Antilibertarianism

[BabylonHoruv]

This is why I'm a Libertarian Socialist: "Burn it ALL down," I say.

No seriously: seriously limit the powers of central banks and governments, give The People domain over corporations and handle all the fuckups and socialized needs on a local level.

Amen. Except I don't call myself a Libertarian Socialist. I'm more of a libertarian (little l here) conservative. Sure, regulate banks and utilities. That's good. Even provide public education. That's pretty much necessary. But social security? Universal health care? How can you compromise libertarianism and socialism? Socialism is, in essence, huge government that takes your money and gives you "free" shit. I'd prefer a tiny government that lets me keep my money and allows me to go without such services if I don't want 'em. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the term "Libertarian Socialist."

The federal government's job is to bomb the shit out of nazis and Koreans, build interstates and aircraft carriers and to make sure no one's hanging niggers or burning the jews or arresting the guests at my abortion tupperware party. Other than that, I'd really like it if they'd fuck off and let me do drugs, shoot guns, doctor-shop and marry queers in peace.

Incidentally, while the federal government should certainly be in charge of the military (I'd rather not have that completely in the hands of a corporation /shudder), I'm of the belief that bombing Koreans and Nazis is secondary to the security of people within our nation. We need to get our own shit in line before we fuck other countries' shit up. Not to mention, the whole Democracy, Or Else concept is just a little ironic.

So what does that make me? A libertarian isolationist commercialist? I'm not sure, either.

Oh, and before I forget, the whole "Sue anyone who you possibly can" thing needs to go away. Fuck that. Suck it up. Its just a little bit of coffee in your lap, of course the fucking coffee is hot. You're obviously just greedy and lazy, and therefore looking for any excuse to make your problems someone elses' and capitalize on it.

[/rant]

- DeadLucky

Oh, also, I'm new here. Hi.

Might want to check out the history of the word libertarian before you start to think that libertarian socialist is a contradiction in terms.

(hint, it's a polite way of saying Anarchist)

[DeadLucky]

You're right.  Better to let them and their children starve to death.

After all, they deserve it for being so lazy they can't find jobs, right?

Meh, you may have a point about the children.

(hint, it's a polite way of saying Anarchist)

Small government isn't no government. That's like say that Socailism is a polite way of saying Communism. It isn't.

Frivolous lawsuits may exist, but that ain't one of them.

Personally, I think that if you spill HOT liquid on yourself, you're at fault. In the case of the woman at McDonalds, she was taking the lid off after sticking the cup between her knees. I don't think companies should be liable for stupidity, no matter how much damage may occur. If the spill had been caused by a faulty cup or lid then it would be McDonalds fault, which is pretty much what the later UK suit determined.

Also the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in the US ruled against the claim that 180F is too hot for coffee. (Which I know only cause Wikipedia says so...)

Lawsuits against companies should be valid in cases of negligence, intentional or unintentional. There is nothing that indicates McDonalds was negligent in the coffee case, they brewed the coffee to a widely accepted standard temperature and served it in a safe cup.

Thank you. Quoted for truth, I couldn't say it better.

We all know that bullets, if projected at a high velocity, have the ability to injure someone or something, Even if an ammunition manufacturer failed to tell me not to shoot myself, they wouldn't be negligent if I decided to try to catch a bullet with my hand. Or head. Or foot. Similarly, if hot enough, coffee has the ability to injure someone or something. But even if a coffee seller failed to tell me not to spill it on myself, they wouldn't be negligent if I decided to try to open a cup of coffee in my crotch and burn myself in the ballls. Or legs. Or torso.

Yeah, fuck off.

I'm a college graduate who has been looking for work in the past year, living with the girlfriend in Minnesota who is on disability. We eat only because I got on food stamps.

I'm sorry to hear that. I understand that my comment may have been taken as abrasive and insensitive, and honestly I didn't think about the ramifications of such. I apologize for the brazenness that which I announced sleep-deprived rantings. I didn't mean to insinuate that there are no cases in which such programs are necessary. In fact, I feel that such programs should be available and privately commercial, but perhaps not be mandatory to pay into: i.e. insurance.

you're too good to be "begging for scraps" -- that's rich.

you could get the ax at any time, man

your life could be instantly and completely transformed by an accident, a death, a promotion, any number of black swans

you may not be able to find work afterwards. Would you be too proud to beg for scraps then? When the cupboard is full of ramen noodles and the student loan collectors ring you three times a day?


I have to admit to a little offense at this characterization. I am a competent, intelligent, college educated young professional. In January 2009, my company cut my hours -- not because of anything I'd done, but because like many companies in 2009, we were bleeding money. And the low level employees are always the most expendable. So they saved somebody else's job by demoting me to part time and taking away my benefits.

I collected part-time unemployment while I looked for full time work. And you know what? there was dick out there. I couldn't find work. Not because I was lazy, there just weren't any jobs for me. Your application sits in a stack with 300+ other people's applications. You get so excited when somebody actually calls you in for an interview, you put on your best suit, your best self, and then you find out they're interviewing 13 people for the same position that day.

So I could have probably gotten a shitty job working in retail or food service, but shit - I'm a 28 year old college grad. I'd be making the same pay in a whole week as I used to in 2 or 3 days.

So you're saying that an attitude of resisting reliance on government subsidies is inferior to your own attitude of refusal to get a food service job? 

Once you go down that hill, it's really hard to climb back up. Instead I got some unemployment to get me through the hard times, and now that the economy has relaxed a bit, my company hired me back full time. So for me, the story has a happy ending. But it didn't for a lot of people.

You could have, instead, gotten that job that you felt you were too good for and not continued to search for another job more acceptable for someone of your status. I've worked in fast food before. It isn't fun, it isn't easy, but it is enough to get by. At least you can get a good paying job if the market is good. Not quite hard times.

I don't begrudge people for not having a job when there's no jobs to go around. It's not a measure of skill or worth. We are trapped in the belly of the beast, and the beast is bleeding to death.

I don't either. I begrudge people for not having a job when there are jobs to go around. Or for collecting unemployment whilst actually having a job.

- DeadLucky

[Vene]

I'm sorry to hear that. I understand that my comment may have been taken as abrasive and insensitive, and honestly I didn't think about the ramifications of such. I apologize for the brazenness that which I announced sleep-deprived rantings. I didn't mean to insinuate that there are no cases in which such programs are necessary. In fact, I feel that such programs should be available and privately commercial, but perhaps not be mandatory to pay into: i.e. insurance.

You think? Do you think that I'd be pissed off because you just said that I deserve to starve underneath a bridge? The apology isn't accepted, you don't get one just because you ask for it. Earn it, fuckhead.

Oh, and just so we're clear, the private insurance thing, not ever going to be an equivalent alternative. Just like how our private health care system sucks in comparison to universal health care programs. Speaking of, it's another thing I don't have due to the unemployment. My health care plan is "don't get sick." But, better to have somebody who is educated die from something easy to prevent than to consider that maybe, just maybe we live in a society and that you have responsibilities to that society. I want to get a job, I hate being on welfare. I want to pay taxes again, knowing that it goes towards NiceThings™ like highways and public schools and social security. We're social animals, libertarians need to get that through their fucking skulls.

[Cramulus]

Once you go down that hill, it's really hard to climb back up. Instead I got some unemployment to get me through the hard times, and now that the economy has relaxed a bit, my company hired me back full time. So for me, the story has a happy ending. But it didn't for a lot of people.

You could have, instead, gotten that job that you felt you were too good for and not continued to search for another job more acceptable for someone of your status. I've worked in fast food before. It isn't fun, it isn't easy, but it is enough to get by. At least you can get a good paying job if the market is good. Not quite hard times.

I was still working at the publishing house 3 days per week. I was only collecting unemployment for 2 days per week. If I had left the office to go do retail/food, I'd be working twice as long for the same pay. By working in a McD's kitchen, I'd also be making myself less attractive to people hiring me for the jobs I actually want. The unemployment money allowed me to continue living in my current apartment and continue working at that job, as opposed to quitting that and working 40 hours a week doing something I'm overqualified for. I was already dirty poor and living in ghetto ass yonkers, I'm so glad I didn't have to get even more desperate and destitute to get to the other side of the tunnel.

I'm not too good to work retail, btw. In fact, I've already been down that road --- my first job out of college was working at Toys R Us. Then, I found work performing clinical drug research, then eventually I went back to retail. Now publishing, then ...?

come on, there's gotta be more than two rungs on this ladder! 


so thank, Uncle Sam!

[Requia ☣]

(hint, it's a polite way of saying Anarchist)

Small government isn't no government. That's like say that Socailism is a polite way of saying Communism. It isn't.

Uh, no, Libertarian-socialism refers to a form of anarchy, I forget which kind, as I can't be arsed to keep tack of them, but I think its one of the no private property ones.  The 'libertarian' part started being used to refer to something completely different later on.

[BabylonHoruv]

(hint, it's a polite way of saying Anarchist)

Small government isn't no government. That's like say that Socailism is a polite way of saying Communism. It isn't.

The term anarchism derives from the Greek ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "without rulers", from the prefix ἀν- (an-, "without") + ἀρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy")  + -ισμός (-ismos, from the suffix -ιζειν, -izein  "-izing"). There is some ambiguity with the use of the terms "libertarianism" and "libertarian" in writings about anarchism. Since the 1890s from France,[17]  the term "libertarianism" has often been used as a synonym for anarchism and was used almost exclusively in this sense until the 1950s in the United States;[18]  its use as a synonym is still common outside the United States.  Accordingly, "libertarian socialism" is sometimes used as a synonym for socialist anarchism, to distinguish it from "individualist libertarianism" (individualist anarchism). On the other hand, some use "libertarianism" to refer to individualistic free-market philosophy only, referring to free-market anarchism as "libertarian anarchism."

Copied from Wikipedia, as you may notice Libertarianism has only been used in the minimal government free market sense you are referring to since the 1950's but has denoted an Anarchist for another 50 years before that and it is still used to denote an Anarchist in countries that are not the US. Also, Libertarian Socialist is an older term than Libertarian Capitalist (the form assumed by the US Libertarian party) and means an Anarchist Socialist, as opposed to a Communist, or a Social Democrat, or an Individualist Anarchist.

[DeadLucky]

You think? Do you think that I'd be pissed off because you just said that I deserve to starve underneath a bridge? The apology isn't accepted, you don't get one just because you ask for it. Earn it, fuckhead.

Nobody deserves to starve underneath a bridge, Vene. And how the hell do you earn forgiveness over the internet? I can't very well bake you cookies for your bridgewarming party. I apologized. Honestly, this whole thread is a little too serious, I didn't mean to insult, I just failed to use any tact in how I commented. Moderately unintentional abrasive oversimplification vs. conscious insults.

Oh, and just so we're clear, the private insurance thing, not ever going to be an equivalent alternative. Just like how our private health care system sucks in comparison to universal health care programs. Speaking of, it's another thing I don't have due to the unemployment. My health care plan is "don't get sick."

But, better to have somebody who is educated die from something easy to prevent than to consider that maybe, just maybe we live in a society and that you have responsibilities to that society. I want to get a job, I hate being on welfare. I want to pay taxes again, knowing that it goes towards NiceThings™ like highways and public schools and social security.

Theoretically, while it would be difficult for such an organization to keep track of where its money is going, and whom to pay it to, I'd be willing to advocate private charity as an opposite to government welfare. Just because it doesn't exist to the extent that it would need to doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't.

We're social animals, libertarians need to get that through their fucking skulls.

Not only am I a social animal, I'm also a party animal. /conga line.

- DeadLucky

[Triple Zero]

You think? Do you think that I'd be pissed off because you just said that I deserve to starve underneath a bridge? The apology isn't accepted, you don't get one just because you ask for it. Earn it, fuckhead.

Nobody deserves to starve underneath a bridge, Vene. And how the hell do you earn forgiveness over the internet? I can't very well bake you cookies for your bridgewarming party. I apologized. Honestly, this whole thread is a little too serious, I didn't mean to insult, I just failed to use any tact in how I commented. Moderately unintentional abrasive oversimplification vs. conscious insults.

No, you were judging people in a situation that you obviously do not know SHIT FUCK about.

Being on welfare aint no party either. Not at all. You say it like you think it's "free moneys", which means you know DICK. But you are oooh sooo quick to judge.

FYI I'm from the Netherlands and I know welfare is tough enough already here, in the US [and most other countries I know of] it's way worse, so no, you're really being an asshole here. You need to check yourself and check yourself real good. Cause you think you're being all reasonable spouting this shit, even when you're being proven wrong [re: Vene etc]. But you're not. Life is not "every man for themselves", and it never has been. Sure, social security used to be done on a more local neighbourhood/family level. But was it voluntary? You bet your ass it wasn't. Not unless you'd like to starve or rot the first opportunity fate could throw it at you. Never was, and never will be. No man, think about it.
If you think you got yourself in a nice cozy position up high and dry in society, if you think you can pull it on your own when misfortune comes your way, okay let us assume you're not horribly mistaken (in which case you're just dumb). The way your (our) society works right now determines that only a small part of society can be in such a dead lucky position to survive misfortune without a social safety net without too many scars. If you say this social safety net is to be done away with, you're damning all those other people. And if you think people should take care of eachother on a more local level, well, two things: First with that attitude of yours, they maybe aren't gonna be taking care of you, for long.
Second, more importantly, there are a whole bunch of systems in place in current society making sure that the local neighbourhood/family social safety net cannot provide and/or function properly. And these systems don't have anything to do with government taxes and welfare (which actually help), but corporations, which are, by definition, non-democratic and amoral.

But, better to have somebody who is educated die from something easy to prevent than to consider that maybe, just maybe we live in a society and that you have responsibilities to that society. I want to get a job, I hate being on welfare. I want to pay taxes again, knowing that it goes towards NiceThings™ like highways and public schools and social security.

Theoretically, while it would be difficult for such an organization to keep track of where its money is going, and whom to pay it to, I'd be willing to advocate private charity as an opposite to government welfare. Just because it doesn't exist to the extent that it would need to doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't.

except that evidence sort of points entirely the other way.

this point of view is based purely on wishful thinking. the "world peace would work if everyone would be nice to eachother" kind. [not saying that you say this, but it's similar reasoning]

the (largely privatized) US healthcare system is the most ineffective and most expensive-per-capita system in the WORLD.

All over the entire fucking world, whereever universal healthcare is (even somewhat!) implemented, it's [relatively] efficient and [relatively] cheap. Please point me to ONE example anywhere in the world or even history where a largely privatized healthcare system actually worked for the majority of the population.

Look it up.

Yeah it *could* work, in *theory*, just like world-peace *could* work, in *theory* if people were just nice to eachother.

["in theory" holding for certain levels of monkey-free models of theories]

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If the US were socialist, I still haven't gone to a doctor in a while, and the healthcare system certainly wouldn't be supporting me. I don't need it. I've made my money without it. I also have made my money without receiving any unemployment, disability, welfare, or social security checks. I don't expect to ever get any money in such a manner from the government.

Incidentally, my taxes pay for such programs, however. Its all shit, and it is free for the end user.

No offence to those who are reliant upon such programs, but I consider myself a little to good to be begging for scraps from the table of wealth and excesses. Call it a Greyfaced attitude of snobbery if you must. The American Dream is no longer to go from poverty or wealth, but to collect unemployment whilst working under the table, yet spending excessive amounts of money on expensive flashy rims and plasma screen televisions and stay in poverty.

Now, if you're talking about taking my money for infrastructure, police, education, the military, you're making sense. However, that's not what I'm concerned about.

- DeadLucky

Wow, you just outed yourself as a complete idiot in more ways than I have time to describe. Good job, moron.

[DeadLucky]

Life is not "every man for themselves", and it never has been.

Ah, but, in my opinion, it should be.

If you say this social safety net is to be done away with, you're damning all those other people.

I'm not advocating the dissolution of such social safety nets, I'm just saying that it would be nice if it came with a choice. Pay in to it, and have such a safety net, or don't and gamble with your fate. I'm a gambling man, personally. That's all.

And these systems don't have anything to do with government taxes and welfare (which actually help), but corporations, which are, by definition, non-democratic and amoral.

Some policies of libertarianism are non-democratic and amoral. Personally, I'm more of a free trade, anti-union sort of guy. You could probably tell that. But I like my corporations. Especially the amoral ones.

this point of view is based purely on wishful thinking. the "world peace would work if everyone would be nice to eachother" kind.

Aren't untested theories always wishful thinking? I'm merely talking about what I'd personally prefer the government to be like, for my own selfish gain. I'm not talking about what system would work best for you, or Jack, or Jill, or Rupert. If I thought we were talking about systems that actually work, I wouldn't be advocating libertarianism. It is just an interesting theoretical concept (i.e. wishful thinking). I also talk about other things that don't necessarily exist but would be cool if they did, such as superpowers or the zombie apocalypse.

Wow, you just outed yourself as a complete idiot in more ways than I have time to describe. Good job, moron.

Thank you. I try.

- Moron

[Requia ☣]

How the fuck do you be free trade and anti union?

Employers can do whatever they want, but employees should be restricted?  You're not a libertarian, you're a fucking corporatist.

[Reginald Ret]

Corporations are the new nation-state.
or to describe its trophic relation more clearly:

> means farms
\\ means infects

corporation > govt and people
government > people and corp
corp \\ govt
people \\ corp and govt (in theory, but usually they just submit to what is expected from them)
To make this system work for the people we need to get the corps out of the govt and convince the people to use the power they have (in effect: get a spine)

[Nephew Twiddleton]

this point of view is based purely on wishful thinking. the "world peace would work if everyone would be nice to eachother" kind.

Aren't untested theories always wishful thinking? I'm merely talking about what I'd personally prefer the government to be like, for my own selfish gain. I'm not talking about what system would work best for you, or Jack, or Jill, or Rupert. If I thought we were talking about systems that actually work, I wouldn't be advocating libertarianism. It is just an interesting theoretical concept (i.e. wishful thinking). I also talk about other things that don't necessarily exist but would be cool if they did, such as superpowers or the zombie apocalypse.

Wow, you just outed yourself as a complete idiot in more ways than I have time to describe. Good job, moron.

Thank you. I try.

- Moron

I was under the impression that was the exact purpose of this thread. To try and think up solutions without this becoming a thread about Libertarianism. Not what works personally for you for your own selfish reasons.

[Vene]

I was under the impression that was the exact purpose of this thread. To try and think up solutions without this becoming a thread about Libertarianism. Not what works personally for you for your own selfish reasons.

It was derailed on page fucking one. Damn libertarians. NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU!

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I was under the impression that was the exact purpose of this thread. To try and think up solutions without this becoming a thread about Libertarianism. Not what works personally for you for your own selfish reasons.

It was derailed on page fucking one. Damn libertarians. NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU!

True, but DeadLucky didn't seem to catch that at all with his last statement. Even if it got derailed, there were a some good on the topic posts along the way.