Answering the libertarians and their lies

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Answering the libertarians and their lies

Postby yathrib » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:33 pm

Relevant to some of the discussions we've had on this board.<br> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2005/02/answering-libertarians-and-their-lies.html">robertlindsay.blogspot.co...-lies.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Answering the libertarians and their lies

Postby wordspeak » Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:27 pm

Thanks for that. <p></p><i></i>
wordspeak
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

RE: Libertarianism

Postby Bilbo Hicks » Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:15 pm

Why attack libertarians? True libertarianism trumps any modern political philosophy in terms of personal freedom. <br>Much of their (talking about true libertarians here like Edward Griffin) arguments against collectivism are very well founded and sound. The disclaimer is personal responsibilty, which doesnt discount charity. <br>Its a pipe dream though much like Communism and Socialism (as it stands in presently). <br>Besides collectivism and related loss of personal freedom, most attacks by lucid libertarians are on the central banking (debt money at interest, income tax of the middle & working classes & inflationary taxes) support of the state, which (to them) reveals the facade of who really controls the state. <br>I dont see much difference between that and many posters here. Many socialistic bent people (including me back int he day) get uneasy that their political beliefs could be a product of the manipulations of elitists since the 1800s.<br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Bilbo Hicks
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:56 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: RE: Libertarianism

Postby bvonahsen » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:06 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Its a pipe dream though much like Communism and Socialism<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>If it really is a pipe dream than I can see no use in discussing it. I honestly don't know much about libertarianism other than most of it's followers I have met are nuts and need to get out of the house once in a while.<br><br>Ayn Rand was perhaps the first libertarian, that should be all we need to know.<br><br>There is this guy LaRouche, he has some great ideas, check him out. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <-- tongue firmly in cheek <p></p><i></i>
bvonahsen
 

RE: Libertarianism

Postby rothbardian » Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:13 am

I looked over that linked article. There were numerous errors in his presuppositions, starting with his complete oversight of the fact of health care and medical costs being astronomically overpriced due to collusion between the industry and the government. <br><br>You can't possibly have an intelligent discussion about health care if you've overlooked that huge factor.<br><br>Another huge error (in my opinion) is his complete naivete regarding "deregulation". It doesn't occur to him that when the government agrees to "deregulation" it's nothing but a big set-up. <br><br>The deregulation invariably is only a REregulation...and the whole thing is set up for failure. Then the government is able to step in and say-- "See, deregulation dosn't work."<br><br>The government then tightens AND widens it's grip.<br><br>LaRouche as a prototype Libertarian? And these scruffy Berkeley-types? Those are mainstream media notions, IMO.<br><br>Libertarianism certainly produces individuality and even eccentricity, in some cases (the whole John Lennon profile the media love to focus on). But the scholarly definitions of Libertarianism come from...scholars.<br><br>THE best, the most articulate and scholarly 'definers' of freedom and Libertarian thought are to be found at <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://lewrockwell.com/">lewrockwell.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> and...<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.mises.org/">www.mises.org/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>I dare anybody to read (for example) some of Rothbard's writings. Here is a sample: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html">www.lewrockwell.com/rothb...ard62.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>His stuff is very readable. Here are his archives:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard-lib.html">www.lewrockwell.com/rothb...d-lib.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Another writer I like...Butler Shaffer:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer-arch.html">www.lewrockwell.com/shaff...-arch.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: RE: Libertarianism

