What draws you to libertarianism?

Discussion in 'Libertarian' started by Red Fox VII, Jul 27, 2014.

  1. Still Kicking

    Still Kicking Members

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    42
    To answer your first question, no, I don't think there ever will be.
    To answer the above, she does cover some solutions in there, private ownership, etc., but it is propaganda which always includes bashing the current regime. Which of course does little to further the Libertarian Party's agenda. The Party is not the final word on the values of people who believe in a libertarian system. It is a political party pretty much like the rest. It is made up of people, you see.
    I just tossed the link in as it did cover your comment, even though it was in a round about way.
     
  2. storch

    storch banned

    Messages:
    5,293
    Likes Received:
    717
    Agreed. If we the people do not collectively evolve into an adult, then we will continue to allow big-daddy governments to keep us as children with no say as to how things shall progress on this planet of ours. To begin with, we need to stop believing what we know to be outright lies. The first lie being that our representatives are acting on our behalf and in our best interest.
     
  3. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,485
    Likes Received:
    14,732
    Thanks for the 'like'. Maybe the libertarians would think that "we don't need no stinkin' representatives." We'll all just be responsible for ourselves. As in 'real life--some would--some wouldn't. Some are Darwinists as I mentioned. Their names are put before us again and again. They have no answers except ones that benefit themselves. Never mind empathy, morality or answers for the whole of humanity. Might as well be pissing upwind to think much will ever change. A man can get awfully cynical having lived for 75 years and seeing and observing what we --those of the leftist persuasion --have lived through and seen. As the kids might say--what-ev.

    Yet, I personally am a pretty damn happy individual IRL, believe it or not. I don't bother to think about this shit much. It would be debilitating to think that I or any other swingin' dick can do a damn thing about the state of the earth. Except in my own little corner.
     
  4. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    [SIZE=11pt]Still[/SIZE]


    [SIZE=11pt]I often do read stuff from the Cato Institute but actually it’s not that good since it’s basically just pumping out propaganda as part of the lobbying system that has been set up by wealth over the last 30 odd years (in this case it was founded by the notorious right wing Koch brothers)[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]Whatever you do take whatever they say with a large pinch of salt. [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]They produce dubiously based ‘reports’ that are basically opinion pieces, then these are laundered through the right wing media who present the conclusions as ‘facts’ (when they are nothing of the sort) and then wealth financed lobbyists try and use these ‘reports’ to convince politicians to change the law.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]It’s a big con game. [/SIZE]


    [SIZE=11pt]I’m all for change but why choose such a flawed philosophy to follow? [/SIZE]



    [SIZE=11pt]Quiet a statement but can you back it up? [/SIZE]



    [SIZE=11pt]Which ones are you talking about? [/SIZE]


    [SIZE=11pt]In the list of the happiest countries consistently the ones in the top five have been countries many Americans think of as being socialist – Denmark, Norway, Sweden etc.[/SIZE]




    [SIZE=11pt]Which falls apart straight away because not everything is under a person’s personal control. [/SIZE]



    [SIZE=11pt]Why not since other right wing libertarian policies would grant wealth huge power and influence? As someone else has pointed out it is simply naive to think that this would not advantage wealth in any litigation. [/SIZE]



    A policy of local welfare would again greatly favour wealth, those living in well off areas with higher incomes, low unemployment and low levels of disadvantage (and the social problems the last two can bring about) would have to pay very little for the provision of ‘welfare’. While more impoverished areas would be hard pressed to cover even basic provision.

    The already advantaged would be advantaged while all others would suffer.
     
