Why libertarianism is closer to Stalinism than you think

Libertarianism seems to be a philosophy designed not for governance but for opposition. It is loud and powerful when saying “no,” but often impotent and speechless when required to say “yes.”
Click to expand...

Oh, joy! More tedious & tiresome "libertarianism is not a philosophy for governance" bullshit ... :rolleyes:

Libertarianism does not say "no" to anything - except force or fraud. So long as you are not deceiving other people or jabbing a gun into their bellies (or threatening to do so) in order to get what you want, libertarianism says "yes" (or is at least indifferent to your endeavor). Only those who chafe at being forbidden from engaging in thuggery (or from deploying others to do so) can object to this ...

The reason that assholes like the author of this garbage despise libertarian "nay-saying" is not merely because it may sometimes say "no" - rather, it is because it almost always says "no" to them. (And for a perfect example of the question-begging vacuity inherent in this nonsense, note the alleged "require[ment] to say 'yes'" that is invoked by the author. "Required to say 'yes'?" By what standard? And, say, mister - you got a gun to go along with that "requirement" ... ?)

Why libertarianism is closer to Stalinism than you think
Click to expand...

The author could have more accurately titled this, "Why my head is closer to my large intestine than I think" ...
 
Last edited:
Libertarianism in that sense is not merely an economic doctrine or a political worldview. It proposed, as Ayn Rand realized, a secular substitute for religion, complete with its own conception of the city of God, a utopia of pure laissez-faire and the city of man, a place where envy and short-sightedness hinder creative geniuses from carrying out their visions. If there was anything its founders hated more than governmental authority, it was religious authority.
Click to expand...

Rand detested Libertarians

Ayn Rand said:
“Libertarians”
For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with, and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultanteously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.
Click to expand...

What the OP has missed is that Libertarians are essentially Classic Liberals, those guys what created this country.
 
acptulsa said:
That's the ugly little truth that they desperately want to conceal in this verbal razzle dazzle. They sold school children on communism, promised communism, and delivered fascism. They refuse to acknowledge that small business and big business are two completely different things.

Otherwise, this is semantic b.s, just another attempt to paint us all as quixotic and unrealistic. I reminds me of that article which decreed that we were closest to communism in the 1950s. That rather startling statement was based solely on the fact that communism pretends to value even distribution of wealth, but the libertarian freedom of the 1950s actually produced a genuinely even distribution of wealth.

These things come across to any thinking, sane person as having just come through the looking glass. Communism claims to want to distribute wealth evenly; liberty actually does so. So, communism must claim all the gains that freedom ever made in that department. Welcome to the twilight zone.

The Ministry of Truth is working overtime. Got waders?
Click to expand...

+rep.

WAR IS PEACE. SLAVERY IS FREEDOM. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
 
Occam's Banana said:
Oh, joy! More tedious & tiresome "libertarianism is not a philosophy for governance" bullshit ... :rolleyes:

Libertarianism does not say "no" to anything - except force or fraud. So long as you are not deceiving other people or jabbing a gun into their bellies (or threatening to do so) in order to get what you want, libertarianism says "yes" (or is at least indifferent to your endeavor). Only those who chafe at being forbidden from engaging in thuggery (or from deploying others to do so) can object to this ...

The reason that assholes like the author of this garbage despise libertarian "nay-saying" is not merely because it may sometimes say "no" - rather, it is because it almost always says "no" to them. (And for a perfect example of the question-begging vacuity inherent in this nonsense, note the alleged "require[ment] to say 'yes'" that is invoked by the author. "Required to say 'yes'?" By what standard? And, say, mister - you got a gun to go along with that "requirement" ... ?)



The author could have more accurately titled this, "Why my head is closer to my large intestine than I think" ...
Click to expand...

This. From the time of Calvin Coolidge progs have criticized those in governance who do less, and sell the idea that more is better. Well, I may not agree 100% with Eero Saarinen when it comes to architecture...

Eero Saarinen said:
Less is more.
Click to expand...

...but there's an overabundance of experimental proof that this famous quote of his captures perfectly the essence of good governance.
 
otherone said:
Rand detested Libertarians



What the OP has missed is that Libertarians are essentially Classic Liberals, those guys what created this country.
Click to expand...

Actually what the capital 'L' Libertarians are is, disgruntled, frustrated, fed up, limited government GOP conservatives by and large, AKA Libertarian Party (oxymoron) rank and file members and voters.
 
Last edited:
acptulsa said:
That's the ugly little truth that they desperately want to conceal in this verbal razzle dazzle. They sold school children on communism, promised communism, and delivered fascism. They refuse to acknowledge that small business and big business are two completely different things.

Otherwise, this is semantic b.s, just another attempt to paint us all as quixotic and unrealistic. I reminds me of that article which decreed that we were closest to communism in the 1950s. That rather startling statement was based solely on the fact that communism pretends to value even distribution of wealth, but the libertarian freedom of the 1950s actually produced a genuinely even distribution of wealth.

These things come across to any thinking, sane person as having just come through the looking glass. Communism claims to want to distribute wealth evenly; liberty actually does so. So, communism must claim all the gains that freedom ever made in that department. Welcome to the twilight zone.

The Ministry of Truth is working overtime. Got waders?
Click to expand...

Yeah. I mean, I don't think it's a good question because I like it, but because it pretty accurately reflects what we're up against. For example, insurance companies welcomed Obamacare, particularly initially, due to the mandate. It was essentially having government force everyone to buy insurance through the barrel of the gun. The liberal-statists and Big Insurance decided it was a worthy compromise. Everyone gets insurance, all they have to do is sacrifice a bit of freedom.

Unfortunately, this is what many of the big players in business want. As long as government will guarantee profits, businesses don't give half a watery shit how many regulations come down the pipe as long as they can turn a buck at the end of the day. Small businesses are simply there trying to keep from capsizing in the waves made by these dealings. Indeed you are right, we have fascism, and unfortunately, the author is probably right, corporations welcome this. The author won't call it fascism outright, probably because it would glaringly call-to-question the setup of Obamacare, but that is what it is. We're trying to pry government interference from big business when big business is essentially writing the bills and bribing Congress to pass them.
 
Last edited:
Hey, our ideas work. Purists? Sure, we may be that, but the nice thing about our ideas is that they work even when implemented in a haphazard, halfway, totally un-pure fashion.

Halfway libertarianism in the form of classical liberalism has built the modern world and ushered in such mind-boggling prosperity as the world had never known. Had never known was even possible! Nobody denies this now. Nobody still believes that paradise on Earth can be created by nationalizing Apple and putting the mayor's office in charge of the corner grocery. Everybody knows that our ideas work, and furthermore that yours don't, Alan Wolfe.

That is why we'll win. Ultimately, working matters. Libertarianism works. Socialism just stinks up the joint wherever it's tried.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Libertarianism and Metaethics
Replies
0
Views
308
PAF
PAF
PAF
Libertarianism vs. Microlibertarianism
Replies
0
Views
295
PAF
PAF
PAF
Voting: The Seen and the Unseen
Replies
2
Views
184
TheTexan
TheTexan
I
Trumpers, Can you list any principles other than 'owning the libs'?
2
Replies
30
Views
456
TheTexan
TheTexan
PAF
The First Cause of Modern War is the Modern State
Replies
0
Views
297
PAF
PAF
Back
Top