Libertarians and Communists share the same fatal flaw

[Conza88]

But even in a Libertarian society, the evil will rise to the top. I just don't buy in any way that good always triumphs. I have been in college... and God have I been shocked by how many people cheat! It is a pandemic, and this is a major University.

Even if the society were wholesale Libertarian, you will quickly get the first guy to offer an easy solution in a hard time. And because people are in pain, they will take it. It erodes so quickly, it is indeed a pipe dream. It would literally take a revolution every 10 years for a Libertarian society to function. That is the reality I am talking about. People throw away their freedom all the time. They simply don't love it like Libertarians do. They don't even understand it. Most of the time, they don't even want it. They want a house, car wife kids, a lazy boy and a beer. How those things come to them, they really don't care, as long as they have them. In fact, as long as they have them, they most of the time certainly don't care if somebody else doesn't.

Did you even read my response? Bar the first para?

 

[NewEnd]

Did you even read my response? Bar the first para?

yes. And I agreed with some of it ,disagreed with other parts. I just didn't want to get into it.

And I never tried to understand "Austrian economics", nor was "Austrian Economics" really a part of the Libertarian platform. I look at economics through my own lens, and life perceptions and thoughts. I don't think money has to be precious metal based. It's better than debt based, yes of course, but gold isn't everything anymore, and money should represent what you can buy with it.

 

[Jason T]

Here's something I find odd about libertarians:

No matter whether or not if someone is e a moderate or pure libertarian, they feel they have to defend the purist view. For example, Milton Friedman was a moderate libertarian, yet often defended the purist view. I guess this was for a intellectual consistency.

The problem is, this makes the message more confusing. Ron Paul, for example, would talk about eliminating every program that isn't allowed by the constitution, while also talking about the need of a transition state between the current system and his desired system. The problem is, critics would only rely his desired system to make him sound more extreme.

I personally think that in politics, saying less is more. I personally feel that libertarian minded people shouldn't publicly defend the purist view, and only pick out a few libertarian minded goals that would actually be politically realistic. We aren't going to go from 40% government to 3% government overnight, no reason to talk like we are.

 

[NewEnd]

That's funny, I was about to say the same thing, except meaner. Libertarians don't handle dissent well, at all. Even over the small things.

 

[Conza88]

yes. And I agreed with some of it ,disagreed with other parts. I just didn't want to get into it.

Would love to know what and why. You are going into "it" with everyone else, yet conveniently ignoring my whole post.

And I never tried to understand "Austrian economics", nor was "Austrian Economics" really a part of the Libertarian platform. I look at economics through my own lens, and life perceptions and thoughts. I don't think money has to be precious metal based. It's better than debt based, yes of course, but gold isn't everything anymore, and money should represent what you can buy with it.

This much as obvious. Oh, so you only were advertising and campaigning for a political PARTY? Not a philosophy? You do realise a gold standard is a free market in money? It's just that over thousands of years, gold has generally one out and been chosen by the market... that is open to change.

Furthermore, your objections are all addressed within basic and fundamental books. "What has Government Done to our Money?" By Murray N. Rothbard. Free pdf's, audiobook etc at mises.org.

Maybe you should understand the philosophy you were advocating... and not the one you THOUGHT you were advocating... aye?

 

[Conza88]

Here's something I find odd about libertarians:

No matter whether or not if someone is e a moderate or pure libertarian, they feel they have to defend the purist view. For example, Milton Friedman was a moderate libertarian, yet often defended the purist view. I guess this was for a intellectual consistency.

Hahah and what purist view was that? He wasn't anything near "purist". And by "purist" I mean logical and consistent and principled. He was a positivist. A utilitarian. And he made things worse, i.e making the state more efficient.

The problem is, this makes the message more confusing. Ron Paul, for example, would talk about eliminating every program that isn't allowed by the constitution, while also talking about the need of a transition state between the current system and his desired system. The problem is, critics would only rely his desired system to make him sound more extreme.

Maybe confusing for you.

I personally think that in politics, saying less is more. I personally feel that libertarian minded people shouldn't publicly defend the purist view, and only pick out a few libertarian minded goals that would actually be politically realistic. We aren't going to go from 40% government to 3% government overnight, no reason to talk like we are.

You need to read up on strategy for Liberty. Sorry, but no-one is going to the barricades for a 3% reduction in the income tax, adjusted annually for inflation over a 10year period making sure tax brackets are not altered.

The only reason there is a "rEVOLution" is because Ron Paul talks radically. The only reason anyone is essentially here on this forum, is because of it.

If you want the liberty strategy sources, just ask.

That's funny, I was about to say the same thing, except meaner. Libertarians don't handle dissent well, at all. Even over the small things.

Oh I am fine with dissent, we're not all robots here, we're individuals. I just don't handle willful ignorance and fallacies / lies very well.

 

[NewEnd]

Would love to know what and why. You are going into "it" with everyone else, yet conveniently ignoring my whole post.