    3 people like this.
  5. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    [SIZE=11pt]Still[/SIZE]


    [SIZE=11pt]This is exactly the main criticism levelled at Right wing libertarianism, a economy based on work or die principles would be exploitative in nature driving down wages across the board while increasing the return to wealth. Again this has been happening with the introduction of neo-liberal/’free market’ policies over the last thirty years with the incomes for the middle and lower classes either stagnating or falling while wealth’s riches have increased dramatically. The right wing libertarian model would greatly increase that trend. [/SIZE]



    [SIZE=11pt]This is basically fascistic in outlook but replacing race with wealth – those born into advantage get to exploit and those born into disadvantage are worked even unto death. [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt][Although in a American context there could well be a racist attraction for some to right wing libertarianism as Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census, and so would be hit worse in a right wing libertarianism system, the most likely to starve in other words.] [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]For Fascists the weeding out of ‘inferior’ people was good for their county and the human race for many right wing libertarians the same applies the weeding out of the lazy, indolent and unlucky ‘inferiors’ would they think improve the county and rid the economy of the ‘worthless’.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]And both views have the same origins the kind of eugenics that morphed into Social Darwinism, a crackpot idea that seems to underpin a lot of right wing libertarian thought.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]Scapegoats are not naturally occurring they are built, the fascists spend a lot energy getting people to dislike ‘others’ so that they didn’t mind them being forced to suffer – many on the right and especially many right wing libertarians seem to want to do the same with the disadvantaged, all the stuff about the irresponsible welfare scroungers and the lazy work shy who seek public assistance – and the intent seems to be the same to try and convince people that policies that make the disadvantaged suffer are justified.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]The thing is that this doesn’t seem to fit in with the statistics, many of the people seeking assistance are working and the majority are using welfare for short periods between jobs. Statistically the amount of abuse of the system seems small and there are mechanisms in place to counter it. [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]This is basically about trying to get a tax cut while forcing down wages a win, win for wealth. [/SIZE]
     
    2 people like this.
  6. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    [SIZE=11pt]Still[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]I’m glad that a right wing libertarian has come forward that is candid enough to explain just how bad right wing libertarianism would be for the majority of people. [/SIZE]


    [SIZE=11pt]Although I’m guessing that wasn’t your intent. But please look through what you have said and the criticism of it and you might just see why the opponents of these ideas see them the way they do. [/SIZE]
     
  7. Still Kicking

    Still Kicking Members

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    42
     
  8. Still Kicking

    Still Kicking Members

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    42
    I apologize for how I am answering these, I am trying to figure the system out to do it properly.
     
  9. Still Kicking

    Still Kicking Members

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    42
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    [SIZE=10.5pt]Still[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=10.5pt]I’m unsure what your argument is here you seem to be arguing that in your view all opinions have equal validity, that for example a creationist viewpoint is as valid as a geological or evolutionary one?[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=10.5pt]So it not a matter of weighing up which opinion seems more valid to see what seems more rational and stands up to scrutiny, it’s just a matter of ‘belief’. [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=10.5pt]I think that is irrational and in politics possibly dangerous because in politics opinions can turn into policies that affect people’s lives. So it is very important that ideas are scrutinised to see if they stand up to criticism. [/SIZE]



    [SIZE=10.5pt]pretty much everything you have said is nothing more than opinion and speculation, I don't take it as criticism[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=10.5pt]But opposing opinions are criticisms, In my opinion right wing libertarianism is flawed and I’ve explained why I think that, can you address those criticisms. [/SIZE]



    [SIZE=10.5pt]But should they be implemented? Are the ideas ant good? So far the right wing libertarians I’ve meet here don’t seem able to defend their ideas from criticisms – I mean if enough people believed in slavery would that make implementing slavery a good thing even for the enslaved? [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=10.5pt]As I’ve explained right wing libertarian policies seem flawed in many ways and geared toward helping wealth to the detriment of everyone else. [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=10.5pt]Are you telling us that you have never questioned your views and because and you refuse to discuss them in any debate in which they are criticised so you don’t even know if you can defend them from criticism. [/SIZE]



    [SIZE=10.5pt]What about those that inherit advantage? Nobody can choose where and to whom they are born, so a[/SIZE] child born into poverty did nothing to deserve the disadvantages associated with it but also the child born into wealth did nothing to deserve the advantages it receives.

    The question then arises is it justified for the person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages it didn’t deserve rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged.




    [SIZE=9pt], [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]so I am unable to determine if what you are saying is valid or not.[/SIZE]
    “Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children — more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year. “
    [SIZE=10.5pt]http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3894[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=10.5pt]But as pointed out many receiving assistance are working and many things are outside on a person’s personal control so they cannot be held responsible for it. [/SIZE]



    But the question is why should any type of right wing libertarian policies be even contemplated?

    The problem being that the ideas seem deeply flawed and not even their supporter seem able to defend it from criticism?

    [SIZE=10.5pt]I don't know why you feel it necessary to twist this whole commentary in the manner you have. All I have done is to provide you with answers to some questions you had earlier in the thread. [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=10.5pt]But you are not answering questions or addressing criticisms – linking to sites that also don’t answer my questions or address the criticisms doesn’t work and anyway it still doesn’t answer the question of what attracted you to right wing libertarianism. You said that it was because it made sense but as shown it only seem to make sense if the goal is to increase the power and influence of wealth. [/SIZE]
     
  11. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Why would anyone be drawn toward a philosophy that seems so flawed on such fundamental levels?

    Their ideas on competition, the economy, personal responsibility and so much more when looked at just don’t add up.

    So why do people hold onto these ideas? Do they never question then or examine them, but instead just accept them a face value, are people really that easily bamboozled?
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. McFuddy

    McFuddy Visitor

    Yep.
     
  13. 6-eyed shaman

    6-eyed shaman Sock-eye salmon

    Messages:
    10,378
    Likes Received:
    5,149
    This thread is about why the idea of libertarianism is appealing. Not why it's the best idea or the worst.

    I'll throw in another tidbit though. The idea is somewhat appealing to me because I'm the type of person who hates it when I'm at work, doing something I'm skilled and trained to do, and some butt head comes up to me, breathes down my neck, and tells me I should be doing it a different way. A butt head who's never done my job before no less. I'm sure most people hate having that happen too. Especially working in the trade profession. Most of the other isms that people cling to seem to thrive on authoritarian figures bossing others around. Authoritarian figures who have nothing more to show for themselves except being a career politician who serves for the 1 percent. It's no wonder the school system is falling apart and the next generation is gonna be a bunch'a retard babies. Teachers are being plenty oppressed by government and administrators who don't know jack shit about how to teach a class and make learning an enjoyable and interesting process.
     
  14. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    6 eyes



    I don’t think right wing libertarianism will stop that -in fact it will probably make it worse – as many have explained right wing libertarianism would increase the power and influence of wealth including the 1 percent (and even more the 0.1 percent).

    I mean one of the main criticisms levelled at Right wing libertarianism is that its seems to want an economy based on work or die principles which would be exploitative in nature driving down wages across the board while increasing the return to wealth.

    Sorry you are having trouble at work but in a right wing libertarian economy for most people the result would be increased pressure to work harder (for less) so it is likely that the pressure on those ‘butt heads’ to boss others around is also likely to increase.



    But right wing libertarian ideas would make things worse not better.

    Remember RWL’s think in terms of ‘free markets’

    Many are opposed to public funding and that includes public funding of education, for them it would come down to ability to pay, so that available to the poorer would be mediocre furthering their disadvantage while that for the richer would be much better giving the already advantaged even more of an advantage.

    Others want to bring in marketize public education system, through ‘voucher’ schemes which again would seem to favour the advantaged to the detriment of everyone else. And the localism often suggested by RWL’s would also again favour the advantaged.

    The problem with US public education is that it has been under assault from right wingers/neo-liberals/free marketeers for the last 30 odd years, cutting budgets, opposing a national curriculum, forcing onto it a testing culture rather than an educating culture so schools could ranked in a ‘market’ and then pumping out propaganda about the ‘failing’ public education system.

    There is need for reform but right wing libertarian polices are not the way to go.
     
  15. Still Kicking

    Still Kicking Members

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    42
    Interesting how some people use innuendo and personal opinions to illustrate how something that has not even been tried will not work.
    I suppose if they were to state what their personal political views are there would be lots of people who could do the same thing and "prove" that their ideas would not work either. But maybe in another thread so that they don't hijack another person's thread since most people start these things in the interest of finding insights on a particular subject and the ADD approach makes it difficult to stay interested.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    still



    As I’ve already pointed out it is better to try and work out if something is likely to work beneficially before trying it. There needs to be a risk assessment.

    That is why ideas are tested in debate to see if they can seemingly stand up to scrutiny.

    The thing about right wing libertarian views is that they seemed to be flawed even fatally flawed and the people that promote them do not seem able to defend them from these criticisms.



    My view is that right wing libertarian views seem very badly flawed – if you think that isn’t so then please show us why you thing that wrong.

    The forum is full of my views and I’ve stated them in many threads on many subjects, if you wish to criticize them please just go ahead I’d be very happy to try and defend them, I actually like debate not seemingly afraid of it like so many right wing libertarians. :)
     
    2 people like this.
  17. Still Kicking

    Still Kicking Members

    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    42
    @balbus

    If you want a pissing match, or what you consider "debate" then start a new thread. I have issues with hijacking a thread another person started for a specific purpose.

    In reply to the above, I have stated my views on that in the post just prior to that and in my other posts regarding this matter. I have no need to defend a libertarian or even an anarchist viewpoint (my views run more to that side of things) since in my own opinion they would work just fine, and I really don't care what others think regarding them. If a person is interested in those views, then sure, I am always interested in discussing them, but I don't have to prove anything I believe in to you or anyone else is valid or not. I don't see that what you are doing here is a debate or even a reasonable discussion of the issue of libertarian views.

    Innuendo and personal opinions are nothing that can be debated with any real purpose. You think things ought to be one way, others may not agree and vice-versa. You cannot debate something that has no basis in fact since it is all pure speculation, and no one could ever be satisfied with the outcome of such a debate. Libertarian views, although partially used in the formation of this country, are just that, viewpoints. People can argue as to the merits of them but what would be the point? As I have also stated previously, what you are attempting to trash has mostly not been tried, so there is little point in continuing what would only become an argument of views. You consistently trash what you consider to be a "right wing libertarian" stance when you have no way of knowing If the ideas contained within that stance have ever really been given the chance to work, and so are pretty much theory at this point. You provide virtually nothing that backs up your views that they won't work other than your personal opinion, and then want someone to tell you why it would work so that you don't have to put forth the effort to substantiate your views with anything other that innuendo. There is no question in your mind they won't work for reasons you keep to yourself. I don't need to repeat what the libertarians have already said, you already know one source, which is a big one in the libertarian community, which is the Cato organization, so you already are aware of those views, what would be the point of repeating them again here, just so you can trash them yet again for no good purpose?

    If your idea of a debate is done in the manner you present here, then there is no debate, there is only your personal opinion on matters that you decided don't fit your world view and are unwilling to consider in any manner and that is all your "debate" would be, a never ending argument over what may never happen. What is the point to that?

    You know, for something that purports to be a "hip" place, this forum surely does have an inordinate amount of narrow and close minded individuals who prefer to just trash new or differing ideas instead of holding an intelligent discussion about them.

    I won't discuss the matter further here, start another thread if you think it is so important.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. sunfighter

    sunfighter Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    3,814
    Likes Received:
    286
    I find it interesting that 6-eyed and Still Kicking think it is hijacking the thread to offer opinions and criticisms of libertarianism. They just want happy talk, no real thinking. Maybe the wisest thing is that libertarianism should never be tried in real life because it is a terribly flawed philosophy.
     
  19. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,799
    Online forums, this one as an example, do not usually engage in formal debates. Formal debates are of several differing types and are mostly set up by time constraints and agreed upon rules.

    We have no time constraints and the only rules are against personal attacks, and such.

    So any "debates" we engage in are free to include personal opinions, facts, statistics, persuasion, negative or positive contentions, humor; whatever.
     
  20. Gongshaman

    Gongshaman Modus Lascivious

    Messages:
    4,602
    Likes Received:
    998
    And that is the beauty of HF. It's not only free speech, it's free-form free speech :beatnik:
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice