Educating Hunter: Libertarians

[hunter s.durden]

In the few days since I've returned to the board I've noticed a strong vibe against Libertarians that I don't seem to really recall. Whether or not this is simply imagined, I would once again like to weaponize this board's hatred for my own personal amusement.

My politics class contains a student whom is an outspoken Libertarian. Initially I wanted to be "nice*" as I sympathize with most 3rd parties because I have underdog syndrome (this is not always true). However, in the last class period said student sympathized with Romney saying "so what if he doesn't pay all those taxes, he gives to charity, how much is enough, blah blah." This little rant stuck in my head because it was was somewhat unprompted, and in my eyes it put him in the Republican zone. This makes him my new sparring partner (which makes me somewhat happy. When I have no one to argue with I start fading away like in Back to the Future).

ITT: please support or destroy the Libertarian party. Just about any little thing will be appreciated from the academic critique (Cain, v3x) to the inflammatory hate shit (the whole board), to support and counter-argument (one of you guys, right? I really hope this thread doesn't devolve into everyone sucking each others dicks over how much smarter than Ron Paul you all are). Things about environmental regulation are probably not needed, as I've never met a Libertarian who believes in global warming/ climate change/ science, and simply ignoring facts renders most issues moot. Please note that I have no problems contradicting myself, I can smoke a J and then argue the death penalty for possession (as proven by my alcoholism/ prohibitionist stance).

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The basic problem that I have with Libertarianism, speaking as a person who as a youth (a Wiccan youth, no less) identified as one, is that, like Anarchists and Communists, the premise of their entire philosophy is based on everyone behaving themselves nicely. It's not only Utopian (and Utopias by necessity eventually become Fascist, in order to make everyone behave), but also inherently contradictory to their other central tenet, that of everyone looking after themselves.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

The Libertarian party is basically the GOP for stoners. And Ron Paul has Bircher ties and his followers are tards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYaujnR_8NE

[AFK]

Libertarians forget that we live in these things called societies and communities, and the reason we do lies in the interconnectedness of individuals.


So, essentially, Libertarianism could work just dandy, if Libertarians all decided to live solitary, hermit-like existences.  If you want to live in a community and a society, by definition, you have to check some of your freedom at the door.

[hunter s.durden]

The Libertarian party is basically the GOP for stoners. And Ron Paul has Bircher ties and his followers are tards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYaujnR_8NE

What is a Bircher? I am not familiar with this.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

The John Birch Society. Notoriously racist right wingnuts.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In the few days since I've returned to the board I've noticed a strong vibe against Libertarians that I don't seem to really recall. Whether or not this is simply imagined, I would once again like to weaponize this board's hatred for my own personal amusement.

My politics class contains a student whom is an outspoken Libertarian. Initially I wanted to be "nice*" as I sympathize with most 3rd parties because I have underdog syndrome (this is not always true). However, in the last class period said student sympathized with Romney saying "so what if he doesn't pay all those taxes, he gives to charity, how much is enough, blah blah." This little rant stuck in my head because it was was somewhat unprompted, and in my eyes it put him in the Republican zone. This makes him my new sparring partner (which makes me somewhat happy. When I have no one to argue with I start fading away like in Back to the Future).

ITT: please support or destroy the Libertarian party. Just about any little thing will be appreciated from the academic critique (Cain, v3x) to the inflammatory hate shit (the whole board), to support and counter-argument (one of you guys, right? I really hope this thread doesn't devolve into everyone sucking each others dicks over how much smarter than Ron Paul you all are). Things about environmental regulation are probably not needed, as I've never met a Libertarian who believes in global warming/ climate change/ science, and simply ignoring facts renders most issues moot. Please note that I have no problems contradicting myself, I can smoke a J and then argue the death penalty for possession (as proven by my alcoholism/ prohibitionist stance).

Libertarians simply ignore the fact that the very things they despise are the same things that allow them to have the luxury to make their arguments.  For example, Somalia has all the qualities in government that they are asking for, which is why Somalia is a wealthy nation full of happy people, right?  You get all the protection you can pay for, you have none of those pesky "roads" to maintain, and if you pay off all the right people, you just MIGHT get a cargo in or out without having it taken by pirates.  And no social safety net.