Postby bvonahsen » Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:16 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Why attack libertarians? True libertarianism trumps any modern political philosophy in terms of personal freedom.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Bullshit, did you actually read the article? Or are you "above" that? Of course, if you set up a strawman and try to limit your position to "terms of personal freedom" you will always succeed. But that is not an argument, it's a delusion.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Much of their [...] arguments against collectivism are very well founded and sound.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Just saying something doesn't make it so. I have never seen a sound, rational argument comming from the right or from libertarians. The <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"best"</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> that you have is Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and that hardly qualifies as "argument". It is in fact a long screed, a rant posing as debate. Her inability to form a coherent argument is matched only by her ignorance of greek philosophers.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Besides collectivism and related loss of personal freedom, most attacks by lucid libertarians [sic] are on the central banking (debt money at interest, income tax of the middle & working classes & inflationary taxes) support of the state, which (to them) reveals the facade of who really controls the state.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>When you state <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"which (to them)"</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> you are suddenly in the realm of opinion and perception. Of course libertarians percive "to them" that taxes are a facade. This is called begging the question and is considered a sophomoric fallacy. Let me know when you get to be a senior, kay?<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I dont see much difference between that and many posters here. Many socialistic bent people (including me back int he day) get uneasy that their political beliefs could be a product of the manipulations of elitists since the 1800s.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>What you see or don't see is hardly the point though is it? Perhaps all you have done is to replace one ideology with another? I think this would be a great time to seek the truth with <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"fear and trembling"</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> rather than arrogance and pride.<br><br>If you actually read Robert Lindsay's article and comprehend it you will understand that he is making a pragmatic argument. That, irregardless of pretty libertarian theories, socialized medicine actually works. Privitization does not.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The fact is, capitalism is bad for your health, period, exclamation point. It's a rule of nature, like gravity or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.<br><br>What would a libertarian health care system look like? Simple. Like the health care system we had in most of the past few centuries on much of the planet, where only the well-off could afford to go to the doctor or buy medicine and the poor were left to beg for succor or sicken and die, which they did, by the hundreds of millions.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>But hey, at least they're free <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"which (to them) reveals the facade of who really controls the state."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If you want to know what the libertarian vision looks like, just go to the Third World, where the state doesn't pay for anything and the public sphere is decrepit, abused, nonfunctional, dangerous, inadequate, nonexistent or for the rich only<br>[...]<br>That's the libertarian dream, or nightmare. We know what it looks like because it's been tried in the past for centuries, the world over, in culture after culture. We can see its devastation in the 3rd World as we speak.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>No... we are not being manipulated <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>in this matter</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> by some unseen elite. One ought not to globalize one's personal failures and project them onto others. The fault lies not in the stars but in ourselves. It lies in our failure to persue the truth without regard for where it leads us. It lies in our willingness to believe that which comforts our egos and punishes our enemies. Taking a good hard look at ourselves should be the first task of those who presume to understand "deep politics". Failing to do that inner work is bound lead you no where fast. <p></p><i></i>
bvonahsen
 

Re: RE: Libertarianism

Postby rothbardian » Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:30 am

bvonahsen--<br><br>You state-- "...seek the truth with "fear and trembling" rather than arrogance and pride."<br><br>Jeepers, you hit that guy pretty hard. Maybe you two have had some previous debates? I didn't see much arrogance there. Anyway, enough psychobabble on my part.<br><br>I'll say this for freedom-- those who try to argue against it, REALLY have their work cut out for them. If I want to be free, and you don't agree, who's going to take that 'inappropriate' freedom away from me? You? <br><br>Then why do YOU have the freedom to take away my freedom?<br><br>If you disagree with the concept of me (or anyone) having prerogative...if you therefore, take my prerogative away from me, you now have <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>my</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> prerogative and also still have <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>YOUR</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> prerogative. It's illogical.<br><br>I believe that is why my experience with people who argue adamantly against Libertarianism...has been that they have an <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>EXTREMELY strong tendency to shy away from the fundamental mechanics and principles of freedom</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->:<br><br>It's the sheer illogic of someone using his prerogative to take away my prerogative...because he doesn't believe in the individual having a perogative. (?) Wow.<br><br>These opponents would MUCH rather get into anecdotal material-- like the linked blog (above) where the guy is talking about some teachers he ran into, as proof that freedom in education is wrong. <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rothbardian>rothbardian</A> at: 8/16/06 3:34 am<br></i>
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: RE: Libertarianism

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:48 am

Here's a personal thought on the whole concept of socialist medecine.<br><br>When my wife, an epileptic, went status epileptic in January, at the bottom of a sheer ravine in a jungle i thought she might die on me. In my arms there in the jungle.<br><br>There seemed sweet fuck all I could do about that cept hold her head off the rocks make sure she was still breathing and hope she came out of it.<br><br>Thanks to the help from other people around we arranged to call for medical help.<br><br>She was in a hospital, in an induced coma to stop the seizure within an hour, 75 minutes at most.<br><br>We haven't paid anything for that, except taxes, ambo's insurance (which wasn't necessary), and donations to the rescue helicoptor fund. None of which we paid at the time. They were all paid beforehand or afterwards as part of various things we are involved in (ie taxation, union fees - which you can choose to add money to for donations to the fund.<br><br>The rescue chopper is called the westpac, cos of the dodgy bank that started the program and gets a free plug everytime someone mentions it... BTW<br><br>She was in hospital for a week, getting as good a care as anywhere in the world, but their standards are dropping.<br><br>Thats due to the privatisation bullshit tho...<br><br>basically without a socialist medical system my wife would have died in my arms that day.<br><br>We have no medical insurance. Its only cos of Australia's socialist leanings that she got out and today is OK.<br><br>Where else in the world could you go from the bottom of a ravine in a gully to the best medical care in the world in under 90 minutes and not have to think about money once not only during that time but for ever after.<br><br>(Probably lots of places, but only in those with a socialist influenced system could you do that and not have to have millions of bucks or some extortive insurance premium to deal with.)<br><br>Nothing has changed my attitude to the state like seeing that happen. For all its flaws it set up a system that saved my wifes life, when she really should have fitted till she dropped.<br><br>BTW It wasn't just the system, there were people who stopped to help, who arranged the contact, who were part of the volunteer ambo crew and the paid guys who responded.<br><br>They got some commendation for that performance BTW.<br><br>But they were able to function because the institution actually worked in that case, and provided the infrastructure that enabled them to do amazing things. Like keep the most important thing in my life - in my life. Instead of some traumatic grief infested memory.<br><br>Ideas are great in theory....<br> <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9380
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Cars as metaphor for unbridled Libertarianism

