The Trouble with Libertarians

a reply to: ozwest

I found this on Yahoo Answers. Is it true?

Socially speaking, Libertarians are almost the same as liberals. A couple of major differences that I can see is that most libertarians are environmental skeptics and that most of them oppose gun control.

Fiscally, they stand with the Republicans. They want an unregulated free market economy and a world with privatized social security and a small (or nonexistant) federal government.

originally posted by: fripw
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You asserted that social security was bankrupt, so you need to prove it. In your research you will find that I am correct.

Um... No I didn't. I said that it may not be available when I retire, but I never said that it was or will be bankrupt. I even left wiggle room talking about a situation where we still do receive benefits when I retire. How about quoting the text where I wrote the word bankrupt about the Social Security system.

There are only 2 ways I can think of to fix our country.
1.(this is not going to happen) People truly educate themselves and truly take an active interest in what is happening politically and the true ramifications.
2. We spiral to a point like the early twenties or a kind of fascist or feudalistic government. People are treated like the citizens of the hunger games. The light bulb goes on and the little man begins to take an interest and understand the true ways that he is being abused.

You've been watching too many movies. Reality doesn't work like that. But I'm glad you mentioned the fascist or feudalistic government because THAT is exactly what Libertarians are trying to prevent with our small government motto. Your first part is also very Libertarian minded. I already said in response to the OP that we should be educating people on the proper ways to go about doing things so that they want to do the right things, not be told to do them. So by trying to argue against Libertarianism, you just proved our point.

The libertarian philosophy is "horde and screw it" or "we can't all live good so tfb for you".

Is it? Why don't you show me the documentation that says that. I'd really like to see the evidence that supports your idea that just because Libertarians don't want to be forced to do something socially beneficial, that means we won't do it.

originally posted by: fripw
a reply to: ozwest

I found this on Yahoo Answers. Is it true?

Socially speaking, Libertarians are almost the same as liberals. A couple of major differences that I can see is that most libertarians are environmental skeptics and that most of them oppose gun control.

Fiscally, they stand with the Republicans. They want an unregulated free market economy and a world with privatized social security and a small (or nonexistant) federal government.

Yes it is true. Libertarianism started as a Liberal philosophy. Then Liberalism got hijacked by the progressives and their bigger government mantra and pushed us away. Your article also highlights why we like to use the phrase, "socially liberal and fiscally conservative," to describe ourselves.

a reply to: fripw I am surprised. Who told you Libertarians were selfish and cruel? A piper has played a tune for you. If America would have followed the principles of its' Libertarian founders it would not be where it is now, a declining militaristic empire whose economy is crumbling. Put yourself back on track. Your founders warned you.

a reply to: ozwest
The problem with libertarians is that they think we can live in the wild west. They think that the forces of nature can run
free without serious ramifications to themselves and their families. They think that we can run the world by the same system that worked 200 years ago. Your founders tried hard and were fairly smart but they could never for see the what their system would scale to.

Rather putting me back on track perhaps you should wake from your trance.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You said
I'm glad you brought up Social Security. That is another bear that us young people have to carry around (all the imagery that goes with that metaphor applies). We are paying into a system that has been looted and pillaged to no end, doesn't pay interest to what it DOES pay out on top of an ever decreasing value of the dollar, and will probably be unavailable to us when we retire, and you are wondering why us young Libertarians are against this welfare program?

which is highly inaccurate. SS is an insurance system. It hasn't been looted and pillaged. It can easily be available to us when we retire(if gop and libertarians don't defund it). So everything you said is BS.

Tell the people who lived before work place safety, safe food, labor unions, environmental protection etc, that I've been watching too many movies. People forget how bad things were and how bad they can get.

Your last item is not worthy of a response.

Privatization IS part of the corporate takeover of everything we know.
The free market system does not work when monopolizing government functions.
Corporations running these functions is like letting the wolf guard the hen house and worse than having the government do it.

It's been nice chatting.

the one time I sought some help from my government, I was told there was no hand-up. There were only hand-outs and those only if I were to be irresponsible enough to get pregnant

I'm going to have to call BS on this. There are a lot of government programs that help people like Unemployment insurance, Job Corps (where I work), heating assistance, etc, etc. Most have nothing to do with getting pregnant or preventing people from working.

originally posted by: fripw
a reply to: ozwest
The problem with libertarians is that they think we can live in the wild west. They think that the forces of nature can run
free without serious ramifications to themselves and their families.

No we don't. Most Libertarians are realists and understand that misfortune happens to everyone including ourselves, but we want the choice to take care of our problems ourselves.

They think that we can run the world by the same system that worked 200 years ago. Your founders tried hard and were fairly smart but they could never for see the what their system would scale to.

Rather putting me back on track perhaps you should wake from your trance.

You need to stop speaking for us. You are making lots of grandiose generalizations about us and people who think like us and most just aren't true. You still haven't given me a viable alternative to Libertarianism. You gave me two points that argue strongly in favor of Libertarianism, but haven't given me any viable solutions or ways to go about doing things to fix them. Since you are against Libertarianism, does that mean you want bigger government? What about your claim to avoid a fascist government? How do you avoid that when you constantly increase the size and power of the government?

a reply to: fripw I am 55yrs old. Left the US when I was 23 to move to Australia because I like to fish, camp, and explore. My wife is Chinese and I met her on one of my business trips. Preconceptions aside. I do not live in an era 200 years old, but I consider myself a free man. I loved many things about America, especially the most beautiful document ever written. Wished more uSA"rs would get off their asses and defend it.

a reply to: CB328

Shouldn't any discussion about Libertarians contain at least some evidence of who they might actually be and what they might believe, rather than much of the unfounded proclamations I've seen in this thread?

Let's start with the Pew Research Center's last assessment of the demographics, where Libertarians were explicitly identified in such an analysis in comparison to the other political groups in the United States:

Pew Center Source. (*pdf)

DEMOGRAPHICS



MEDIA HABITS


GENERAL GOVERNANCE VIEWS



FOREIGN POLICY VIEWS


SOCIAL POLICY VIEWS


I think this data doesn't really support some of the sweeping generalizations I've seen posted in this thread.

Just sayin'




I also think Wikipedia does a reasonable job of explaining some of the complexity: Libertarianism

And if you are really interested in what the organized 'party' says about itself, then check out : Libertarian Party Issues and Positions

originally posted by: fripw

which is highly inaccurate. SS is an insurance system. It hasn't been looted and pillaged. It can easily be available to us when we retire(if gop and libertarians don't defund it). So everything you said is BS.

As of 2010 less is going into the Social Security fund than is coming out. By 2033 that fund will run out. While there will still be people paying into it, we'd only receive about 3/4ths of what we are supposed to receive. That is on top of the 0% interest rate we get for the confiscated money from our paychecks and constant inflation that is constantly devaluing our dollar. I'm sure that 3/4ths of benefits will go REAL far. THOSE are the facts.

How Accurate Is The Concern That Social Security Money Will One Day Run Out?

About that raiding and pillaging part. From that source above:

Nobody lost Social Security payments in this crash, because the government can change the law at will, raising or lowering taxes, changing benefits (as they did in 1983), or even injecting general income tax revenue into the fund. That would be one way to “rescue” Social Security, but here’s a little irony: Social Security has had to rescue the rest of the budget, in the sense that a trillion and a half dollars of the fund has been loaned to the general fund.

Tell the people who lived before work place safety, safe food, labor unions, environmental protection etc, that I've been watching too many movies. People forget how bad things were and how bad they can get.

You do realize that we still had government involved with businesses back then too right? Many of those monopolies were made possible through government help. Whether through subsidies, tax breaks, or flat out corruption. The transcontinental railways were built post-civil war as a result of corruption and government subsidies despite there not being much of a demand for a transcontinental railroad, and one wouldn't show up for another 20 - 30 years.

Your last item is not worthy of a response.

Privatization IS part of the corporate takeover of everything we know.
The free market system does not work when monopolizing government functions.
Corporations running these functions is like letting the wolf guard the hen house and worse than having the government do it.

It's been nice chatting.

Oh so you spew a bunch of hyperbole, I ask you to back it up and you give me a bunch of junk about privatizing government functions. You still haven't told me any real solutions to our problems. If my ideology is so flawed, what should we be doing? The way I see it, all ideologies are flawed, so you have to go with the ones that are the least flawed.

All you do is spew hyperbole and make generalizations about what we believe. Your knowledge of our ideology is quite lacking and you've demonstrated this time every time you talk about our political party. I'd imagine that your entire knowledge of it is based on left leaning news sites telling you what we believe and think instead of actually going to source and looking yourself. Your answer to our problems (prevent government fascism) is in direct contradiction to what you are arguing on this thread since that is EXACTLY what we are trying to prevent. But we are also trying to prevent corporate fascism through the free market.

What I find funny is, here you have Libertarians posting exactly what they believe in, and you have these people screaming "NO YOU DON'T! THIS IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN!" paraphrasing of course, but you get the idea.

SMH

This is exactly what the Tea Partiers had to deal with being called racist by total strangers who do not know them at all.

a reply to: poncho1982

originally posted by: poncho1982
What I find funny is, here you have Libertarians posting exactly what they believe in, and you have these people screaming "NO YOU DON'T! THIS IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN!" paraphrasing of course, but you get the idea.

I always find that most amusing. Let's see how many actually use the data I've provided to make their arguments.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

a reply to: loam WHO we might be? Demographics? Guess you might be one of those Republicans/Democrats. Which one next year? Clinton, Bush, Michelle, or Romney... Let's see (check the demographics). I think I'll teach my cat to herd sheep.

a reply to: poncho1982

Yes, it's always interesting when someone from outside your beliefs tells you what you think and believe. I feel like I'm in an evolution debate with an evolution denier...

a reply to: fripw

Not entirely.

I am very socially conservative, but I don't want the law to compel my views. That doesn't mean I won't argue a socially conservative stance as being better for society in general.

The purpose of law (and government) is simply to protect one person's basic rights from another. And my definition of basic rights is most likely far narrower than yours. The law should not exist to protect me from myself, for example, which is where a lot of today's laws wind up falling.

When I see socially liberal. I think of things like social justice which is where you attempt to use the power of law to enforce equal outcomes on all. That is far from libertarian.

Maybe you are thinking socially liberal in the classical liberal sense which is simply that what you do on your own time and in your own home is mainly your own business so long as you aren't infringing on the basic rights of others. But that is something that means we have to be allowed maximal personal and individual liberty under the law without the law attempting to compel some at the expense of others.

In other words, it means you have to allow racists to be racists, bigots to be bigots, and yes, homophobes to be homophobes and trust to the power of social shame and censure to correct the situation rather then empowering the strong arm of the state to do it because you don't like it. However, on the converse it also means that society opens the door for so many other things to happen. A libertarian society means admitting that you have to tolerate the good with the bad because true freedom and liberty is understanding that you can't compel a person to be and believe who and what you want through force of law. You can only use the law to oppress thought and belief you find distasteful.

a reply to: CB328

I know, right!

Reminds me a lot of those silly, progressive Freedom RIders back in the day. Except they were full of Democrats. But, still ... they were always stirring up trouble and making a ruckus.

It was a dark time for society. How dare they try to change the way America was.

a reply to: ozwest

originally posted by: ozwest
Guess you might be one of those Republicans/Democrats.

Wasn't sure if this was directed at me, but hardly.

originally posted by: ozwest
Which one next year? Clinton, Bush, Michelle, or Romney... Let's see (check the demographics).

As a matter of fact, I think you can. Not to get us off topic, but what do you want to bet that Marco Rubio makes a big showing in the next Presidential Election? I expect two things to drive this: blow-back because of this administration and the Hispanic vote.

Depressing really how it's always paint by numbers.

originally posted by: ozwest
I think I'll teach my cat to herd sheep.

Tell me about it.

Also funny how those who think they are morally superior find it acceptable to judge those who view things differently than them.

Like health care for example. The left likes to say that if you oppose Obamacare, you oppose healthcare reform in general. No, we just wanted REAL reform, not handing all the power and money to insurance companies and the government, instead of to Doctors and Patients.

Or race relations. If you have a different opinion than a person of a different race, you MUST be racist. No, they just think THAT particular individual is wrong, and never said anything about the others of their race.

They have become what they railed against, just claiming it is morally correct. Problem is, they don't understand that people will NEVER all think the same way. It's a pipe dream. Making laws and regulations does not fix the problem, it only makes it worse, because now you have angered and alienated someone.

Libertarians are correct in the Live and Let Live motto. It's the only thing that will work WITH human nature, rather than against it.

The data chart mostly cofirms my OP, just the age is spread out a bit more than I thought, though I was talking about people who have recently turned libertarian, which I believe I was correct about being mostly young. Still, 68% don't have kids and about the same percent are male, which means that libertarians may not have a solid understanding of the needs of women and children in society. That bias, I believe, makes them unsuited to lead the country.

Why can't we have a moderate or centrist party? That's what we need in this country.