Libertarianism Exposed?
Options
shootemwon
Members Posts: 4,635 ✭✭
So after all the wild ? that Kentucky Republican Rand Paul, the ideologically libertarian candidate for US Senate, has said the past couple days, I wanna know if anyone out there is rethinking libertarianism.
Don't let anyone tell you Rand Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act isn't the real libertarian position. It definitely is. Anyone who wants to contest that is going to have to explain to me what's libertarian about the government telling a private business owner who they have to provide service to.
Rand Paul has also bashed President Obama for being critical of BP since the oil spill. He said the harsh comments from the White House are "un-American". This one is a bit more difficult to understand. Since libertarians always talk about "personal responsibility", it's kind of strange that Paul wants Obama to cut some slack for the company that IS RESPONSIBLE for one of the worst environmental disasters in memory. The key here is that for libertarians "personal responsibility" basically means that if you get laid off or get sick and your health care provider drops your coverage, it's your fault cause you should have been born rich. When it comes to oil companies causing catastrophes that impact our environment and our economy, you shouldn't talk ? on them because the owners of the oil companies are still making money, which is all that matters.
So, anyway, I been trying to explain the ugly side of Libertarianism to a lot of people for a while now, to little avail. I'm hoping Rand Paul's own libertarian words serve as a wake up call to the growing number of young people who have bought into this extremist ideology.
Don't let anyone tell you Rand Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act isn't the real libertarian position. It definitely is. Anyone who wants to contest that is going to have to explain to me what's libertarian about the government telling a private business owner who they have to provide service to.
Rand Paul has also bashed President Obama for being critical of BP since the oil spill. He said the harsh comments from the White House are "un-American". This one is a bit more difficult to understand. Since libertarians always talk about "personal responsibility", it's kind of strange that Paul wants Obama to cut some slack for the company that IS RESPONSIBLE for one of the worst environmental disasters in memory. The key here is that for libertarians "personal responsibility" basically means that if you get laid off or get sick and your health care provider drops your coverage, it's your fault cause you should have been born rich. When it comes to oil companies causing catastrophes that impact our environment and our economy, you shouldn't talk ? on them because the owners of the oil companies are still making money, which is all that matters.
So, anyway, I been trying to explain the ugly side of Libertarianism to a lot of people for a while now, to little avail. I'm hoping Rand Paul's own libertarian words serve as a wake up call to the growing number of young people who have bought into this extremist ideology.
Comments
-
Pretty much right on.
-
He also said that the Americans with Disabilities Act was bad because it didn't contain an exception for.........something the law clearly creates an exception for.
I think that sort of "Libertarian" We-Don't-Want-The-Gov't-to-do-ANYTHING foolishness is best described as what it is: Conservative Anarchism. -
Swiffness! wrote: »He also said that the Americans with Disabilities Act was bad because it didn't contain an exception for.........something the law clearly creates an exception for.
I think that sort of "Libertarian" We-Don't-Want-The-Gov't-to-do-ANYTHING foolishness is best described as what it is: Conservative Anarchism.
Perhaps a more moderate form of Libertarianism has been hijacked by radicals, but if you look at the modern Libertarian movement in this country, it's based in extremism. -
But your under the misconception that Rand Paul is a libertarian. He is on some issues, but he is not a principled libertarian, not even like his father. He is more of Barry Goldwater Republican. I agree with his stance on the CRA and the ADA, but was troubled with the unpatriotic comment on BP. The spill is violating a lot of people's property rights. Also, he is pro-war with Iran, pro-Gitmo, he said is for a Federal Ban on abortions........he is definitely not libertarian. So your no, libertarianism has not been "Exposed" because there was never anything to hide. Libertarians are against government intervention into the free-market, and infringing on people's life and property, its that simple. You view of libertarianism so simple minded and ? and lol'ing as I read you post.
-
Swiffness! wrote: »He also said that the Americans with Disabilities Act was bad because it didn't contain an exception for.........something the law clearly creates an exception for.
I think that sort of "Libertarian" We-Don't-Want-The-Gov't-to-do-ANYTHING foolishness is best described as what it is: Conservative Anarchism.
Conservative Anarchism is an oxymoron. Anarcho-Capitalists are against government, period, they advocate no government existence do to its forceful nature. Libertarians are for extrememly limited government, ie. courts and police. -
shootemwon wrote: ». The key here is that for libertarians "personal responsibility" basically means that if you get laid off or get sick and your health care provider drops your coverage, it's your fault cause you should have been born rich. .
haha dude you are soooo wrong it's hilarious. That's a position taken by hawkish conservative. The Libertarian perspective is that government intervention into the free market through subsidies, lobbyist, the Federal Reserve, Inflation, tariffs, taxes, mis-allocation of resources, and government programs have made things like heath care basically unaffordable. Libertarians actually agree that corporations have been given too much power, but you've been lied to believe the corporations have become powerful due to capitalism, but you are wrong, the power has come from government. In a free market, everyone would be covered by health care in one way or another. -
Ah, the classic libertarian defense. Any time you point out something that sucks about libertarianism: "That's not libertarianism". Also works for Communism. But I'm intrigued, so show me some real libertarianism. Show me one of these free markets with universal health care coverage. I'd like to see an example of this.