Meh. I guess I just don't like the way you jibe. Telling me I don't understand Libertarianism and all. I simply don't appreciate it. You can either talk to me like somebody that has indeed spent a good portion of his life as a Libertarian activist, perhaps even before you were, and show me some fucking respect, or you can be ignored.

 

[Trimbeaux]

Sorry Bolsheviks where not better for Russia.

Try again, Even if the Romanov's where not the best for Russia, Communist Totalitarian Regime was thousand times worse.

Russia (1900-17): 95 000

* Romanov Regime:
o Rummel blames Tsar Nikolai for 1,070,000 democides; however, his evidence is (by his own admission) not as solid as he would like, so take this number with a grain of salt. Also, 975,000 of these would be included among the dead from the First World War (many -- 400T -- being mistreated POWs, along with 75T Turks/Kurds massacred, 83T German deportees dead, etc.) so we only have some 95,000 democides which occurred independently of WW1. Some 2,000 of these were killed in Jewish pogroms.
o Eckhardt, civil conflicts in 1905-06:
+ Pogrom, Russians vs Jews: 2,000
+ Peasants & Workers vs Govt: 1,000
o James Trager, The People's Chronology (1992): Pogroms in Russia kill some 50,000 Jews by 1909 ("1905")
o OnWar.com: Pogroms in Russia (1903) k. 50,000 Jews
o NOTE: I can't find supporting evidence for these high numbers killed in the pogroms. Most individual events seem to have killed dozens, and very occasionally hundreds.
+ "In the famous pogrom of Kishinev in 1903, there were 49 Jewish deaths out of a Jewish population of about 50,000; in Bialystok in 1906, 70 deaths out of about 48,000 Jews." (http://www.west.net/~jazz/felshtin/redcross.html)
+ "During 1903 and 1904, 45 pogroms occurred, 95 Jews and 13 non-Jews were killed, and 4,200 people were severely injured." (http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000418.html)

 

[NewEnd]

Try again, Even if the Romanov's where not the best for Russia, Communist Totalitarian Regime was thousand times worse.

Russia (1900-17): 95 000

* Romanov Regime:
o Rummel blames Tsar Nikolai for 1,070,000 democides; however, his evidence is (by his own admission) not as solid as he would like, so take this number with a grain of salt. Also, 975,000 of these would be included among the dead from the First World War (many -- 400T -- being mistreated POWs, along with 75T Turks/Kurds massacred, 83T German deportees dead, etc.) so we only have some 95,000 democides which occurred independently of WW1. Some 2,000 of these were killed in Jewish pogroms.
o Eckhardt, civil conflicts in 1905-06:
+ Pogrom, Russians vs Jews: 2,000
+ Peasants & Workers vs Govt: 1,000
o James Trager, The People's Chronology (1992): Pogroms in Russia kill some 50,000 Jews by 1909 ("1905")
o OnWar.com: Pogroms in Russia (1903) k. 50,000 Jews
o NOTE: I can't find supporting evidence for these high numbers killed in the pogroms. Most individual events seem to have killed dozens, and very occasionally hundreds.
+ "In the famous pogrom of Kishinev in 1903, there were 49 Jewish deaths out of a Jewish population of about 50,000; in Bialystok in 1906, 70 deaths out of about 48,000 Jews." (http://www.west.net/~jazz/felshtin/redcross.html)
+ "During 1903 and 1904, 45 pogroms occurred, 95 Jews and 13 non-Jews were killed, and 4,200 people were severely injured." (http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000418.html)

OK, you are pro Tsarist. I get it. Seeing how you skipped why I thought the revolution was good, you also skipped how I noted revolutions =/= the regimes afterwards... keep talking to yourself. I really don't give a fuck.

 

[Conza88]

Meh. I guess I just don't like the way you jibe. Telling me I don't understand Libertarianism and all. I simply don't appreciate it.

The reasons for you "quitting" and turning your back on "Libertarianism", are all due to fallacies. Blatant ones at that. Which someone who actually understood the Austrian School of Economics (see: Rothbard for starters, who was known as MR. LIBERTARIAN) then maybe, just maybe you wouldn't be capitulating like you are now. And considering the last few years you spent in activism as a waste.

You can either talk to me like somebody that has indeed spent a good portion of his life as a Libertarian activist, perhaps even before you were, and show me some fucking respect, or you can be ignored.

Good for you. Hopefully you converted a lot of folks. It's hard competing against state indoctrination / education and propaganda.

My lack of respect atm is due to you refusing to engage in my arguments, which imo - destroy yours, as to why you thought you were wrong.

I'm trying to save you, and you ain't listening. You're ignoring my responses as far as I can tell. How about showing me some respect.

 

[NewEnd]

My lack of respect atm is due to you refusing to engage in my arguments, which imo - destroy yours, as to why you thought you were wrong.

Thanks for the compliment, its all the shit after I could do without.

