Libertarians and Communists share the same fatal flaw

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



That's a shame, you campaigned for something you didn't fully understand. Otherwise you'd realise Libertarianism has nothing to do with communism, and that Libertarianism requires folks to follow their self interest.

The op is a smarter man then most of the posters on this board, especially the one I am quoting.

I share his pessimistic views of mankind.

Libertarianism would be great if man were ever to evolve enough to embrace it. We won't though. Individuals have certainly evolved a great deal, but we need to stop looking at the doers when we measure social evolution. We need to concern ourselves with the "great unwashed" aka the looters. the masses have not evolved at all, the opposite is true. As a society we are devolving. The ranks of the looters are growing.
 
The op is a smarter man then most of the posters on this board, especially the one I am quoting.

I share his pessimistic views of mankind.

Libertarianism would be great if man were ever to evolve enough to embrace it. We won't though. Individuals have certainly evolved a great deal, but we need to stop looking at the doers when we measure social evolution. We need to concern ourselves with the "great unwashed" aka the looters. the masses have not evolved at all, the opposite is true. As a society we are devolving. The ranks of the looters are growing.

"Those looters are horrible therefore we need a monopolistic government."

I fail to see why the failures of other humans should be a burden on my shoulders apart from freely choosing how to address my security needs - you address a real problem, but your solution would be ludicrous if governments were not the norm.

"We won't evolve enough for liberty" is a collectivist self-fulfilling prophecy that restricts any possibility that some people actually are able to live responsibly and kills any chances that liberty will be allowed to evolve in the future from some small segment of the population that gets it right and spreads it around in fits and starts over time.

Let the looters live by looting - they will die by looting. Refuse to join the crowd and secure your own legacy, or give up and watch Idol on your stolen 48" plasma with the rest of the looters. Just don't force me to join them with you.
 
The State is the only social institution which is able to extract its income and wealth by coercion; all others must obtain revenue either by selling a product or service to customers or by receiving voluntary gifts. And the State is the only institution which can use the revenue from this organized theft to presume to control and regulate people's lives and property. Hence, the institution of the State establishes a socially legitimatized and sanctified channel for bad people to do bad things, to commit regularized theft and to wield dictatorial power...

While we can all agree on the abuses that the State creates, the State is not the root of all evil. Perhaps it is the other way around. Government is the most advanced (and some would say civilized or mature) form of gangsterism. Yet gangsterism in it's youth is just as bad as the "State", even if it is not as refined. If we want to define all gangsterism (no matter how geographically small) as the "State" and vice versa, then maybe it makes sense.

Since a system of liberty would encourage the voluntary and discourage the criminal, and would remove the only legitimated channel for crime and aggression, we could expect that a free society would indeed suffer less from violent crime and aggression than we do now, though there is no warrant for assuming that they would disappear completely.

Why would it "encourage the voluntary and discourage the criminal"? Yes, we can all agree it won't "disappear completely".

...the classical liberal F.A. Hayek pointed out: "The main merit of individualism [which Adam Smith and his contemporaries advocated] is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity...."13

You will probably get 100% agreement on that quote.


Myth #6 Libertarians believe that every person knows his own interests best.

Amen to that. Our current system and the desires of our socialist leadership are to further reward bad decisions. We must bail-out every single person who has been living beyond their means. From the top of Goldman-Sachs right down to the person laying the gutter.


For on the free market, any individual, if in doubt about what his own true interests may be, is free to hire or consult experts to give him advice based on their possibly superior knowledge. The individual may hire such experts and, on the free market, can continuously test their soundness and helpfulness. Individuals on the market, therefore, tend to patronize those experts whose advice will prove most successful. Good doctors, lawyers, or architects will reap rewards on the free market, while poor ones will tend to fare badly.

In the free market, Merrill Lynch has long been "considered" the best financial advisers and managers. They ripped people off just like a government does, but the customers were very happy. They did not know what was in their best interest, and the free market "expert" was no better. Luckily we aren't all forced to use Merrill Lynch, which is the big benefit of them not being a State mandated service. Can't say they were any better though.
 
"Those looters are horrible therefore we need a monopolistic government."

Since we are speaking of libertarianism and not anarchy, you don’t need to reiterate that government has a monopoly.

I fail to see why the failures of other humans should be a burden on my shoulders apart from freely choosing how to address my security needs - you address a real problem, but your solution would be ludicrous if governments were not the norm.