But basically, it's this:  Libertarians ignore the very basic reality that we are pack-oriented creatures, and that we have a government mostly because a population needs an alpha.  That need is buried WAY back in the back of our brains, and explains why, for example, Americans think the president is an all-powerful emperor who can make sure everyone has a job, regulate oil prices, etc.

That being said, libertarianism fails for the same reason communism fails:  It does not take human psychology into account.  Libertarians, like communists, like to talk about how great everything would be if only people would be sensible.  Good luck with that.

[Dildo Argentino]

In the few days since I've returned to the board I've noticed a strong vibe against Libertarians that I don't seem to really recall. Whether or not this is simply imagined, I would once again like to weaponize this board's hatred for my own personal amusement.

My politics class contains a student whom is an outspoken Libertarian. Initially I wanted to be "nice*" as I sympathize with most 3rd parties because I have underdog syndrome (this is not always true). However, in the last class period said student sympathized with Romney saying "so what if he doesn't pay all those taxes, he gives to charity, how much is enough, blah blah." This little rant stuck in my head because it was was somewhat unprompted, and in my eyes it put him in the Republican zone. This makes him my new sparring partner (which makes me somewhat happy. When I have no one to argue with I start fading away like in Back to the Future).

ITT: please support or destroy the Libertarian party. Just about any little thing will be appreciated from the academic critique (Cain, v3x) to the inflammatory hate shit (the whole board), to support and counter-argument (one of you guys, right? I really hope this thread doesn't devolve into everyone sucking each others dicks over how much smarter than Ron Paul you all are). Things about environmental regulation are probably not needed, as I've never met a Libertarian who believes in global warming/ climate change/ science, and simply ignoring facts renders most issues moot. Please note that I have no problems contradicting myself, I can smoke a J and then argue the death penalty for possession (as proven by my alcoholism/ prohibitionist stance).

Libertarians simply ignore the fact that the very things they despise are the same things that allow them to have the luxury to make their arguments.  For example, Somalia has all the qualities in government that they are asking for, which is why Somalia is a wealthy nation full of happy people, right?  You get all the protection you can pay for, you have none of those pesky "roads" to maintain, and if you pay off all the right people, you just MIGHT get a cargo in or out without having it taken by pirates.  And no social safety net.

But basically, it's this:  Libertarians ignore the very basic reality that we are pack-oriented creatures, and that we have a government mostly because a population needs an alpha.  That need is buried WAY back in the back of our brains, and explains why, for example, Americans think the president is an all-powerful emperor who can make sure everyone has a job, regulate oil prices, etc.

That being said, libertarianism fails for the same reason communism fails:  It does not take human psychology into account.  Libertarians, like communists, like to talk about how great everything would be if only people would be sensible.  Good luck with that.

Well, I think this is dogma at work again. I think so because of this:

"Abstract
Could anarchy be good for Somalia's development? If state predation goes unchecked
government may not only fail to add to social welfare, but can actually reduce welfare below its
level under statelessness. Such was the case with Somalia's government, which did more harm to
its citizens than good. The government's collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness
opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper uses an "event study" to investigate the
impact of anarchy on Somali development. The  data suggest that while the state of this
development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless
welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.
Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia's economy and public goods in the absence of a
predatory state are responsible for this improvement. (JEL: O1, O17)"

(And the entire paper here: http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf)

And because of this:

http://libera.me.uk/pub/pub/books/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

That is an entire book. I don't think it ignores human/primate psychology and the stories it tells are far from utopias and rather feasible.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In the few days since I've returned to the board I've noticed a strong vibe against Libertarians that I don't seem to really recall. Whether or not this is simply imagined, I would once again like to weaponize this board's hatred for my own personal amusement.

