• This topic has 7 voices and 6 replies.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #342539

    Anonymous

    [size=14pt]Libertarianism is Bullshit[/size]

    Like many others who abhor the politics of Jesus Freaks and Stupid Hippies with equal vigor,
    I was drawn to libertarianism because it pissed off everyone, from religious fundamentalists who
    wish to impose their theology on others to Nanny State worrywarts who want to impose their sobriety.
    No decent American would argue with the "live and let live" philosophy, but here's the thing: libertarians
    are complete douche bags.

    Anarcho-capitalism is a ridiculous adolescent fantasy (would you really want to pay a fee whenever
    you leave the house or take a walk in the park) and nobody older than fifteen should take Ayn Rand
    seriously. For Christ's sake, if she were a talented writer, she could've said everything in 300 pages instead of 3,000!

    And if government is inherently corrupt because people are inherently corrupt, then it stands to reason
    that corporations—comprised of, you know, people—are no different. The evil and brutal are most likely
    to succeed in business than Ayn Rand’s principled superheroes. Libertarians would paralyze the one entity
    that is capable of curbing corruption to some degree; instead of campaigning for actual freedom, they would
    simply prefer their dictators to hold MBAs instead of political science degrees. For people who supposedly
    believe in liberty, they're some of the biggest authoritarians out there.

    You're probably not going to become a billionaire, so stop caring about their feelings. They'll be fine no matter
    what happens—they're fucking billionaires—but you won't. They don't need to be spared from slightly raised
    inheritance taxes, but millions of Americans need to be spared from atrocious working and living conditions.
    And this requires laws of some kind.

    No police, no firefighters no courts… unless you have money. Prominent anarcho-capitalist David Friedman
    argues, “[T]he systems of law will be produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are
    produced today." (Because justice is exactly like Playtex.) He concedes that the effectiveness of such a system
    “remains to be proven.” There is a reason for this: it’s fucking asinine.

    Santa Claus doesn’t exist, but the government does. Taxes suck, yes, but so do other necessary things, such as
    eating vegetables and showering on a daily basis. Public schools are necessary for civilization, industries need
    regulations to thrive, and a public toilet is not an outpost of communism… even if it's an outhouse of communicability.
    (Are you ready to piss your pants because you don't have the pocket change? Or are you a Commode Communist?)

    That said, the goddamn DMV should be defunded immediately.

    Original Article


    [size=14pt]10 Reason Why Libertarianism is Bullshit[/size]

    I have encountered some libertarian atheists, and a video of Penn Jillette talking about
    his version of libertarianism I screamed BULLSHIT!

    1.  It's impossible.  Libertarianism is impossible except for survivalist nutters and hermits.  Humans need
    a social structure because we're a social species.  Trusting that humans can moderate their own behavior on their
    own is just a fantasy.  If we were as sparsely distributed as wolf packs, we could get along in our small groups without
    intervention from a higher authority in theory…. but the matriarch or patriarch would be the higher authority so even
    that isn't strictly libertarian.  Anyway, we're long past the point in evolution where we could manage our behavior without
    a formal structure.  Michael Shermer theorizes the optimal size for a human community to manage without any oversight
    is about 150.  Those days are gone.

    2.  It's naive.  It assumes people are basically good.  This is a nice thought, and a refreshing break from the Christian
    belief that all people are sinners who need to be saved, but it's just plain wrong.  Just as we differ in our DNA we differ in our
    personalities.  Some of us will go through life making very few decisions that negatively impact others, and some of us ar
    sociopaths. At its best, government protects the truly good from the sociopaths.  Without a government, we would be reduced
    to lynch mobs which can only avenge bad deeds, not prevent them.  And we certainly wouldn't have something like the FBI,
    which can trace the path of a serial killer from one area to the next based on DNA evidence, etc.  I think the people who
    believe that "survival of the fittest ergo libertarianism" probably assume they are the fittest themselves.  They don't think
    that they would be the victims of a sociopath.  Bernie Madoff counted on this kind of hubris to make his illegal millions.