You fail to see how a mob seeking power over you should be a burden? I’m not arguing they should, I‘m arguing they always will.

That’s the thing. Libertarians are hypocrites because they too seek to hold power over others while renouncing it on the other side of their face.

I’ve used the example before, but nobody in their right mind wants an insane person, or a young child walking around with a loaded weapon. Nobody wants a parent to have the freedom to molest their children.

So now libertarians, claiming to not initiate force, are required to reconcile exactly that. They have to come up with arbitrary ages that allow people to be bound to contracts, sexual relationships etc, etc.
 
Stalin =/= Russian revolution, Napoleon =/= french revolution, although both were aftereffects. If you think Russia would have been better off under the tsars, I can't help you with that.

Yes they would've been, the tsars were no worse than the British or any other European nation at the time. After the Socialists took over, millions of Orthodox Russians were killed, 7 million Ukrainians starved, etc.. now Putin is finally leading Russia into the future, and many would like to call him the new tsar.

And I fail to see how the French revolution was a mistake even if Napoleon did eventually rise, he managed to conquer most of Europe, which was in French interest to do so. If you were expecting France to all of a sudden turn into an American-like country after the revolution, then you should realize Europe & America are two different places. ;)
 
Last edited:
Join the Free State Project or Die!

maybe if I was a 20 year old college kid...and they didn't pick such an easterly coast region.

I simply don't like the area.

Back before they picked the location, I signed up. I was a young 29 back then though. If they would of went with a west coast area, I'm pretty sure I would be a FSP'er right this second.
 
In scrolling down the first page of responses, I see where the original poster is correct.

The Libertarian movement is personified by persons whom the general public view as laughable.

Exactly. The OP's point, whether academically correct or not, was proven by the replies given in the thread.

That being said, it is the direction that matters most. I support all liberty candidates because they are heading the right way.
 
I have to agree with End...even Thomas Paine said there must be a moral society to have true freedom and liberty. Every time some wanker screws up we get another law..so..humans perpetuate the government they dispise. I am coming to the conclusion that I don't like political parties at all...but I like ideas. I will probably end up being a No Part Affiliation person. I agree with End...there can be NO free markets without moral people...and that has never in history happened. He's right..the rotten eggs float to the top. tones
 
I;ll look at this other angle. The Founders promoted Christianity for the simple fact that if people believed there was something greater than themselves who would either give them rewards or punishment in the long haul...they could HAVE less government. I'm not saying they weren't true believers...because most of them were. I am saying now that Christianity has been minimized ...there is more need for government control, which is exactly what the New World Order wants....total control...for the State to be seen as God...and not God. Tones
 
Exactly. The OP's point, whether academically correct or not, was proven by the replies given in the thread.
...The replies prove that man is evil and won't follow his self-interest? As for BoogerSnax's comment you quoted, what does it matter if the general public views libertarianism as laughable? That doesn't discredit its truthfulness.

Any system that purports to be altruistic and in the service of the individual relies on the people being sufficiently wise. Democracy requires the people be wise enough to choose the right policies. Republicanism requires the people to be wise enough to choose the right representatives. Anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism requires people be wise enough to realize that violence is a costly way to settle disputes.

I'd say anarcho-capitalism asks the least of the masses, and that there are mechanisms in the free market to promote information distribution and encourage the people to learn, whereas the state is likely to discourage such things. To claim that libertarianism is fatally flawed because, well shucks, people might not be wise enough to choose the best means to attain their ends, is to admit that all political systems are fatally flawed. Everyone on this forum obviously realizes that republicanism is fatally flawed in this way, as the masses pick representatives that either don't intend or don't know how to serve their individual welfare.
 
Last edited:
I was a Libertarian activist for many years of my life. I was dedicated, I put many, many hours at county fairs, getting petitions signed for anti-tax initiatives, and signing up voters, as well as putting up signs, etc.

It has only been in the past few months I have come to the realization that Libertarianism is a pipe dream, because it shares the same fatal flaw as communism. It relies on the innate goodness of man, and the supposed reactions of man to situations.

I no longer believe man will act in his best economic interest. If that were the case, then nobody would be obese, or smoke, or drink. The side effects on health are too catastrophic. Man would not gamble, because the odds were against him. Man also is not going to save his money for a rainy day. You stop forcing him to put money away for retirement or injury, and when the day inevitably comes, he will be in a shelter or under some kind of help program for the rest of his life, or on the street. I'd guess maybe 10% of the world actually thinks about and prepares for their future. The rest leave it up to the experts, or don't even give it second thought.

There is only one thing you can rely on man to do, and that is attempt to fulfill his own narcissistic desires. That is it.

I still come here, because this board has great insights on economics and power, and is at least awake to the tremendous evil facing the world right now. But i have to say, I have recently gave up on the idea of a Libertarian utopia, or freedom, or anything else in that vein. I do not believe our political system is any better than any other political system in the world, I do not believe a paper making a game of government with 3's and 5's and 7's and 435's is going to change how people actually treat each other. I love the Bill of rights, but I also recognize there is a portion of the United States that has never even really fallen under its protection.

I will also say, Although I like Peter Schiff, and Ron Paul and Rand Paul, that even if they were to get elected, it would be too little, too late. Downfall of America is inevitable, and I do believe that we will have to go through some serious fascism/socialism/communism/corporatism/totalitarianism/statism before we meet a revolution worthy of the name revolution. Unfortunately, I will be too old by then to physically participate, but I would still do my best to help, because of that little shred of worthless and misguided hope in me that man can be civilized and live in a free society.

I know, for a fact, there will NEVER be a Libertartian utopia. There will never be anything but the corruption of utopian images, because man is innately corrupt.

Communism's flaw was that it thought that people were good, and would work together for the sake of nation and brotherhood. That mutual respect was all that was needed to make men work for a better world. It was a great, optimistic idea, but fatally flawed as well. Men are inherently selfish, ergo evil. The vast majority will always make a moral judgment call that benefits them. They think of themselves first, then their family and friends, then perhaps country, or church, or other confessional loyalty. Communists believed a shorter work week would leave men more time to participate and educate themselves about politics. For the most part, it was spent drinking and looking for love and raising and enjoying their families. But seriously, who can actually say with a straight face that Russia would have been better off under the Tsar? I believe the Bolshevik revolution was a good thing, if not for the same reason the French Revolution was good... because it made those in power understand, if only for a short time, that they only rule through paper and tradition.

Evil men, in a Libertarian society, would be kids in a Candy store. They would abuse every freedom, and use their money every chance they had to keep all competition down. I mean does anyone actually believe we would be better off with the Rockefellers still maintaining their massive monopoly?

Well, I don't care to get involved in defending my ideas. I am putting them out there, so yes, if any of you flame warriors want to try and pin me down, and call me a traitor to the cause, here it is, loud and clear. Don't assume I am with you, just know I am against them.

Someone took a bath in apathy this morning... :rolleyes:
 
In scrolling down the first page of responses, I see where the original poster is correct.

The Libertarian movement is personified by persons whom the general public view as laughable.

BoogerSnax? person who would be viewed as laughable?
The parody is noted.
Have you tried the Obamaforum yet?
 
Exactly. The OP's point, whether academically correct or not, was proven by the replies given in the thread.

That being said, it is the direction that matters most. I support all liberty candidates because they are heading the right way.

Not really. Conza made some great points andt he original poster ignored all of it.
 
BoogerSnax? person who would be viewed as laughable?
The parody is noted.
Have you tried the Obamaforum yet?

Why would I do that?
I've lived the life of a "Libertarian" all my life.

The Libertarian "movement" is personified by "crazy" guys that paint whole sheets of plywood with messages and put them in their yards. And by kids who post whole manifestos as a reply to "set the record straight about Libertarianism". And by a squeaky voiced guy from Texas who said "they bombed us because we are bombing them".

The public at large doesn't want "liberty", they want to gov't to make their personal liberty "safe" for them with guarantees, safety nets, and slogans.
 
Why would I do that?

check out the site: http://theobamaforum.com/
then get back with me on why you would do that.




I've lived the life of a "Libertarian" all my life.

and?




The public at large doesn't want "liberty", they want to gov't to make their personal liberty "safe" for them with guarantees, safety nets, and slogans.


as ben franklin stated- "the government will reflect the virtues of its people"
I guess you have a lot of work ahead of you. get busy.
 
The op is a smarter man then most of the posters on this board, especially the one I am quoting.

Except the OP has failed miserably in addressing my arguments, and has such decided to ignore them. It's hard refuting the truth.

I share his pessimistic views of mankind.

That's great, pity you have no basis for it. You cannot suppress the human spirit for long periods of time. The history of man makes this clear.

Libertarianism would be great if man were ever to evolve enough to embrace it. We won't though. Individuals have certainly evolved a great deal, but we need to stop looking at the doers when we measure social evolution. We need to concern ourselves with the "great unwashed" aka the looters. the masses have not evolved at all, the opposite is true. As a society we are devolving. The ranks of the looters are growing.

Social Darwinism, if that is what you are getting at - is fundamentally retarded. No power elite in the history of the world has ever given up their power voluntarily. The ranks of looters are growing, until the state will collapse. See: Soviet Union. And every other socialist experiment. :rolleyes:

"Those looters are horrible therefore we need a monopolistic government."

I fail to see why the failures of other humans should be a burden on my shoulders apart from freely choosing how to address my security needs - you address a real problem, but your solution would be ludicrous if governments were not the norm.

"We won't evolve enough for liberty" is a collectivist self-fulfilling prophecy that restricts any possibility that some people actually are able to live responsibly and kills any chances that liberty will be allowed to evolve in the future from some small segment of the population that gets it right and spreads it around in fits and starts over time.

Let the looters live by looting - they will die by looting. Refuse to join the crowd and secure your own legacy, or give up and watch Idol on your stolen 48" plasma with the rest of the looters. Just don't force me to join them with you.

:D
 
That’s the thing. Libertarians are hypocrites because they too seek to hold power over others while renouncing it on the other side of their face.

No they don't. Not the logically consistent principled Libertarians.

I’ve used the example before, but nobody in their right mind wants an insane person, or a young child walking around with a loaded weapon. Nobody wants a parent to have the freedom to molest their children.

Property owners can legitimately bar insane people and young children, in fact whoever they want from walking around with whatever they want on their property.

Freedom to molest their child? Sorry we're not all Josh_la / Optatrons. The Libertines mistake freedom from, with the power to. They believe they should be free to do anything, but really what they want is the power to violate other peoples natural rand inalienable rights. They are scum.

Nobody is advocating the freedom to molest anyone... so take down your strawman, it just failed.

Parents don't "own" their children. They have guardianship rights. They violate them, when they violate the child's free will. Furthermore the child can run away from home legitimately at any point if they don't like the house rules.

So now libertarians, claiming to not initiate force, are required to reconcile exactly that. They have to come up with arbitrary ages that allow people to be bound to contracts, sexual relationships etc, etc.

Not the principled and logically consistent one. Ala followers of the Austrian School of Economics.

But you wouldn't know jack shit about that would you? :rolleyes: Would love to know what you've read on the subject. i.e explicitly related to those topics you just mentioned.
 
My two cents:

Libertarianism, here and now, is not about any utopian ideas about transforming society into some perfect stateless realm where everything is lollipops and giggles. It's about stopping useless wars, lowering taxes, protecting people's civil liberties, educating people about the economy, etc. It's highly pragmatic, goal-oriented, realistic, and it produces valuable real-world outcomes.

Sure it'd be great to create some Rothbardian society, and I suppose that's some hypothetical ultimate goal, but I think the comparison to Communism is WHOLLY undeserved. Communist regimes have always begun by violent insurrections that make immediate promises about how the world is going to be a better place under their totalitarianism. Such regimes have always resorted to propaganda to placate the citizens who don't understand how awful their government is, and they've always resorted to police-state law enforcement to punish the ones who DO understand the enormity of the government's actions. Libertarianism is inherently incremental, since we don't believe in using force to make other people live the way we want them to. Communism is inherently tyrannical, since a Communist society HAS TO BEGIN through force, violence, and coercion.

Libertarianism is not about creating a world in which there are no problems (like Communism claims to do), it's about protecting people from the problems that arise specifically from imposition of tyrannical social and economic policies.

In short, I hardly think that being a libertarian makes me the moral equivalent of a communist, sorry.
 
Last edited:
In short, I hardly think that being a libertarian makes me the moral equivalent of a communist, sorry.

I didn't even say that. I didn't say communism and libertarianism are the same thing, I said they suffer from the same flaw, should I clarify... same ideological flaw.

Also note, the closest thing to a Libertarian government took violent revolution to form. ;)

I also didn't say they rely on the goodness of mankind, I said goodness AND the supposed reactions of man to situations. The second part of my statement was completely ignored from the beginning.
 
Back
Top