My politics class contains a student whom is an outspoken Libertarian. Initially I wanted to be "nice*" as I sympathize with most 3rd parties because I have underdog syndrome (this is not always true). However, in the last class period said student sympathized with Romney saying "so what if he doesn't pay all those taxes, he gives to charity, how much is enough, blah blah." This little rant stuck in my head because it was was somewhat unprompted, and in my eyes it put him in the Republican zone. This makes him my new sparring partner (which makes me somewhat happy. When I have no one to argue with I start fading away like in Back to the Future).

ITT: please support or destroy the Libertarian party. Just about any little thing will be appreciated from the academic critique (Cain, v3x) to the inflammatory hate shit (the whole board), to support and counter-argument (one of you guys, right? I really hope this thread doesn't devolve into everyone sucking each others dicks over how much smarter than Ron Paul you all are). Things about environmental regulation are probably not needed, as I've never met a Libertarian who believes in global warming/ climate change/ science, and simply ignoring facts renders most issues moot. Please note that I have no problems contradicting myself, I can smoke a J and then argue the death penalty for possession (as proven by my alcoholism/ prohibitionist stance).

Libertarians simply ignore the fact that the very things they despise are the same things that allow them to have the luxury to make their arguments.  For example, Somalia has all the qualities in government that they are asking for, which is why Somalia is a wealthy nation full of happy people, right?  You get all the protection you can pay for, you have none of those pesky "roads" to maintain, and if you pay off all the right people, you just MIGHT get a cargo in or out without having it taken by pirates.  And no social safety net.

But basically, it's this:  Libertarians ignore the very basic reality that we are pack-oriented creatures, and that we have a government mostly because a population needs an alpha.  That need is buried WAY back in the back of our brains, and explains why, for example, Americans think the president is an all-powerful emperor who can make sure everyone has a job, regulate oil prices, etc.

That being said, libertarianism fails for the same reason communism fails:  It does not take human psychology into account.  Libertarians, like communists, like to talk about how great everything would be if only people would be sensible.  Good luck with that.

Well, I think this is dogma at work again. I think so because of this:

"Abstract
Could anarchy be good for Somalia's development? If state predation goes unchecked
government may not only fail to add to social welfare, but can actually reduce welfare below its
level under statelessness. Such was the case with Somalia's government, which did more harm to
its citizens than good. The government's collapse and subsequent emergence of statelessness
opened the opportunity for Somali progress. This paper uses an "event study" to investigate the
impact of anarchy on Somali development. The  data suggest that while the state of this
development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless
welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government.
Renewed vibrancy in critical sectors of Somalia's economy and public goods in the absence of a
predatory state are responsible for this improvement. (JEL: O1, O17)"

(And the entire paper here: http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf)

And because of this:

http://libera.me.uk/pub/pub/books/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

That is an entire book. I don't think it ignores human/primate psychology and the stories it tells are far from utopias and rather feasible.

[Dildo Argentino]

Oh, what a pity. 

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Oh, what a pity. 

I read the one quoted here. The rest:

[Cain]

The easiest way to troll a libertarian is to ask them why, if libertarianism is about human freedom, do so many libertarian thinkers seem to praise or openly support right-wing dictatorships, such as von Hayek's support of Pinochet, or Ludwig von Mises' guarded praise of fascism.  Last time I checked, pushing political dissidents out of helicoptors into shark-infested waters is not exactly freedom.

If he's Ayn Rand inclined, you can point to her own personality cult (while lol-ing about freedom and indvidualism) or you can juxtapose her comments on freedom with her comments on the Native Americans ("They didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.").  Also, if he has facial hair, point out Ayn Rand said you cannot trust men with facial hair.

Another easy way to wind up a libertarian is to ask them whether it should be legal that someone sell themselves into slavery.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Another easy way to wind up a libertarian is to ask them whether it should be legal that someone sell themselves into slavery.

Oh, you're good.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

It does call for bookmarking, doesn't it? 

[Dildo Argentino]

Another easy way to wind up a libertarian is to ask them whether it should be legal that someone sell themselves into slavery.

Under which competing law-provider system do you mean? I would buy into one in which it isn't.