    3.  It's cold-hearted.  For example, regulations about safety in cars aren't needed because over time car companies
    would be forced to make safer cars or they'd go out of business.  So the people who died in fires caused by exploding
    gas tanks in Ford Pintos, or in wrecks caused by the design of their Corvair were just collateral damage in the evolution of
    better cars.  People who died because of unregulated businesses did nothing to deserve that fate, except perhaps not be able
    to afford better cars.  And the pseudo-Darwinism of libertarianism really doesn't care what the strong do to the weak. Rich
    and powerful people are good and deserve to be rich and powerful.  The poor and powerless deserve what they get.

    4.  It ignores history.  We haven't always had a U.S. government.  It's only a little more than 200 years old.  But we do
    know earlier forms of society.  We've had monarchies.  We've had theocracies.  We had the ancient Roman & Greek systems
    that privileged people with money.  Modern democracy certainly has its failings, but we really be better off returning to "less"
    government considering what our previous systems gave us?

    5.  It's not natural.  The underlying assumption of libertarianism is that government is an artificial construct that interferes
    with natural behavior, which they believe works just fine on its own.  There's no evidence that humanity could have survived without
    some form of social organization.  The instinct for survival that causes some to climb to the top of the heap and others to hide from
    the climbers just doesn't result in a society that works for large numbers.  It probably won't work for small numbers, either.

    6.  It ignores human failings.  We no longer live in family groups in tiny villages, and if Libertarianism became the "law" of
    the land, we would pretty much have to go back to that.  In our distant past, we helped each other within our own group
    and competed against other groups for resources.  Surviving without a government would require all of us to gather into
    small groups for protection and predation.  Child abuse and spousal abuse would again be perpetrated with no recourse.
    Victims of alcoholism or mental illness would have no access to services, and their families would suffer.  A small group's only
    hope of survival when "infected" with a defective member would be to ostracize that member.

    7.  It ignores human compassion.  Libertarianism denies the instinct to help others, which has been shown in other
    species as well. Government taking a role in "lifting up" the poor is an extension of the instinct we would follow individually
    in a smaller group.  By blaming the victim, libertarians can imagine themselves the agents of their own good luck.  There's
    no place in their worldview for helping the blind, the deaf, the physically impaired, or the children of these people.  The mentally
    ill who are incapable of working for a living due to their illness?  *shrug*  At least religions have charities that make a dent in
    these issues.  Secular libertarians leave the powerless to their own devices as if blindness or mental illness were somehow the
    victim's own fault.  There have been hundreds if not thousands of examples of other animals helping each other or even other
    species, so compassion seems to be instinctual.  I have yet to meet a libertarian who has a relative that needs help to survive.
    If I had the power to curse people, I'd curse libertarians with multiple sclerosis.  Let's see how many ways they make use of the
    ADA law's provisions.

    8.  It ignores Somalia.  Somalia is the perfect example of libertarianism in action. There's basically no government in
    Somalia so we can see what would happen.  Without a government, pirates and tribal groups terrorize others.  Women and
    children are mistreated.  Disease is rampant.  There's no viable business other than crime.  It's a chaotic mess.  Why would
    anyone want to copy that model?

    9.  It's selfish.  On the surface, Penn Jillette saying that he doesn't know what's best for someone else seems humble
    and charitable.  But really, sometimes he would know what's best.  He would know that a woman being beaten on a daily basis
    by an abusive husband would be better off if she could get out of that situation.  He would know that someone with asthma would
    be better off in a world with less air pollution.  His pseudo-humility covers up a basic unwillingness to get involved.  Or, he's got
    his head in the sand when it comes to the problems of society and of individuals that are just too big or complicated for a family
    or small group to help with.

    10.  It's provincial.  It ignores the fact that the economies and socieities of all the world's nations are now interconnected.
    If someone lives in the country with well water, septic tank and a burn pit for their garbage, they can fantasize they are not relying
    on the government.  But then when their four-year-old comes down with cancer, they're only too happy to take him to the big city
    hospital for chemo that was studied using federal funding.

