Why I disagree with Libertarianism

Libertarianism is sort of like when you know there are hungry wolves outside of your barn, but instead of trying to get rid of the wolves, you open the door because you think the real problem is that the sheep are trapped and can't get out.

 

My objective to libertarian ideals is simple: due to the complicated and interconnected world, nobody has the bandwidth in their lives to effectively act in their own self interest on every possible choice. In fact, there's a thing called choice fatigue where people become mentally exhausted when confronted with too many options. For instance, I don't have the bandwidth to look up whether chicken producer A or chicken producer B caused my neighbor to come down with salmonella last week. Instead, I want assurances that neither producer is putting out a product that will make me ill. And the government is the only entity with the capacity to effectively do that.

Regulations are vital, because otherwise once that choice fatigue sets it, we become victims to all kinds of salesmanship shenanigans.

 

American libertarians seems to pride themselves on not being Republican. But to me the two philosophies are interchangeable. It's being conservative but edgy.

"I'm not a Republican man, I'm for personal freedoms". Whatever you need to tell yourself but you are in no way sticking up for the little guy or equality. It's the dog eat dog world of big business where no helps anyone because if you need help you do not deserve it do it yourself

AKA Republican

 

Americans have been voting for whoever advertises the most or screams the loudest for the last twenty years, because the Tea Party succeeded in throwing our government in the toilet. That's why I disagree with Libertarianism, because it is self-destructive and is the reason it is now illegal to vote for Mickey Mouse in the state of Maryland. The only thing the idiots care about is who can give them money, and anyone who comes up with a better sounding plan to do that or whoever advertises the most gets elected. Libertarians often shoot themselves in the foot, with entire towns in Colorado basically closing down all their emergency services even in the name of freedom and low-low taxes. There is no such thing anymore as a functional government in the US, and Donald Duck is merely the first corporate executive to repay the Tea Party for trashing our government, by making their Republican party leaders bend over and accept him as their candidate for president.

A billionaire reality TV star and fan of Professional Wrestling, who was a democrat, converted to a liberal republican, and suddenly became a Tea Party enthusiast when he decided to run for office. The only thing Libertarians understand is either you dominate or submit, because actual politics or even thinking are simply beyond their capacity. Either everything makes sense to them personally, or its anathema and a possible way for socialism to take over the country. I've had more meaningful and productive conversations with three year olds. When I've pointed out their votes no longer seem to matter because everyone is voting for whoever advertises the most, and they've agreed with me, their first response is usually, "We have to vote the bums out of office!"

Libertarians are complete idiots I normally give a good distance to, because it is totally pointless talking to them when the lights are on, but nobody is home. Their idea of socializing, politics, and religion is collectively making demands and ranting like the KKK or something.

 

If you don't even have the freedom to say no to yourself, then I have to ask, "Who am I talking to?" Should I really bother? Can you point me to the manager? Your owner?

 

One thing I like about Libertarianism is it's pro peace unlike the Democrat or Republican parties.

 

Ending wars is one the main platforms for libertarians. Most Republicans and Democrats aren't in favor of ending the wars. Now we're assisting in another messy one in Yemen. No congressional approval of course.

 

What if the goal of the participation would be to help end that war?

 

Saudi Arabia is our ally and we're the one's who sold them the weapons to fight the war.

 

From what I've seen, the past Republican and Democratic president have run on platforms of non-interventionism, and then have let the smart bombs fly.

The worlds a complicated place, and when all you have is a smart bomb, every problem looks like a good place for a smart bomb hole.

 

The drones are next, and the older smart bombs are now on sale for special customers. The Pentagon just successfully tested their new "swarm" technology and is working on putting 40,000 drones in the water that are powered by the water itself. Between the AI and the machines, Wall Street will never be the same again.

 

If Geo-libertarians could take over the party I would support it. As libertarians are now they would just pave the way for corporate feudalism. Geo-libertarians support a tax on using natural resources and a citizens dividend: if you use more than your share of the earth’s resources you should pay the rest of humanity for it. With that equalization of wealth people would have real freedom rather than being slaves of the corporations.

 

I disagree. Government- or some coercive force- is what brings on "corporate feudalism". It is actually very difficult to sustain a monopoly over a long period of time. As long as new entrants are not prevented from competing, I don't think your scenario is valid.

 

Over 40% of all Wall Street trades are already automated, while over a trillion dollars was invested in AI research last year alone. Feudalism is a lifestyle, while a lifestyle driven by computers is a death sentence, with the entire workaholic populations of Japan and the white US and EU, imploding faster than any other for decades. The more money you throw at them and the harder they work, the shorter their lives and the less often they reproduce. Metaethics rule the fucking universe, no matter how hard academics and Wall Street lawyers attempt to deny the simple truth.

Fuck em all, they are about to gag on their own crap.

 

Government protecting current property rights is a big intervention that goes way beyond the natural right to the results of your labor. The more you have the more you can buy until a few people own most property and everyone else has to serve them or starve. That’s what happened in the 1800s and would have continued without FDR’s reforms.

 

FDR's "reforms" took what would have been a garden variety "depression" and turned it into the Mother of All Recessions (to use the words in their meanings circa 1930).

I do not think history backs up your claim that without the heavy hand of government, a few people would own most property. The nexus of political power with money is a very corrupting force in a society- that's why people of my persuasion want minimal government.

 

The bigger problem is that whenever businesses get too big they use government to their advantage whether it preaches laissez faire or not. Hoover and FDR botched a lot of things up about responding to the depression, tariffs for instance. But I think minimum wage, CCC, and Social Security were things that helped. The prosperity of the 1950s probably resulted from things like that and the G.I. Bill.
The advantage of Geo libertarianism is that it keeps government small while also limiting how big business gets.