groups and K street.

Everybody dances with the one that brought them to the ball.

 

Next you'll be telling me you own the copyrights on the word Libertarian. Get over it! The assholes calling themselves the Libertarian party rejected even their own president and have been popular as long as it has been popular to vote for whoever advertises the most. A twenty year study by Princeton concluded, no matter who was voted into office, only the wealthy got any fucking thing they wanted. Libertarian is a synonym for Mafia style KKK Neo-Nazi bullshit because Libertarians love nothing better than to argue over who is a Libertarian.

 

"

Hmmm ? I did a search to be sure my a fore mentioned info was correct and it is . The Johnson / Weld ticket came in third place with 4.4 million votes. I'm sorry but that wasn't near enough to carry even a single state . What on Earth this means is beyond me since the Libertarian Party has lost every election since it's founding in 1972 and as I said will continue to do so in the absence of political talent which they do not have. I mean come on , Johnson?Weld? what a joke !

I also took the liberty of reviewing their platform for you and found no references alluding to anything you're speaking about. If you know of such I'd be happy to review this information and render my conclusions at that time though. You're certainly free to do that as well.

At the beginning of this exchange I stated the fact I know no one who claims any allegiance to this very small organization so I've no one I can consult with regarding this matter.
I've only their website and that's it. If I recall it seems their nominating convention might have been held online or something to that effect so as you can see rather a shoestring affair to say the very least.



Thank you for for your valuable and informative input thus far.

For your further information I'm posting the electoral results for them going back to their founding in 1972.

Year Presidential/Vice presidential candidate Popular votes Percentage Electoral votes
1972 John Hospers/Theodora Nathan 3,674 <0.01% 1
1976 Roger MacBride/David Bergland 172,553 0.21% 0
1980 Ed Clark/David Koch 921,128 1.06% 0
1984 David Bergland/James Lewis 228,111 0.25% 0
1988 Ron Paul/Andre Marrou (campaign) 431,750 0.47% 0
1992 Andre Marrou/Nancy Lord 290,087 0.28% 0
1996 Harry Browne/Jo Jorgensen 485,759 0.50% 0
2000 Harry Browne/Art Olivier (campaign) 384,431 0.36% 0
2004 Michael Badnarik/Richard Campagna (campaign) 397,265 0.32% 0
2008 Bob Barr/Wayne Allyn Root (campaign) 523,713 0.40% 0
2012 Gary Johnson/Jim Gray (campaign) 1,275,923 0.99% 0
2016 Gary Johnson/William Weld (campaign) 4,489,233 3.29% 0

 

Reading plain English never was a Libertarian thing. I said his own fucking party leaders rejected him. They rejected him as a presidential candidate and would gladly impeach the fart except their Neo-Nazi brethren would lynch them. They are leaders only in name, because nobody can agree what the fucking word Libertarian means or their president and representatives would actually get along and share the same taste as their constituents.

Play with fucking rhetoric and words all you want, but you still don't get it. Your fucking vote no longer matters. There is no fucking reason on earth to call anyone a Libertarian anymore or even a liberal. Scream as loud as you want, complain its UnAmerican if it makes you happy, protest that people should do something and they will laugh at you. Get real, your vote no longer fucking matters and all your rhetoric is worthless bullshit that makes no difference whatsoever.

You cannot make people listen to you, you cannot force them to play nice, you cannot create a democracy out of a sow's ear and heartfelt hatred for commies. People actually have to compromise in order to form a government, you know, with minorities. All the little people who have no money and whom Santa hates. Killing them all and throwing them over the border when you are through with them are not viable options. Creating two Libertarian parties because nobody can agree on what the word means is not a political solution to everyone voting for whoever advertises the most.

You ruined your own fucking government, refusing to ever share your fucking words, much less compromise, and as yea sow so shall yea reap. If the US becomes anymore corrupt and if white people die any faster the UN will have to declare a humanitarian crisis. Alcoholism, workaholism, and sheer piss and vinegar are killing you boy, and if that's what you insist on I can help.

 

Your example of the old west shows out of touch some of them are. The lack of goverment they seek is just not possible in the modern world only when it takes 3 weeks for a letter to reach the East Coast. In general it's the same goals as Republicans "goverment bad".

The lack of laws in the old west was because no one could enforce laws not because it worked well. But, I do agree on legal prostitution and other things you mentioned.

 

Libertarians just want to pretend we live in Little House on the Prairie.

 

Libertarians want everything in the world you can possibly imagine, except the rest of the world.

 

I don't know where you live of course but I can tell you it takes three days for a letter to travel from my house to another address in the same city a physical distance of 1.2 miles for example. Why? Because in this location all letters must be taken to a sort facility 110 miles away then brought back to the local post office for delivery.
It's very modern.