    So…  I call BULLSHIT on libertarianism.  It's a stupid position to take.  Even if it could be implemented it couldn't succeed.
    Its thinly veiled social "darwinism" but without any of the nuance of true evolutionary theory.

    Original Article – includes link to video

    #369597

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    [size=14pt]Libertarianism is Bullshit[/size]

    Like many others who abhor the politics of Jesus Freaks and Stupid Hippies with equal vigor,
    I was drawn to libertarianism because it pissed off everyone, from religious fundamentalists who
    wish to impose their theology on others to Nanny State worrywarts who want to impose their sobriety.
    No decent American would argue with the "live and let live" philosophy, but here's the thing: libertarians
    are complete douche bags.

    Anarcho-capitalism is a ridiculous adolescent fantasy (would you really want to pay a fee whenever
    you leave the house or take a walk in the park) and nobody older than fifteen should take Ayn Rand
    seriously. For Christ's sake, if she were a talented writer, she could've said everything in 300 pages instead of 3,000!

    And if government is inherently corrupt because people are inherently corrupt, then it stands to reason
    that corporations—comprised of, you know, people—are no different. The evil and brutal are most likely
    to succeed in business than Ayn Rand’s principled superheroes. Libertarians would paralyze the one entity
    that is capable of curbing corruption to some degree; instead of campaigning for actual freedom, they would
    simply prefer their dictators to hold MBAs instead of political science degrees. For people who supposedly
    believe in liberty, they're some of the biggest authoritarians out there.

    You're probably not going to become a billionaire, so stop caring about their feelings. They'll be fine no matter
    what happens—they're f***ing billionaires—but you won't. They don't need to be spared from slightly raised
    inheritance taxes, but millions of Americans need to be spared from atrocious working and living conditions.
    And this requires laws of some kind.

    No police, no firefighters no courts… unless you have money. Prominent anarcho-capitalist David Friedman
    argues, “[T]he systems of law will be produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are
    produced today." (Because justice is exactly like Playtex.) He concedes that the effectiveness of such a system
    “remains to be proven.” There is a reason for this: it’s f***ing asinine.

    Santa Claus doesn’t exist, but the government does. Taxes suck, yes, but so do other necessary things, such as
    eating vegetables and showering on a daily basis. Public schools are necessary for civilization, industries need
    regulations to thrive, and a public toilet is not an outpost of communism… even if it's an outhouse of communicability.
    (Are you ready to piss your pants because you don't have the pocket change? Or are you a Commode Communist?)

    That said, the goddamn DMV should be defunded immediately.

    Original Article


    [size=14pt]10 Reason Why Libertarianism is Bullshit[/size]

    I have encountered some libertarian atheists, and a video of Penn Jillette talking about
    his version of libertarianism I screamed BULLSHIT!

    1.  It's impossible.  Libertarianism is impossible except for survivalist nutters and hermits.  Humans need
    a social structure because we're a social species.  Trusting that humans can moderate their own behavior on their
    own is just a fantasy.  If we were as sparsely distributed as wolf packs, we could get along in our small groups without
    intervention from a higher authority in theory…. but the matriarch or patriarch would be the higher authority so even
    that isn't strictly libertarian.  Anyway, we're long past the point in evolution where we could manage our behavior without
    a formal structure.  Michael Shermer theorizes the optimal size for a human community to manage without any oversight
    is about 150.  Those days are gone.

