What is wrong with Libertarianism?

I am an extreme libertarian, and I still can't see much wrong with the philosophy. Therefore, I will make a bet that you can't make 10 real good reasons as to why Libertarianism is wrong. Also, please include why you think those should be reasons.

Thanks,
Dan

I am a Libertarian too and so are a lot of others on this Board, I think it is the ONLY hope we have to bring our country back around to its roots

See my sig.

[edit on 23-11-2004 by Amuk]

It is the only way we can have a safe, strong, wealthy country too.

To answer your ques Dan, there is nothing wrong with it. As far as I see it is the ultimate political form of freedom. They can't promise us any goodies like the big 2 except that they'll leave us alone, which is ALL I want.

I have just recently began to seriously look at the Libretarian party I have to say I now consider myself a Libretarian. The ideas just make the most sense. The only thing I might even remotley have a problem with is the stance on legalization of all drugs. That could be a huge problem if not done correctly and over time.

10. It relies too much on individual decisions -- and American Citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions.

9. It does not punish the hard workers for being rich -- and everyone knows that rich people are bad and need to be punished.

8. It does not give rich peoples' money to the poor -- and everyone knows that the only reason a person is poor is because of class struggle or racism.

7. It allows people to do drugs -- and drugs are bad for you so the government has to take care of those people, even if it means locking them up in prison.

6. It allows people to choose the school they want for their kids -- which is bad because it takes away the pay from all the government educational and teacher-union bureaucrats.

5. It keeps us out of aggressive wars like Iraq and Kuwait and Vietnam -- which is bad, because how else would we have all those cool movies about men blowing stuff up and killing people?

4. It is against State support for big corporations -- which is bad because how else can McDonald's sell Quarter Pounders overseas?

3. It is against tarriffs -- and that is bad because if Japan punishes its citizens by imposing a tarriff on them, then we need to punish our citizens by taking away their right to buy the goods and services of their choice.

2. It is against minimum wage -- which is bad because the Government should tell people how much or little they can learn.

and finally...

1. It's what those "Founding Father" guys had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Declaration and sealed it with their lives, fortune and sacred honor -- and what do they know about the way to set up a country?

[edit on 24-11-2004 by Off_The_Street]

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
10. It relies too much on individual decisions and American Citizens are too stupid to make their own decisions.

9. It does not punish the hard workers for being rich and everyone knows that rich people are bad and need to be punished.

8. It does not give rich peoples' money to the poor, and everyone knows that the only reason a person is poor is because of class struggle or racism.

7. It allows people to do drugs and drugs are bad for you so the government has to take care of those people, even if it means locking them up in prison.

6. It allows people to choose the school they want for their kids which is bad because it takes away the pay from all the government educational and teacher-union bureaucrats.

5. It keeps us out of aggressive wars like Iraq and Kuwait and Vietnam which is bad, because how else would we have all those cool movies about men blowing stuff up and killing people?

4. It is against State support for big corporations which is bad because how else can McDonald's sell Quarterpouinders overseas?

3. It is against tarriffs and that is bad because if Japan punishes its citizens by imposing a tarriff on them, then we need to punish our citizens by taking away their right to buy the goods and services of their choice.

2. It is against minimum wage which is bad because the Government should tell people how much or little they can learn.

and finally...

1. It's what those Founding Father guys had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Declaration and sealed it withtheir lives, fortune and sacred honor, and what do they know about the way to set up a country?

This a the best post I have read in a while. I'm a republican and support the war against terror, and am against drug legalization. All the other points were great! You are getting my "Way Above" vote this month!

10) It relies too much on people not being stupid-guess what? They are.

9)It assumes that not only would people be smart enough to own guns but that they would be intelligent about owning them and woudln't blow their face off.

8)It assumes that the poor are poor because they choose to be poor. And of course every one knows how great it is to be poor, so of course they choose it.

7) It demand that we mot only worry about drunk drivers but Drugged drivers aswell, but of course what a person does to themselves couldn't possibly affect me right? Of course not-watch out for that car!


6)If you can't pay for your childs education, then you can't give them one, but that's OK becaue children of poor people deserve to be punished for what their parents can't/haven't earn, right?

5)It says frick the world, who cares if they have genocide and stuff, if it ain't happening here then it doesn't matter. After all Hitler would never have attacked the US right? And since all those Jews he killed weren't american it's not liek there lives had any value.

4)It is against globilization, after all we all know that selling our products to other nations is a stupic idea.

3) Who cares if another country tramples our good over seas, we should just let them walk right over us and kick our @$$ economically, after all when they buy up our companies well all be so much happier.

2) It is against laws designed to prevent slave labor, after all virtual slavery
is a good thing, right? I mean, we all know that pesky "Civil War' was really over "States Right's" right?
and finally...

1) It's NOT what those "Founding Father" guys had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Declaration and sealed it with their lives, fortune and sacred honor -- and they do know about the way to set up a country.

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
10) It relies too much on people not being stupid-guess what? They are.

9)It assumes that not only would people be smart enough to own guns but that they would be intelligent about owning them and woudln't blow their face off.

8)It assumes that the poor are poor because they choose to be poor. And of course every one knows how great it is to be poor, so of course they choose it.

7) It demand that we mot only worry about drunk drivers but Drugged drivers aswell, but of course what a person does to themselves couldn't possibly affect me right? Of course not-watch out for that car!


6)If you can't pay for your childs education, then you can't give them one, but that's OK becaue children of poor people deserve to be punished for what their parents can't/haven't earn, right?

5)It says frick the world, who cares if they have genocide and stuff, if it ain't happening here then it doesn't matter. After all Hitler would never have attacked the US right? And since all those Jews he killed weren't american it's not liek there lives had any value.

4)It is against globilization, after all we all know that selling our products to other nations is a stupic idea.

3) Who cares if another country tramples our good over seas, we should just let them walk right over us and kick our @$$ economically, after all when they buy up our companies well all be so much happier.

2) It is against laws designed to prevent slave labor, after all virtual slavery
is a good thing, right? I mean, we all know that pesky "Civil War' was really over "States Right's" right?
and finally...

1) It's NOT what those "Founding Father" guys had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Declaration and sealed it with their lives, fortune and sacred honor -- and they do know about the way to set up a country.

What do you mean its not what the FF had in mind??? You need to read the federalist papers. Also try some other political essays from that time. You are dead wrong. It is exactly what the FF had in mind.

I am a mild libertarian. I want the government less involved in my life and can't stand whino brainwashed intellectual ellitist liberals at all!!!

I do wish the libertarians had a different view point on military and drugs however.

I would surely vote (and I think a lot more people would too) for a libertarian candidate if this was the case. The libertarian party has to loosen up some of its ideas before they will be taken seriously by most US citizens.

I have to ask a question. How is it that liberals think their government (freakin politicians) know whats best for the rest of the country? They have no faith in the people at all. It really makes me sick to my stomach to hear comments like I_AM_that_I_AMs.

The libertarian party has a great chance next election (especially if its Bill (Hilary) Clinton and Rice running for officce) but only if they tone down their views a little. America isn't ready for that big a change just yet.

Im a Republican with Libertarian leanings... I think the libertarian party needs to cash in on voters like me. There is a LOT out there.

Im a Republican with Libertarian leanings... I think the libertarian party needs to cash in on voters like me. There is a LOT out there.

I've said it before and I'll say it again....PUBLICITY, PUBLICITY, PUBLICITY!!! They need a VERY recongnizable face to spearhead their campaign. With the obvious media blackout against anyone other than democratic or republican, the only way to get their name out, other than word of mouth by smart people like us, is to get a very famous individual to be the national spokesperson for the cause. That person doesn't necessarily have to be the actual candidate either, but someone who supports the candidate whoelheartedly! Otherwise, no one in the brainwashed world will even take the time to look at what we stand for. I see this person as a very prominent political person who is completely disgusted with the way our country is being run and wants to see immediate change. Someone willing to cross over to the LP side with nothing to lose. Until then, I really see little hope in the near future for the LP party.


[edit on 24-11-2004 by mpeake]

Originally posted by Seapeople
What do you mean its not what the FF had in mind??? You need to read the federalist papers. Also try some other political essays from that time. You are dead wrong. It is exactly what the FF had in mind.

1)if your only going to respond to part of a post( which is fine) then please only post the part that you are responding to, this ia to avoid excess quoting.(and will hopefully keep you from getting fined points for it).

2)Oh, I['m sure you can twist whatever they said to mean they wanted a weak federal gov't but many did not hence what we got. (And the FF as a whole didn't agree on anything-hence our country being founded on compromise)

I used to be a registered libertarian. The problem I have is that they are simply not serious about becoming a political force in America. They have almost zero grass roots candidates in any local office. They set their sites on a presidential run and then go silent for the other 3 years.

While I agree with a lot of their views I have given up supporting them. They are not serious about anything other than being a protest vote.

You know, I can't come up with 10 reasons why libertarians are "Teh Debil" , that's why I've considered voting for them a number of times in the past.

Two main things have kept me away:

1) Libertarian policies tend to rely largely on the idea of enlightened self-interest. Assuming that people (and corporations) will make selfish decisions that will preserve them and the atmosphere that sustains them (figurative atmosphere, not literal.) Unfortunately, we've seen time and again that this is not always the case. Indeed in today's economic climate, people and corporations are quite often choosing short-term gains over long-term sustainability. This can be seen from the Enron-like accounting scandals that continue to pop up, to Grandma and Grandpa American voting against a new school levy because "we don't have kids in school anymore." I respect the Libertarian ideal that "The best government is the least obtrusive one," but a lot of the Libertarian candidates, at least in my neck of the woods, seem to think that government should be completely non-obtrusive. Sometimes the .gov has to step in and say "knock off all that stupid," and I haven't seen any local Lib candidates who seem to be willing to do that.

2) The Libertarian Party has come a long way in recent years to removing the wacky folks from its list of candidates, but it's still got a lot of weirdos. Until they can present a face that's palatable to the average American, they'll never be a major player. Hopefully, the LP sees an opportunity now, after the last election to strengthen its base. I'd love to see a lot more Lib (and other 3rd party) candidates making a strong showing at the local and state levels in 2006. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a Lib president in the next 8 years, barring extraordinary circumstances, but if they play their cards right, they can begin a push for a lot more representation than they currently have.

That last part, I guess, really depends on whether it was the "Socially liberal/economically conservative" people, or the "socially conservative, economically liberal" people that were the greatest supporters of the GOP this last time around. If the former, the Libertarian Party can make some good gains, if the latter...well, that's pretty much opposite of the LPs platform.

Heck, I know it might sound weird, but even as a democrat the libertarian party is very appealing to me. More and more I'm thinking about making the change, because it's like truly having the constitution executed the way it should be, and it seems like the big two have totally forgotten that.

There is absolutely nothing WRONG with being a libertarian aka soverign citizen...


Think about it... soverign means you are your own person, you DON'T owe debt or monetary servitude to ANYBODY.

You work hard for yourself, your family, and help out your community if you'd like, you ingest what you want, and you pay what you what to charities ect...

The problem some people have is they think that it's anarcho capitalism which they see as evil, selfish, and heartless... usually these are the commies that think this..

I'm sorry but my life doesn't revolve around the people who were struck with a bad bolt of lightening, my job in life isn't to carry them so I hold on their weight.

You have three choices:

live your life as a free soverign person
die attempting to protect your freedom in which you would probably lose,
or give up and succumb to slavery.

It's your life, you do what you want with it...

Libertarianism isn't for the weak hearts and disenfranchised... they want to be carried... let the nannies do it.. as for me, give me liberty of give me death.





[Edited on 24-11-2004 by TrueLies]

Originally posted by TrueLies
live your life as a free soverign person
die attempting to protect your freedom in which you would probably lose,
or give up and succumb to slavery.

It's your life, you do what you want with it...

Libertarianism isn't for the weak hearts and disenfranchised... they want to be carried... let the nannies do it.. as for me, give me liberty of give me death.
[Edited on 24-11-2004 by TrueLies]

yea.....
Libertarism or liberal is like a mean of freedom. In french, freedom is "libre" or "libert�"

So liberal for me is to be free

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
10) It relies too much on people not being stupid-guess what? They are.

If all people are stupid this would include our elected leaders right? So how is it better for us to let some other stupid person tell us what to do? Or have all our leaders breed at a special farm which entitles the elite to guide us lesser people?

9)It assumes that not only would people be smart enough to own guns but that they would be intelligent about owning them and wouldn't blow their face off.

WRONG it doesn't assume ANYTHING besides that it is your constitutional right to bear arms

8)It assumes that the poor are poor because they choose to be poor. And of course every one knows how great it is to be poor, so of course they choose it.

Again wrong it assumes that given a level playing field those that try will succeed. Secondly can you point out to me where ion the constitution its says that anyone deserves the property of another?

7) It demand that we mot only worry about drunk drivers but Drugged drivers as well, but of course what a person does to themselves couldn't possibly affect me right? Of course not-watch out for that car!

Think god we have drug laws now that allow the police almost unlimited powers, but at least it is now impossible to get drugs and crime and drug use has been wiped. Who needs rights when we have the elite to guide us that aren't smart enough to do it ourselves. If they were Legal our country would just become one huge wasteland with people shooting each other in the streets, you know like the Netherlands.

6)If you can't pay for your child's education, then you can't give them one, but that's OK because children of poor people deserve to be punished for what their parents can't/haven't earn, right?

Again WRONG the want school vouchers just like the Republicans. That way you could send your child to the school of your choice not the choice of the government, but wait we aren't smart enough to pick the school we need a bureaucrat to do it for us right

5)It says frick the world, who cares if they have genocide and stuff, if it ain't happening here then it doesn't matter. After all Hitler would never have attacked the US right? And since all those Jews he killed weren't american it's not liek there lives had any value.

Can you show me in the constitution where it says we are to be the worlds police? 99% of the problems we are having can be traced back to our interference in other nations internal affairs

4)It is against globilization, after all we all know that selling our products to other nations is a stupic idea.

This one just shows you dont have the slightest idea what we are about. WE ARE for trade as a matter of fact we are the MOST free trade party that there is. Prove me wrong and show me where on our platform its says we are against trading with outher countries? YOU CANT

3) Who cares if another country tramples our good over seas, we should just let them walk right over us and kick our @$$ economically, after all when they buy up our companies well all be so much happier.

I dont really understand this question could you repeat it in english? What the heck does "trample our good" mean?

2) It is against laws designed to prevent slave labor, after all virtual slavery
is a good thing, right? I mean, we all know that pesky "Civil War' was really over "States Right's" right?
and finally...

do you have a clue about what you are talking about? again SHOW ME where on our platform it says we believe in slavery?

1) It's NOT what those "Founding Father" guys had in mind when they wrote the Constitution and Declaration and sealed it with their lives, fortune and sacred honor -- and they do know about the way to set up a country.

Again you dont have a clue what you are talking about

OK I will bite what DID they intend? Third geneoration welfare families? our army scattered all around the world? Tax burden over TWICE what the revolted over to begin with.

You tell me

What did the fore fathers intend?

(This ought be good for a laugh)

[edit on 24-11-2004 by Amuk]

Seapeople said:

"What do you mean its not what the FF had in mind??? You need to read the federalist papers. Also try some other political essays from that time. You are dead wrong. It is exactly what the FF had in mind."

Seapeople, I am sorry that my satire went right over your head. I think most other people (except for "I Am That I Am") got it, though.

OOOPS! Seapeople, I thought your response was to me; rather, it was to poor "I am that I am" Looks like the intent of your post went right over MY head. My bad!!


[edit on 24-11-2004 by Off_The_Street]

I keep wondering where the fight has gone.

There used to be some kind of fire to continue, prosper, and carry on in the face of adversity. This lacking has created the Libertarian Party.

Power has been removed from your hands and your need to involve yourself in it has gone to next to nothing. Couple that with the struggle just to pay the bills, and you have a self-sufficient government that takes as much as it can before the point of damaging itself (economic crash).

We need to do things ourselves. You can make your own choices so long as you live within a reasonable set of laws.

We need to restructure our entire business law section, to make it environmentally more sound but less acidic in the world and domestic markets (meaning TAKE YOUR DAMN HANDS OFF OUR MERCHANT AND STEEL INDUSTRY!).

You fight to survive everyday no matter your means. Shouldn't you have control over your body, property, and family?

If the age of consent for all things, is 18. Yet in a country with state governments making these types of choices, the federal government BRIBES the states to disallow 18-21 year old adults from drinking or purchasing alcohol.

"Legislation for the minimum drinking age in the United States varied from state to state just over a decade ago, ranging from 18 to 21. Driven largely by the desire to curb traffic fatalities associated with alcohol consumption, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21, or risk losing federal highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act. By 1987, all states had complied with the 21 minimum age law."

Source - ICAP Reports

If 18-21 year olds are legally adults, that would mean that they are "Capable, deliberate, and voluntary assent or agreement to, or concurrence in, some act or purpose, implying physical and mental power and free action." (Dictionary.com)

What says the Federal Government is too big more than that and the IRS?