-
shootemwon wrote: »Ah, the classic libertarian defense. Any time you point out something that sucks about libertarianism: "That's not libertarianism". Also works for Communism. But I'm intrigued, so show me some real libertarianism. Show me one of these free markets with universal health care coverage. I'd like to see an example of this.
I couldn't show you that because it doesn't exist. Just like true socialism doesn't exist, or true communism, etc. The thing is, socialist and communist like to portray as if their society would be a Utopia, Im not saying that, and free market libertarian society would have it's problems, but rampant poverty like we have now would not be one of them. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »I couldn't show you that because it doesn't exist. Just like true socialism doesn't exist, or true communism, etc. The thing is, socialist and communist like to portray as if their society would be a Utopia, Im not saying that, and free market libertarian society would have it's problems, but rampant poverty like we have now would not be one of them.
If Libertarianism doesn't exist -- anywhere -- what makes you so confident that it would be such a good idea that would work? Do you think true libertarianism could actually exist in the modern first world? Has it been attempted in the past? I ask because Communism has been tried and failed, so supporters of Communist ideology say it wasn't real communism, otherwise it would have worked. In my eyes, if this happens over and over again, it's actually evidence that Communism doesn't work, and the same would be true for Libertarianism, but I'm not if/where it's been tried. -
shootemwon wrote: »If Libertarianism doesn't exist -- anywhere -- what makes you so confident that it would be such a good idea that would work? Do you think true libertarianism could actually exist in the modern first world? Has it been attempted in the past? I ask because Communism has been tried and failed, so supporters of Communist ideology say it wasn't real communism, otherwise it would have worked. In my eyes, if this happens over and over again, it's actually evidence that Communism doesn't work, and the same would be true for Libertarianism, but I'm not if/where it's been tried.
Look, I understand everything you are saying. Could I show you an example of a libertarian society? No, can I show you libertarian and free market solutions at work? Sure, like with health care, my mom was born in the 40's, she was 1 of 12 siblings and they were poor as ? , Im talkin eating bread and sugar for dinner, wearing the same shoes for a year type of poor....yet, she tells me anytime they got sick or hurt, a doctor would come to the house and take care of them......now sure, medicine has come a long way since then, but for that exact reason it should be cheaper, more available, and more efficient. Because thats what free markets do, prices go down while efficiency goes up (when the market is allowed to freely operate). But of course that didnt happen, state and federal governments and got more and more involved in health care and prices have skyrocketed and they will continue to skyrocket.
But what it all boils down to is if you believe that people should be able to make their own choices, live their own lives, without the government deciding what is best for them. The government is just coercive monopoly on violence, period. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »Look, I understand everything you are saying. Could I show you an example of a libertarian society? No, can I show you libertarian and free market solutions at work? Sure, like with health care, my mom was born in the 40's, she was 1 of 12 siblings and they were poor as ? , Im talkin eating bread and sugar for dinner, wearing the same shoes for a year type of poor....yet, she tells me anytime they got sick or hurt, a doctor would come to the house and take care of them......now sure, medicine has come a long way since then, but for that exact reason it should be cheaper, more available, and more efficient. Because thats what free markets do, prices go down while efficiency goes up (when the market is allowed to freely operate). But of course that didnt happen, state and federal governments and got more and more involved in health care and prices have skyrocketed and they will continue to skyrocket.
But what it all boils down to is if you believe that people should be able to make their own choices, live their own lives, without the government deciding what is best for them. The government is just coercive monopoly on violence, period.
I don't think the problem is government involvement in general as much as the way we make policy. You were right earlier when you said the government is empowering big business a lot of the time. I'm aware of this too. If government involvement comes in the form of helping pharmaceutical companies gouge their prices by preventing competition, that's not involvement I'm in favor of. But there are examples out there of government involvement that works. Despite all the smears being thrown around for the past year or so, Canadians seem pretty happy with their government's involvement in health care, and even though that's supposedly way more involvement than we could ever tolerate, they spend less on theirs.
Aside from corporate influence, the public in this country has a very strange cognitive dissonance. It's like "WASHINGTON, GIVE ME HEALTHCARE! BUT WAIT, NOT SOCIALIST HEALTHCARE!" That's why we end up with these weird programs that don't address the problems, and while people march and protest against to stop a public option from interfering in private enterprise, there is much less complaint about all the sweet hookups big insurance and pharma companies are getting.
So I do accept that some kinds of government involvement makes the problem worse, but I don't think that the solution is government staying out altogether. I don't see how a free market can ever work if people aren't rational actors, and the people are far from rational actors. -
bornnraisedoffCMR wrote: »I couldn't show you that because it doesn't exist. Just like true socialism doesn't exist, or true communism, etc. The thing is, socialist and communist like to portray as if their society would be a Utopia, Im not saying that, and free market libertarian society would have it's problems, but rampant poverty like we have now would not be one of them.
Care to explain this one my creole brethren.