    2.  It's naive.  It assumes people are basically good.  This is a nice thought, and a refreshing break from the Christian
    belief that all people are sinners who need to be saved, but it's just plain wrong.  Just as we differ in our DNA we differ in our
    personalities.  Some of us will go through life making very few decisions that negatively impact others, and some of us ar
    sociopaths. At its best, government protects the truly good from the sociopaths.  Without a government, we would be reduced
    to lynch mobs which can only avenge bad deeds, not prevent them.  And we certainly wouldn't have something like the FBI,
    which can trace the path of a serial killer from one area to the next based on DNA evidence, etc.  I think the people who
    believe that "survival of the fittest ergo libertarianism" probably assume they are the fittest themselves.  They don't think
    that they would be the victims of a sociopath.  Bernie Madoff counted on this kind of hubris to make his illegal millions.

    3.  It's cold-hearted.  For example, regulations about safety in cars aren't needed because over time car companies
    would be forced to make safer cars or they'd go out of business.  So the people who died in fires caused by exploding
    gas tanks in Ford Pintos, or in wrecks caused by the design of their Corvair were just collateral damage in the evolution of
    better cars.  People who died because of unregulated businesses did nothing to deserve that fate, except perhaps not be able
    to afford better cars.  And the pseudo-Darwinism of libertarianism really doesn't care what the strong do to the weak. Rich
    and powerful people are good and deserve to be rich and powerful.  The poor and powerless deserve what they get.

    4.  It ignores history.  We haven't always had a U.S. government.  It's only a little more than 200 years old.  But we do
    know earlier forms of society.  We've had monarchies.  We've had theocracies.  We had the ancient Roman & Greek systems
    that privileged people with money.  Modern democracy certainly has its failings, but we really be better off returning to "less"
    government considering what our previous systems gave us?

    5.  It's not natural.  The underlying assumption of libertarianism is that government is an artificial construct that interferes
    with natural behavior, which they believe works just fine on its own.  There's no evidence that humanity could have survived without
    some form of social organization.  The instinct for survival that causes some to climb to the top of the heap and others to hide from
    the climbers just doesn't result in a society that works for large numbers.  It probably won't work for small numbers, either.

    6.  It ignores human failings.  We no longer live in family groups in tiny villages, and if Libertarianism became the "law" of
    the land, we would pretty much have to go back to that.  In our distant past, we helped each other within our own group
    and competed against other groups for resources.  Surviving without a government would require all of us to gather into
    small groups for protection and predation.  Child abuse and spousal abuse would again be perpetrated with no recourse.
    Victims of alcoholism or mental illness would have no access to services, and their families would suffer.  A small group's only
    hope of survival when "infected" with a defective member would be to ostracize that member.

    7.  It ignores human compassion.  Libertarianism denies the instinct to help others, which has been shown in other
    species as well. Government taking a role in "lifting up" the poor is an extension of the instinct we would follow individually
    in a smaller group.  By blaming the victim, libertarians can imagine themselves the agents of their own good luck.  There's
    no place in their worldview for helping the blind, the deaf, the physically impaired, or the children of these people.  The mentally
    ill who are incapable of working for a living due to their illness?  *shrug*  At least religions have charities that make a dent in
    these issues.  Secular libertarians leave the powerless to their own devices as if blindness or mental illness were somehow the
    victim's own fault.  There have been hundreds if not thousands of examples of other animals helping each other or even other
    species, so compassion seems to be instinctual.  I have yet to meet a libertarian who has a relative that needs help to survive.
    If I had the power to curse people, I'd curse libertarians with multiple sclerosis.  Let's see how many ways they make use of the
    ADA law's provisions.

    8.  It ignores Somalia.  Somalia is the perfect example of libertarianism in action. There's basically no government in
    Somalia so we can see what would happen.  Without a government, pirates and tribal groups terrorize others.  Women and
    children are mistreated.  Disease is rampant.  There's no viable business other than crime.  It's a chaotic mess.  Why would
    anyone want to copy that model?

    9.  It's selfish.  On the surface, Penn Jillette saying that he doesn't know what's best for someone else seems humble
    and charitable.  But really, sometimes he would know what's best.  He would know that a woman being beaten on a daily basis
    by an abusive husband would be better off if she could get out of that situation.  He would know that someone with asthma would
    be better off in a world with less air pollution.  His pseudo-humility covers up a basic unwillingness to get involved.  Or, he's got
    his head in the sand when it comes to the problems of society and of individuals that are just too big or complicated for a family
    or small group to help with.

    10.  It's provincial.  It ignores the fact that the economies and socieities of all the world's nations are now interconnected.
    If someone lives in the country with well water, septic tank and a burn pit for their garbage, they can fantasize they are not relying
    on the government.  But then when their four-year-old comes down with cancer, they're only too happy to take him to the big city
    hospital for chemo that was studied using federal funding.

    So…  I call BULLSHIT on libertarianism.  It's a stupid position to take.  Even if it could be implemented it couldn't succeed.
    Its thinly veiled social "darwinism" but without any of the nuance of true evolutionary theory.

    Original Article – includes link to video

    Needless topic, everyone knows that liberalism is not good

    #369598

    Anonymous
    Quote:
    Needless topic, everyone knows that liberalism is not good

    Liberalism and Libertarianism are not to be confused.

    #369599

    Anonymous

    Thanks for posting this. Libertarianism really is shit and there are no chances that it will ever work. The 10 reasons posted in the article are exactly the first things that come to my mind when I see someone praising Libertardianism. So, to everyone who things this bullshit ideology is cool and that Ron Paul (who is half or quarter Jewish btw) is the new messiah: go to Somalia :)

    #369600

    Anonymous

    All of that may be true but I would still support Ron Paul over Obama or whatever throw away other candidate the Republicans are going to lose with in 2012.
    But none of this really matters because I'm not an American citizen and I cannot vote. 

    #369601

    Anonymous

    The basic problem you describe is tyranny, not liberalism. It is an American* thing to label classic "left-wing tyranny" as liberalism. Nationalism, for example, was a movement (I say "was" until someone proves me nationalism still exists in Europe) mainly pushed forward by liberal reformers and those sympathizing with liberal ideas such as human rights (anti-serfdom…), legal and fair courts (due proces clause…), citizen rights and duties (the right to bear arms, conscription…), free press and last but not least economic reforms.
    All these achievements were lost, like nationalism was taken over and consequently abused by the plutocrtas to push forward their imperialist ideas, liberalism has been totally corrupted and turned against its own basic principles – of course, this does not keep the tyrants from claiming to act in the sense and in the tradition of true liberalism and democracy.
    The basic problem is, so far the modernist tyranny, whatever you call it – I stick with simple plutocracy – has been proven to be totally superior, rendering inferiour all more or less idealistic ideologies such as NS, Fascism etc. It is nonsensical to claim those latter loser ideologies ever had been or will be brought to power "by the will of the people/a revolution", this never happened and never will happen, if the plutocrats decide it would be beneficial to have such an ideology as a reason of state, it will be implemented, if not, then not, latter describes the situtation as of today. And since internationalist/supranationalist (EU…) imperialism and the market mechanisms these days would be threatened by classic nationalist chauvinism, it is oppressed with all costs and all means. Now, there are still those claiming all that will break down some days, it may be the case, but I do not expect it to happen in foreseeable future – and even if there would be an economic meltdown, people rather would be busy to care for their basic needs rather than old idealist and liberal concepts such as the nation, the course will totally depend on those decision makers in charge, the only thing one can do is to hope there may be enough pressure upon them then.

    *
    [IMG]http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/349/liberalfivepillarsofthe.png”/>

    Edit: argh I did not see it was mainly about libertarianism not just liberalism

    #369602

    Anonymous

    That critique is even more naive than libertarianism supposedly is.

    … Child abuse and spousal abuse would again be perpetrated with no recourse.

    Perhaps even racism will again be perpetrated with no recourse!
    The humanity!
    Those caves our stone-age ancestors were dwelling in must've been veritable dens of human rights abuse.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Slavorum

11 User(s) Online Join Server
  • 'las
  • GOGA
  • Lucifer Morningstar
  • slovborg
  • ca$hbunni
  • kony97