Flawed Libertarianism

Still

I’m pointing out what I see as mistakes in right wing libertarian thinking, you still seem to be refusing to address them.

Yet you cannot defend these ideas from criticism

What ‘facts? What ‘truth? What has been proven to you about right wing libertarianism that brought you to believe in it even when is seems clear you are unable to address the criticisms of it that seem to show it is flawed?

It very much seems to me like blind and unquestion faith - you don’t seem to be putting forward rational arguments

Sorry the fact is that there are many differing versions of ‘libertarianism’ one type is right wing libertarianism, that usually support ‘free market’ systems based on competition and often Social Darwinist principles.

Lets put that in reverse – who here would support the idea that people had no rights and a political system should be able to do what it wished with you?
Any takers?

This is silly stop sprouting rhetoric and address whats actually been raised

Yet you seem unable to explain what that is or why you’d like it?

 

[SIZE=11pt]Still[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]What doomsday scenario? Have a lot of people died? What things are working and what not? How did you survive? How many neighbors? How did they survive? Where are you? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]What have you had to cope with? Why is it difficult to find food? What food? What survival thing? What are you surviving on? Have you hoarded food and if you are the only one with food in the whole area what are the neighbors doing for food? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You say you are producing food what food how you say you are doing it in a garden why a garden how big is this garden? You also say you are hunting, but hunting what, if all the neighbors are also hunting, soon you’ll have no game.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Most Americans live in urban areas with little access to land or huntable game, what happens in those places? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]He wants to borrow some shoes? Are you saying the catastrophe destroyed all the shoes? I mean if there were a lot of dead people there are lots of shoes not to mention all the shoe shops, supermarkets etc. [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Still[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The scenario doesn’t make sense until you look at its basis and you see that this scenario isn’t a scenario at all it’s a statement of Stills belief presented in the form of a self serving story written to ‘prove’ the belief to be true. [/SIZE]

Still seems to believe anyone who seek assistance are inferior types who are lazy, scroungers that for the good of superior types like himself (intelligent enough to see what was coming, resourceful strong and healthy, oh and of course very kind at heart) must be allowed to die off.

But let’s look at the real world not his dream

The whole point about a work or die system is that it’s about people who through no fault of their own find themselves in hardship should be allowed to suffer even in some cases unto death.

This is basically covered in the post above on the deserving and undeserving but to put it simply

The majority of people want to work in fact a lot of the people needing to seek assistance are working or have worked and will work again.

The right doesn’t like to mention that preferring to concentrate on the bum in the gutter who is ‘refusing’ to work and using them to justify cutting all welfare to everyone.

They then push for a system open to exploitation, were people are so desperate not to fall into hardship that they will accept lower wages and worse conditions, because it’s better to have a job at any price given the alternative could be a decent into hell even death.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Still [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So it’s not the form that libertarianism takes as long as its libertarianism - so you would be as happy under left wing libertarianism (no private property, no inheritance, collectivism, equality)? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So is communism, capitalism, fascism etc as long as you look at them in a simplistic why all philosophies look easy to understand. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And as long as you refuse to address the criticisms of them and blindly stick to the simplistic view they remain ‘easy’.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

on it, but are now discussing an entirely different thing.

[SIZE=11pt]If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its probably a duck even if some swears blind it’s an elephant.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]What ‘original’ philosophy – what is the single origin of libertarian thought – are you claiming it was born fully formed with no influence from past ideas?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It’s like saying we must talk of primates and not differentiate between the differing types a so that a humans should me see as exactly like a chimp or lemur. Is silly and irrational – there are many shades of libertarianism just as there are many shades of socialism or capitalism. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You clearly didn’t read the posts – to quote the first line of the OP[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]There are many forms of libertarianism, the one I’m talking about here is the one that seems to have become prominent in the US (and elsewhere) that of right wing libertarianism[/SIZE] (RWL) this can also have many shades but all I think seem flawed on a fundamental level.

 

Still

You seem to be going off on numerous tangents that doesn’t seem to be addressing the issues raised and often seem more about trying to muddy the waters rather than clearing them.

Can you please address the criticisms I’ve raised – if you think them wrong then explain why you think them wrong.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Blake[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I agree[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

I agree

 

The first question is why are they struggling?

Also as I’ve explained localism is fine up to a point but only up to a point because a policy of local welfare only would greatly favour wealth, those living in well off areas with low unemployment and low levels disadvantage (and the social problems they can bring about) would not 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.

 

Keeping in mind that it is possible to live comfortably at what is considered a subsistence level, the sort of data in the report I provided, while probably pretty accurate, fails to represent the fact that people can live a decent life with little actual cash, having done so for eons already. Since the amount of dollars people have are usually the measure of "how well off they are", it is difficult to determine if the people presented as poor were in fact struggling to the point of non-existence.

.Actually, the one job I ever had where I was forced into a 401K scheme resulted in my losing that income, through a "restructuring" of the firm. After that fiasco I was determined to never have anything of the sort again, and we decided to rely on ourselves for our existence from then on. This involved educating ourselves further in how to live with little money, as people like me who work in labor type jobs generally have little extra cash.

I have no information that is for or against this statement. I saw nothing that said they could not do so, only that Roosevelt created the systems he did. I may have missed that part, but I don't remember seeing anything about that.

I don't really know how they would set up a libertarian administration. Hopefully it would be more efficient than what the government does now.

 

You are only pointing out your opinions regarding them. As I have already stated quite a few times, your "RWL" ideas have never been implemented, and are only speculation on the part of those espousing them.

I have no desire to defend your "RWL" ideas, libertarian ones, yes, I believe are valid and worthy of consideration. Radical offshoots of libertarian ideals aren't really worthy in my opinion. The whole libertarian philosophy to me would make for a more efficient government than anything we have seen yet, but not one that was based on a few of those ideals.

I said I prefer facts etc. to speculation and having things proven to me. Again, you obfuscate the issue. The only reason I am even discussing the matter is that you seem bent on grouping all libertarian ideals into your "right wing libertarian" fantasy, and I don't think that is right. Libertarian ideology is just as valid as that espoused by any other political ideology, some people think it preferable to what is currently being followed, some don't.

I never blindly follow anything. You obviously have not been paying attention to what I have been writing in these forums.

I agree totally, there are many differing versions of libertarianism just as there are in any political ideology. So, the fact is when you take one ideology, split portions of it off, and follow only parts of it, you have created something totally different. Again, this is why I am even discussing the matter with you, as you seem to be presenting libertarian ideas with your take on what is "RWL". If you would like info on the libertarian views on the free market system, I would be happy to discuss those too. Keeping in mind, of course, that they are speculation still, and whether they would work or not remains to be seen.

Obfuscating again. If you paid any attention at all to the libertarian ideology it would be clear that it is the rights of the people that are paramount in that proposed system. As I understand it, PART of how that would work is a simplified and much cheaper legal system that would enable people of lesser means to be able to use it.

I agree. Why don't you stop rambling and address one point at a time so that it is possible to do so?


Yet you seem unable to explain what that is or why you’d like it?

 

[SIZE=12pt]Still[/SIZE]

You don’t know and you are hopeful – again you seem to be basing you ideas on blind faith rather than logical and rational thought.

You don’t seem to have looked into anything with any depth you don’t seem to have questioned what you say and you seem totally incapable of addressing the criticisms of your views.

Your beliefs sound more like religious conviction.

 

Still

Blind faith again?

And you base this on faith

*

You seem to be saying you will refuse to address any criticism you find difficult to address about your chosen beliefs while claiming things would be better under your form of libertarianism because that’s what you believe.

It isn’t rational or reasonable just ignoring things that seem to undermine your ideas does not make them go away.

 

It was a simplistic example, like I said. I was trying to address your obsession with your "work or die" issue you seem to think is prevalent in "RWL", even though I can't find anything that points to that in even what is considered the "RWL" philosophy.
The example was general in nature and obviously points to a person who has, like I said, arranged his affairs so that he would be able to cope with an adverse situation, and a little scenerio to set the stage for the discussion.. If you prefer to obfuscate that as well, then there is no point in tying to address your "work or die" issue.

 

It doesn't make sense to you maybe. And you are in error in thinking that that it is a "statement of Stills belief presented in the form of a self serving story written to ‘prove’ the belief to be true." as you know nothing about me. If you prefer to take this route then there is no sense in trying to discuss anything further. Like I said, I was attempting to address your work or die issue, I guess you prefer to not do that so we can drop that issue.

Again, speculation on your part. So far you provide nothing to back up your statements except for innuendo and false claims. Your ADD approach to discussions make it difficult to continue. I have been providing what information is available for what is, again, a political philosophy that has yet to be tried. Would they work? Who knows?

Nice attitude for a "super moderator"

Since your "work or die" system does not exist, either in fact or opinion, other than your own, you are becoming boring in your persistence of trying to cast libertarianism in a bad light through this avenue.

Really? Where?

And your source for this opinion is what?

"The right"? You talk like there is some specific organization that lies in wait to pounce on innocent and hardworking people who have fallen on hard times. If you were to actually take some time and try to understand what you read about libertarianism you would understand that they are not against welfare, just the with the failed system the federal government has adopted. Since you don't state it, but from your comments it is obvious you are some form of liberal, I can understand why you are against the concept of personal liberty. My own observations (sorry, no data, note that it is a personal observation) those of the modern liberal bent seem to have difficulty functioning without a nanny to wipe their noses for them. Of course, this takes more taxes, more government intrusions, etc. While you may be happy with that, I doubt everyone is.

Of course, the obvious thing you avoid mentioning is that the current and past systems are and have been exploited to the point where people in this country are little more than worker bees in a hive, with little to no incentive to do anything different, which is good for those in control.

 

No, like I said, I like the original, for lack of a better way to express it, libertarian philosophy, not any of the skewed offshoots of that philosophy, like I also said.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

LOL

Post #13 above. If I have to repeat everything this will turn into a very long thread. Libertarian views have been forming for centuries. From what I have been able to ascertain generally in response to abuses from other forms of government.

I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that if you take the original philosophy, and change it in some manner, then it becomes an entirely different philosophy. I have also stated this previously, so you were answered already.

[SIZE=11pt]Y[/SIZE]

So you do understand.

 

Funny, it appears to me that you are doing the exact same thing, as I have noted in other posts. I can't address your criticisms from your view that they are libertarian issues, as they don't appear to be in the manner you present them. It is difficult to follow your reasoning. However, I will start back at the beginning of your rant and try, one at a time.

 

I have already answered this point. Your speculating on scenarios that may or may not happen is irrelevant and only leads to pointless arguments. You seem to think that a libertarian government will bring about all sorts of "bad" things, yet there is no way of knowing.
You may have explained your views on "localism" , but what you have missed so far is that this is exactly what we had prior to the welfare system we have now. Did it work? It worked for some just like the current system works for some now.
This brings up another point in regards to your "work or die" scenario. In the current system, when a person has been on welfare for a certain length of time, I think it is 5 years. The money stops. Oh, you can still get food stamps and the like, IF you qualify, so at some point the money is cut off. Then what? Work or die?
There are already many non-profit organizations that help take up the slack, (churches and the like) but they don't give a free ride forever either.
Your whole hang up on the libertarian philosophy creating a "work or die" scenario fails, as it already takes place under the current system.

 

Yes, hopeful. You see, it is difficult to foresee the future so we can't know if a different system would work, can we? So far as blind faith goes, you are in error. As others in these forums can attest, I pretty much make it an issue to base my discussions, and also my beliefs, on facts, logic, and rational thought. I have to prove something will work to me in some manner using those tools before I will become involved in it. Unlike your preference for mere opinion, innuendo, and obfuscation, I prefer to tackle issues directly with facts first. I try to make every effort to make sure others know when I am just stating an opinion, something you might try, in order to be taken more seriously.

How would you know?

Well, if we take the original use of the term religion, at least so far as I have been able to ascertain it, the word merely means "belief" to start with, so your use of it here sounds more like "Your beliefs sound more like belief conviction" is nonsensical. If you are trying to say that what I believe in regards to libertarianism is not based on sound principles, then you would be in error. You have no knowledge of my background so how would you know?
Just so you do know, and this I have stated previously also, I was a member of the Libertarian Party for a number of years. I was the Chair for our local county libertarian organization for a few years until we moved away. I have studied the matter pretty thoroughly and I am confident I have a pretty good grasp on the libertarian principles. I gave up on the Libertarian Party after half a dozen years of so as I became disillusioned with politics in general, and became more anarchist than anything else. Even so, I prefer the libertarian prinicples over any other, in regards to political views.
So, where did you receive your education in libertarian principles? Was it by being involved? Was it during meetings at your local democrat headquarters? Was it from skimming a few articles here and there on the internet? Please tell me how you came about your great knowledge of libertarian principles, I would like to know.

 

The Libertarian Party started out with some nice ideas during the 1970s in Colorado, by some good intentioned Hippies. Unfortunately, it has been hijacked by right wing extremists and Neo-Cons from the Republican Party.

 

balbus states this at the beginning of the thread that in regards to "right wing libertarian" principles:

Yes, you have criticized, but offered just your opinions in support of them.

First, let's define the word competition, since you only offer your opinion of what it means and applies to:

noun1.the act of competing; rivalry for supremacy, a prize, etc.:

The competition between the two teams was bitter.


2.a contest for some prize, honor, or advantage:

Both girls entered the competition.


3.the rivalry offered by a competitor:

The small merchant gets powerful competition from the chain stores.


4.a competitor or competitors:

What is your competition offering?


5.Sociology. rivalry between two or more persons or groups for an object desired in common, usually resulting in a victor and a loser but not necessarily involving the destruction of the latter.
6.Ecology. the struggle among organisms, both of the same and of different species, for food, space, and other vital requirements.

The following is my opinion based on past reading:
Competition is a natural thing. Everything on earth competes to survive, I doubt anyone can really argue that fact. You seem to think that this is the basis for libertarianism, yet there is little mention of anything in this regard in libertarian principles. Indeed, if you read them you would find statements like this taken from the national Libertarian Party's web page:
http://www.lp.org/platform

"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with pSince governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.rivate property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

It is a fairly long document, and I won't duplicate it here. I think it is difficult to find references to competition as being at the root of libertarianism based on their stated principles.

Yes, given that you are in error that it even applies.

Nothing in there about this sort of thing either. Libertarianism is about the right of the individual to her or his liberties, not about competition.

Which has nothing to do with libertarianism

All of which is immaterial to libertarianism as it is stated. This is merely your twisted opinion based on nothing you provide to substantiate it.

 

What does any of this have to do with libertarianism of any form?