Think you are a Libertarian?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Koch is a libertarian because he knows the Obama and the globalists are trying to destroy his industry because they rather import oil. It's part of the trade off for other countries to join the NWO, we will buy their oil instead.

They know this that's why they are libertarians. They know the globalists will use the regulators to shut down business in America in order to export business overseas, it's called globalism and geo politics. Essentially it's the George Soros globalist fraction vs. the old nationalist American capitalism like Koch.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I honestly am baffled at how poor your argument is here:

Just because Alan Greenspan, or the Koch Brothers, claim to be Libertarian, that doesn't make it so. People are judged by their actions, not their words. By your very examples, you show that the Koch Brothers, while "claiming" Libertarian values, are neck-deep in government subsidies. You just proved that they are not Libertarian. So what the hell are you actually arguing here?

You were just beginning to formulate a coherent argument when you cited some Mises and Rothbard, but all you ended up doing is taking their statements out of their original context, and putting them into your illogical rant.

I highly recommend reading some texts on basic logic, followed by some original works regarding Libertarianism (Mises and Rothbard have exceptional material). Since you don't seem to fully understand either concept, this might prevent you from making foolish statements in the future.

a reply to: theantediluvian


You are so misguided it isn't even funny. You've made a lot of sweeping generalizations that show how ignorant you really are to the subject.

My favorite "facts" that you've presented are the ones concerning Libertarians wanting to abolish workers rights and the organizations that supposedly fight for them.

If you'll notice, all of those organizations are federally recognized. That is the part you obviously don't understand. Federal bodies determining what is applicable in all states is the problem. Libertarians don't want to abolish rights, freedom, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians want to dissolve the federal level programs and solve the issues at the state level as they were intended to be from the start.

Perhaps the best response I've seen so far is the explanation of modern libertarianism.. It is indeed essentially the same thing as CLASSIC Liberalism. The problem with the term "liberal" today is that it has become synonymous with Progressive and Socialist ideals. Real classic liberals would be disgusted with the way modern liberalism is being conveyed. "Liber" means "the free one". It is the root word of both Liberal and Libertarian. There is nothing "Free" about modern liberalism expanding government to LEGISLATE FREEDOM. Legislating liberty or freedom is a HUGE oxymoron.

The problem with this thread is that is trying to pigeonhole a political philosophy into a box. People are different, to expect EVERY libertarian to believe EXACTLY the same as every other libertarian is foolish and naive. Not to mention is EXACTLY what the is killing the Republican and Democratic parties. It fosters toe lining and non-compromise. But someone who TRULY understands their political philosophy knows that there are certain values and ideals that they feel more strongly about than others. So just because you may find someone who says they are a Libertarian and doesn't believe in open borders or thinks we should have some regulation or likes a few social programs, doesn't mean that they aren't a Libertarian or anything. That is dumb reasoning as well as a fallacy. It's called the "No True Scots Man Fallacy"

originally posted by: Son of Will
You just proved that they are not Libertarian. So what the hell are you actually arguing here?

My take is that the former above answers the later.

He seems to be arguing that, for the most part, Libertarians are only libertarian in name.

a reply to: Son of Will

You just proved that they are not Libertarian. So what the hell are you actually arguing here?

That's exactly what I was arguing. Furthermore, that the modern libertarian movement in America, the Libertarian Party, and several prominent libertarian institutions are all lousy with the influence of the Kochs and their cohorts as well as being largely premised on the economic theory of a handful of economists of the heterodox Austrian school.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The problem with this thread is that is trying to pigeonhole a political philosophy into a box. People are different, to expect EVERY libertarian to believe EXACTLY the same as every other libertarian is foolish and naive. Not to mention is EXACTLY what the is killing the Republican and Democratic parties. It fosters toe lining and non-compromise. But someone who TRULY understands their political philosophy knows that there are certain values and ideals that they feel more strongly about than others. So just because you may find someone who says they are a Libertarian and doesn't believe in open borders or thinks we should have some regulation or likes a few social programs, doesn't mean that they aren't a Libertarian or anything. That is dumb reasoning as well as a fallacy. It's called the "No True Scots Man Fallacy"

They try to "pigeonhole" because progressives are in lock-step ideologically.

There is no freedom to differentiate.

a reply to: beezzer
How do you know that "they" are "progressives"?

Seems you're trying to carry out a bit of "pigeonholing" yourself.

a reply to: beezzer

I wouldn't blame it on any other group doing this. I'd blame it on poor reasoning skills and grabbing for the low hanging fruit. No one group is guilty of this, its more just an aspect of lazy thinking. Which of course permeates every group in existence.

originally posted by: ZiggyMojo
a reply to: theantediluvian


You are so misguided it isn't even funny. You've made a lot of sweeping generalizations that show how ignorant you really are to the subject.

My favorite "facts" that you've presented are the ones concerning Libertarians wanting to abolish workers rights and the organizations that supposedly fight for them.

If you'll notice, all of those organizations are federally recognized. That is the part you obviously don't understand. Federal bodies determining what is applicable in all states is the problem. Libertarians don't want to abolish rights, freedom, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians want to dissolve the federal level programs and solve the issues at the state level as they were intended to be from the start.

Perhaps the best response I've seen so far is the explanation of modern libertarianism.. It is indeed essentially the same thing as CLASSIC Liberalism. The problem with the term "liberal" today is that it has become synonymous with Progressive and Socialist ideals. Real classic liberals would be disgusted with the way modern liberalism is being conveyed. "Liber" means "the free one". It is the root word of both Liberal and Libertarian. There is nothing "Free" about modern liberalism expanding government to LEGISLATE FREEDOM. Legislating liberty or freedom is a HUGE oxymoron.

It seems to me that you are in fact the misguided one. If you think that modern libertarianism in this country is synonymous with classical liberalism, you are delusional and completely ignoring the contributions of the 20th century, particularly those of the later Austrian economists.

This bit in particular reveals your utter ignorance of the subject:

If you'll notice, all of those organizations are federally recognized. That is the part you obviously don't understand. Federal bodies determining what is applicable in all states is the problem. Libertarians don't want to abolish rights, freedom, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians want to dissolve the federal level programs and solve the issues at the state level as they were intended to be from the start.

That's simply not true. There is no exception for the role of government — AS LONG AS IT'S AT THE STATE LEVEL — are you serious?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

I wouldn't blame it on any other group doing this. I'd blame it on poor reasoning skills and grabbing for the low hanging fruit. No one group is guilty of this, its more just an aspect of lazy thinking. Which of course permeates every group in existence.

I think I'm making a valid point. It's not my fault that the bulk of people who have attached themselves to the libertarian label in the last decade are in fact simply a younger, "socially liberal" version of the Tea Partiers.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: beezzer
How do you know that "they" are "progressives"?

Seems you're trying to carry out a bit of "pigeonholing" yourself.

Progressives define themselves.

I'm only pointing out the obvious.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

I wouldn't blame it on any other group doing this. I'd blame it on poor reasoning skills and grabbing for the low hanging fruit. No one group is guilty of this, its more just an aspect of lazy thinking. Which of course permeates every group in existence.

Poor reasoning skills and low hanging fruit are what the majority of politicians and many of their followers strive for.

originally posted by: beezzer
I'm only pointing out the obvious.

Me too.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

I wouldn't blame it on any other group doing this. I'd blame it on poor reasoning skills and grabbing for the low hanging fruit. No one group is guilty of this, its more just an aspect of lazy thinking. Which of course permeates every group in existence.

I think I'm making a valid point. It's not my fault that the bulk of people who have attached themselves to the libertarian label in the last decade are in fact simply a younger, "socially liberal" version of the Tea Partiers.

Dude, you are using quotes from named Libertarians, but what makes them more "Libertarian" than some kid who wants to legalize pot and have small government? Like I said, you are employing the No True Scotsman fallacy and no it isn't a valid point. It's a fallacy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

I wouldn't blame it on any other group doing this. I'd blame it on poor reasoning skills and grabbing for the low hanging fruit. No one group is guilty of this, its more just an aspect of lazy thinking. Which of course permeates every group in existence.

I think I'm making a valid point. It's not my fault that the bulk of people who have attached themselves to the libertarian label in the last decade are in fact simply a younger, "socially liberal" version of the Tea Partiers.

Dude, you are using quotes from named Libertarians, but what makes them more "Libertarian" than some kid who wants to legalize pot and have small government? Like I said, you are employing the No True Scotsman fallacy and no it isn't a valid point. It's a fallacy.

What a slippery slope. There is a minimum criteria for defining anything. I agree with this statement you made earlier:

to expect EVERY libertarian to believe EXACTLY the same as every other libertarian is foolish and naive

Let me offer another one of your quotes from last week:

Yes, no political party is free from interest groups and hypocrites. I'm sure if our party were to grow bigger, then even more people like the Koch brothers would join it and try to sideline it with their personal political agendas. The key is to try to maintain the purity of the ideals of Libertarianism and if someone co-opts the party, leave and form a new one that goes back to Libertarianism's roots.

...

It helps my conscience if I think of the Koch brothers as Tea Partiers instead of Libertarians because their ideology makes me sick. It's just close enough to Libertarianism that they can try to claim to be Libertarian, but if you look behind the curtain, you can see that they are the same as all the other people who co-opted the Republican and Democratic parties.

If I'm guilty, then so are you.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Go read "Liberalism" by Mises.. Then tell me that they are not essentially the same. Go ahead. Your whole notion of modern Libertarians being the same as a textbook Libertarian that you believe them to be is wrong. The whole modern Libertarian movement does not follow the same ideals that you're pushing here. Just like modern liberals are not pushing the same ideals as classical liberals.

You don't seem to understand that over time a political party can be infiltrated, and shifted to suit the agenda of whoever seems to be leading it. Libertarianism as you're presenting it would be better classified as Classical Libertarianism. It is different than MODERN Libertarianism, but there has never been a distinction until recently. A libertarian in the United States TODAY is someone who believes in social liberties but are also fiscally conservative in the broadest senses of political policy.

"Libertarianism" is a very general and necessarily broad term - just as the word "automobile" denotes a wide range of things (from compact sedans to semi tractor-trailer rigs to go-karts to bulldozers - and everything around and in between).

Libertarianism came BEFORE Classical Liberalism.

Classical liberalism is just one form of libertarianism.
Other forms are anarcho-capitalism, Constitutional minarchism, vountaryism, paleo-conservatism, agorism, Objectivism, etc..

Modern Libertarianism's whole foundation is built on Classical Liberalism. Not all the variants of libertarianism are fully compatible with one another. In some cases, they are even mutually contradictory (such as anarchism and minarchism). But they ALL place very strong emphasis on human liberty (and limited or non-existent Statist government) as a primary value. That is what unites them all under the label "libertarian."

a reply to: theantediluvian

Did you not see the bolded part of the following thing I said?

It helps my conscience if I think of the Koch brothers as Tea Partiers instead of Libertarians

I never said that the Koch brothers aren't allowed to call themselves Libertarians. I just said that it helps me sleep at night to pretend that they aren't. If they think their ideals and beliefs are good enough to call themselves Libertarians, then who am I to say otherwise? I'm still allowed to disagree with their points and opinions though and call myself the same.

You're taking ideas from every branch of libertarianism and creating your own image of what you think a Modern Libertarian is. It just isn't how it works. Your idea of a libertarian falls somewhere between an Anarcho-Capitalist and a Fiscal Libertarian.

I will say that many of the wealthiest people in the US lean Fiscal Libertarian, but it is entirely different than the platform Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell adhere to. Which is, for the most part the Modern Libertarian or Classical Liberalism platform.

By your logic, I could say that all modern Liberals are exactly the same as the Liberals who founded this country and nothing could be further from the truth.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I never said that the Koch brothers aren't allowed to call themselves Libertarians. I just said that it helps me sleep at night to pretend that they aren't. If they think their ideals and beliefs are good enough to call themselves Libertarians, then who am I to say otherwise? I'm still allowed to disagree with their points and opinions though and call myself the same.

What exactly is your argument? I never said that they weren't allowed to call themselves libertarians or Libertarians for that matter. The whole goal of this post was not to inform people of some of the things that people calling themselves "libertarians" (or "Libertarians" in the case of members of the Libertarian Party) believe/claim to believe/don't actually believe and give them pause to question whether or not they truly want to continue calling themselves "libertarians."

I guess I should have started with a dissertation on semantics and ontology followed by a chart of the various factions of American libertarianism.