 

[Kludge]

Here's something I find odd about libertarians:

No matter whether or not if someone is e a moderate or pure libertarian, they feel they have to defend the purist view. For example, Milton Friedman was a moderate libertarian, yet often defended the purist view. I guess this was for a intellectual consistency.

The problem is, this makes the message more confusing. Ron Paul, for example, would talk about eliminating every program that isn't allowed by the constitution, while also talking about the need of a transition state between the current system and his desired system. The problem is, critics would only rely his desired system to make him sound more extreme.

I personally think that in politics, saying less is more. I personally feel that libertarian minded people shouldn't publicly defend the purist view, and only pick out a few libertarian minded goals that would actually be politically realistic. We aren't going to go from 40% government to 3% government overnight, no reason to talk like we are.

If we only picked a limited number of goals and kept silent about others, we would be unable to discuss philosophy, as the ultimate end of self-ownership (which I imagine the vast majority of libertarians base their ethical beliefs on) is autonomy. That's essentially crippling libertarians, since libertarianism often would not benefit those the government is subsidizing, which is a vast majority and growing number of people. We could argue CATO-style with statistics and projections, and maybe offer compromised alternatives, but how would respond to someone claiming they have a right to healthcare? Why SHOULDN'T government redistribute wealth if it can cut the bureaucracy? Unless we evade or lie outright through inconsistency, I think it would be impossible go through life discussing politics but not philosophy.

 

[torchbearer]

This thread reminds of our libertarian central committee meetings.
scheduled for 2 hours, would go on for 8 hours.
Constant debate, constant introduction of facts, harsh words of minute differences.
the anarchist around the table usually getting pissed enough to walk out and smoke a cigarette.

ah, brings back memories.

 

[NewEnd]

If we only picked a limited number of goals and kept silent about others, we would be unable to discuss philosophy, as the ultimate end of self-ownership (which I imagine the vast majority of libertarians base their ethical beliefs on) is autonomy. That's essentially crippling libertarians, since libertarianism often would not benefit those the government is subsidizing, which is a vast majority and growing number of people. We could argue CATO-style with statistics and projections, and maybe offer compromised alternatives, but how would respond to someone claiming they have a right to healthcare? Why SHOULDN'T government redistribute wealth if it can cut the bureaucracy? Unless we evade or lie outright through inconsistency, I think it would be impossible go through life discussing politics but not philosophy.

Liberal: Yes, healthcare. And what about police departments... should they be private too?
Sucker Libertarian: OF course.... blah blah blah libertarian philosophy blah blah




Good one guy, you lost another customer.

 

[Kludge]

Liberal: Yes, healthcare. And what about police departments... should they be private too?
Sucker Libertarian: OF course.... blah blah blah libertarian philosophy blah blah




Good one guy, you lost another customer.

So what do you believe a libertarian should do in that situation except dishonestly evade or lie outright?

 

[acptulsa]

So what do you believe a libertarian should do in that situation except dishonestly evade or lie outright?

'Could be done, but I for one don't exactly consider it an emergency. Health care is the one that is bloated under overregulation and monopolistic insurance actions and bleeding us dry much faster than most other things. The other topic gives time for more debate.'

 

[orafi]

How simple... now exactly what is good, and what is bad? The face/fist thing, OK fine, I agree. But if a man owns a mountain, should he be allowed to crumble it to dust to get gold out of it?

If a man is intelligent enough to acquire a mountain, he's going to be intelligent enough to make the most out of it without destroying it.

 

[Kludge]

'Could be done, but I for one don't exactly consider it an emergency.

So you do believe police should be privatized? What of the people who can't afford it? You think they should die? What of the right to life? What liberty is there without a right to life?

Aren't you conservatives "pro-life"? I guess I should expect it since you right-wing extremists support capital punishment, too. Fucking hypocrites...

 

[acptulsa]

If a man is intelligent enough to acquire a mountain, he's going to be intelligent enough to make the most out of it without destroying it.

Tell it to the companies that specialize in strip mining. They seem not to be quite that bright.

*sigh*

 

[NewEnd]

So what do you believe a libertarian should do in that situation except dishonestly evade or lie outright?

I don't think the police departments should be private. Same with fire departments. And really, I think that it is so small, you should be able and willing to fight on that front, and at least recognize that public fire and police do have their advantages, and just go with that. You know, say, "yes, but having public police does not actually encourage abuse..." Instead of trying to explain why private police would be better. That is one of those minutia that trips up Libertarians.

If a man is intelligent enough to acquire a mountain, he's going to be intelligent enough to make the most out of it without destroying it.

You do know I am talking about an actual process called the cyanide drip process that has currently destroyed the tops of quite a few Rocky Mountains in Colorado, no? Bulk private cost, a mountain would not cost much per acre, it has no real economic value, and yet, there is some thing inherently wrong, in my opinion, with destroying a mountain. I am pretty much an urban dude though. A rural guy might think "mountain, fuck there are thousands of 'em out there! Why you in love with a rock?" In which case, we would have different definitions of "right" and "wrong".