Postby Gouda » Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:19 am

Joe - whoa. What a story. <br><br>*** <br><br>Read this awhile back - glad to dust it off...<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>They call themselves libertarians; I think they're antisocial bastards</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br><br>The car is slowly turning us, like the Americans and the Australians, into a nation that recognises only the freedom to act <br><br>George Monbiot<br>Tuesday December 20, 2005<br>The Guardian <br><br>***<br><br>It is strange to see how the car has been overlooked as an agent of political change. We know that the breaking of the unions, the dismantling of the welfare state and the sale of council houses that Margaret Thatcher pioneered made us more individualistic. But the way in which the transition from individualism to the next phase of neoliberalism - libertarianism - was assisted by her transport policies has been largely ignored. She knew what she was doing.<br><br>***<br><br>Clarkson wants society out of his way when he's driving, and he isn't too particular about how it's done. One day, one of his fans will take him seriously.<br><br>But, doubtless cheered by the response of his readers, he has expanded his journalism from attacks on "the Lycra-Nazi sandalistas of Islington" (cyclists) to polemics against every kind of government intervention. He now rails against "nannying bureaucrats sticking their index-linked snouts into the trough" (health and safety inspectors); complains that he has to tell the police why he wants to keep a gun; appears to champion the right of householders to shoot burglars in the back; and ponders the use of landmines to deter ramblers.<br><br>***<br><br>Libertarianism has left the road and is now driving down the pavement.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1671053,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/Column...53,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Cars as metaphor for unbridled Libertarianism

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:14 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Joe - whoa. What a story.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>It was pretty intense but could have been soooo much worse.<br><br>Thanks to everyone that helped. Funny but someone turned up from down the road here. His son, who I coach at football, was carrying some ambo gear, just helping out. Should have seen the look on his face when he saw us...<br><br>Tho the look on mine must have been worse.<br><br><br>Interesting article.<br><br>I saw Grover nourquist on the telly last nite. Some British guy was doing a show about status anxiety, why democracy makes people unhappy or something...<br><br>he interviewed the grover with less personality and class than his muppet namesake.<br><br>It was interesting to hear his views on government.<br><br>That it basically exists to execute murderers and stay out of the way of business.<br><br>There may have been a little more to it, but thats about it. When asked about the role of governement to alleviate the suffering of those less fortunate in soviety, or to level the playing field so to speak, he basically laughed then poured scorn on the concept.<br><br>Personally I think the car is a great symbol of freedom, on some levels. You can get in one and go anywhere you want.<br><br>In 01 we bought an old toyota for 150 bucks, it was on the road with full rego for under a grand. Could do 1000 miles (1700 kms) on about 100 bucks petrol.<br><br>That was freedom, being able to jump in the car and go anywhere with a few hundred bucks in your pocket. maybe petrol is cheaper elsewhere, but here to melb on 100 (106 actually) dollarsis pretty damn cheap by aussie standards.<br><br>But cars also turn you into a jerk. Cos you resent being in them and not going as fast as you can.<br><br>I was yalking to a mate about it a few years ago.<br><br>He said some interesting things - the funniest being words to the effect of:<br><br>"Road Rage - is it any wonder. people are sitting behind a combustion machine, any wonder they get fired up? Its a chi thing."<br><br>He was talking about the explosive violent energy release that drives a piston to turn a wheel.<br><br>One of the funniest things I have seen was taking part in a "Critical mass" event once. Watching the angry pissed off car drivers was an eye opener.<br><br>It is interesting to consider that, and public transport.<br><br>People on public transport form a community if they travel together every day on the same services for years. they talk get to know each other etc etc.<br><br>If they are in cars they sit in their private wombs in traffic and stew.<br><br>Its so different and the implications are scary and strange. <p></p><i></i>
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 9380
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

The libertarian utopia in Rothbardian's head

Postby yathrib » Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:36 am

Rothbardian, does this libertarian utopia of yours exist anywhere but in your head? You remind me of Marxists who refute criticism of existing or historical communist states by claiming that they are not truly communist. Or Christians who refute every criticism of actual historical Christian behavior by claiming the perps are not *true* true Christians. Ditto bvonahsen(sp?) on most of the libertarians I've met being people (mostly privileged, brainy white males with a notable lack of common sense and "life experience") who need to get out more.<br><br>At least there *are* real, functioning social democracies in the world. And even Castro's Cuba has the best public health/literacy stats in Latin America, FWIW, although I am no fan of him or any other dictator... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=yathrib>yathrib</A> at: 8/16/06 8:40 am<br></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The libertarian utopia in Rothbardian's head

Postby trachys » Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:05 am

That would be Somalia. "Property rights"+no functioning state. Some libertarian bloggers were pretty excited about Somalia for a while ... I'll look for an example.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.mises.org/story/2066">www.mises.org/story/2066</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> (not a blog but you get the idea: "warlords exist because of the efforts to form a central government, not because of its absence")<br><br>hahahaha. ha. <p></p><i></i>
trachys
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The libertarian utopia in Rothbardian's head

Postby Dreams End » Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:20 am

roth himself was pretty high on Somalia in another thread.<br><br>but seriously, if you can't afford health care, you just shouldn't get sick. It's pretty simple, really. Why anyone would choose to have epilepsy I have no idea. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Freedom...

Postby yathrib » Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:07 pm

The ultimate freedom you're looking for is best found in the absence of pesky things like other people, as in those post-nuclear war worlds portrayed in the Twilight Zone. If I remember my 1950s teevee, it never turned out well. Be careful w/ your eyeglasses, anyway. <br><br>Yes, I'm being snide. I find the whole position so absurd that I can't find anything solid to argue respectfully against... Maybe that's why people are so dismissive. <p></p><i></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1876
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Freedom...

Postby bvonahsen » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:26 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I'll say this for freedom-- those who try to argue against it, REALLY have their work cut out for them. If I want to be free, and you don't agree, who's going to take that 'inappropriate' freedom away from me? You?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>This is just rhetoric, I never argued "against" freedom". Only against the libertarian delusion that freedom equals "no resposibility". The libertarian notion of freedom is really an infantile temper tantrum, the desire of the Ego to be free of all restraints. Sorry, but we live in a limited world, a universe that places limits upon us every second. Jump off a cliff and see how "free" you are.<br><br>Yeah, I was hard on him, not because of previous debates but because of my previous experiences. I have been homeless, alone on the streets of Minneapolis. So when someone tells me that the reason social supports or other programs have been cut and eliminated is so they can be "free", I get a little pissed off. When someone says that "taxation is theft", which is the libertarian philosophy in a nutshell, I know from experience just who gets the shaft in that arrangement, me.<br><br>There has to be a balance of course, or even better, a dialectic, between personal freedom on the one hand and social responsibility on the other. I'm not arguing for a communist state. I don't understand why that is so difficult to get (actually, I do, see below). Every one of us lives in a social context and we could no more survive outside of it than a bee could survive outside of the hive. We are social beings and as a result we have certain freedoms and certain responsibilities. They are not absolutes, the only person that is absolutely free is a corpse.<br><br>All this belongs on a different board so let me try to expand the argument and see if I can't bring it back on topic. So let me switch to looking at our social nature and how we exist within a social web. That outside of that social context nothing makes much sense. Take for instance, UFOs.<br><br>What does it mean to have seen a UFO or to have experienced an "alien abduction"? How much credence ought we to give to reports of pink glowing portals to another world? What about those who claim they were subjected to ritual satanic abuse as a child? Do "the nine" really exist? Is there really some secret cabal that rules the world and manipulates every government? What should we think about such "high weirdness"? Do we just dismiss these things out of hand? Or should we accept and swallow them whole?<br><br>Truth, I would argue, is a social construct. It cannot exist without the context we give it. It dies and dissolves away if we cannot place it within a broader context to nourish and sustain it. It then becomes just another anomally that we cannot explain and hence is useless to us. Strange experiences are just that, strange experiences. They are neither true or false, right or wrong. They just are.<br><br>So how do we do that? How do we go about deciding whether or not "my brother saw a UFO" or the libertarian proposition "freedom is an absolute good" are true statements? What is the process?<br><br>It's called thesis/antithesis or "the socratic method" or just plain science, which is just another word for knowledge. We need to reject the black and white, "stinking thinking", adolescent whinning of the extreme right and recognize that reality is a continum. All things exist on a dialectic like "true ----- false", "red ----- blue" or even "freedom-----responsibility".<br><br>Our task is to synthesize those opposites and form a new dialectic from which a new synthesis is formed... and so on. And no, I don't agree with Hegel about where this ultimately takes us, but I do agree with the process and that this is how the web of knowledge is built. <br><br>The current political climate of extremes rejects that process and hence we see the destruction of knowledge accross society. "No web weavers here" indeed! What we have in libertarianism today is nothing other than the politics of the corpse. <p></p><i></i>
bvonahsen
 

Next

Return to Other

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests