Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Fightdirecto -> Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/17/2013 6:02:48 PM)

Sam Seder: Libertarians Live In A Fantasy World

Sam Seder talks with a phone-in caller on his radio show who identifies himself as a Libertarian:

http://www.theliberalcurmudgeon.com/2013/06/sam-seder-libertarians-live-in-fantasy.html

My favorite two questions that he asked the Libertarian:

At 2:51 "Do you have diarrhea?"

At 3:35 "Do you drive?"




joether -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/17/2013 11:39:51 PM)

I've found that Libertarians follow this crazy philosophy:

They are against what they are For.

AND

They are for what they're against.


It makes no sense to most of us, right? But for libertarians, this is normal framework of mind. All the pieces fit neatly in their mind, yet when put into practical application the whole thing either falls down or implodes. An this is not a matter of stupidity or ignorance. Some of these people really are quite intelligent, but simply lack wisdom of any kind. Former Rep Ron Paul is a good example of this mindset. Half the time I agree with what he was saying and the other was wondering how he failed to take his 'anti-lunatic' medication.




jlf1961 -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/17/2013 11:50:39 PM)

Lets see, they are against big government, federal funding for education, government paid for roads, and a bunch of other stuff.

I have a libertarian friend, who is constantly complaining about government spending on just about everything. Now, he is in the tax bracket that would have been hit with the tax increase when the Bush tax breaks ended.

When he talks about education being funded by the federal government, I suggest he put his three kids in private schools, there are two very good ones in town.

When he complains about federal money being spent on roads, I suggest he sell his car and walk, or ride a bus.

He complains about medicare funding and medicaid, but he will not buy private insurance for his parents except for supplemental policies to work with medicare.

When he complains about social security, which I receive, I remind him I paid into the system, never had a job that had a decent retirement plan, and have a nice retirement account that was set up after the injury that I was informed would eventually lead to me being disabled, so when I applied for disability, I started drawing off that account since it had a nice clause for just such a situation.

Basically he complains about all the services provided with tax money, yet feels that there is nothing wrong with using those services, even to the point about writing letters to the editor about the conditions of the highways, city streets, and the schools.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/17/2013 11:51:15 PM)

I got as far as the "single payer health care" question and realized that this guy may call himself a libertarian but he's not.

It wouldn't be the first time a "radio" host had someone call up, pretending to be the opposition. Limbaugh's been doing it for years.



Peace and comfort,



Michael




ReMakeYou -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/18/2013 12:03:12 AM)

A serious libertarian would've at least held their own. The caller didn't seem all that versed in debate.

There are other flaws with the system, but I've realized how likely I am to change a libertarian's mind. Luckily, they seem to be doing a decent job keeping themsleves from any positions where they can do real damage.




jlf1961 -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/18/2013 12:07:06 AM)

Look, the citizens of the United States of America should chose me as the President for life. Then I can appoint the proper people to help run the country and get everything back on track.

And do away with congress, but keep the supreme court.

All my appointees will be drawn from a pool of the most intelligent people with good common sense and a drive to make this country great. In other words, the members of collarme that present intelligent arguments, even if I dont always agree with them.

I would have to get Lucylastic to become a US citizen so I can put her in charge of the prison system.




Lucylastic -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/18/2013 4:29:44 AM)

LMFAO I just snorted coffee all over my keyboard, thanks for the vote of confidence Jeff:)

First you would have to jail an awful lot of wall street , banking and big corps types before the position would be attractive enough, and a state of the art punishment block for them.

Regarding the OP
I watched a few of his video clips, Id like to see him debate a couple of hard core knowledgeable libertarians to be honest, ones whose arguments dont fall apart within five minutes. but then, that must be rarer than hens teeth, I havent met one yet. I agree with Joe:)
And while I obviously have only interacted with a few, if the best they can do is Ron Paul, ( who I actually agree with on a few matters) the faithful are in the terminal fringe arena




DomKen -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/18/2013 5:01:05 AM)

FR
I used to be involved with the local Libertarian Party. At the time it was made up of 2 groups. One was the anti tax guys, all of whom were at least upper middle class, who are as Jlf describes his friend. The others were potheads who wanted to get it legalized. Each side didn't much care for the other. The anti tax guys were usually very authoritarian but just hated the idea that their money went to anyone for any reason. Now it appears the authoritarian types, who really just don't want their money going to help anyone else, have become the predominant "libertarians." It is my experience these guys have given next to no thought to the reality of their position and in any sort of reasoned discussion their ideas fall apart, they may or may not be able to concede that fact.

Of course a few of the really nasty ones, like Rand Paul and Paul Ryan, would, IMO, have no problem with people starving in the streets as long as they got to keep all their "hard earned" money.




jlf1961 -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/18/2013 5:43:46 AM)

I label myself as a democrat, but I would fit in better with a party called the Democratic Republican Green Lunatics, since there are issues from all parties I support.

Now if I could just get enough support to have the 69 hemi charger and the 67 camaro declared the National Cars, and make it a national law that the National Anthem be played in a heavy metal style on bag pipes.




hot4bondage -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/18/2013 8:10:03 AM)

"The only truly new political idea in the last couple thousand years is this libertarian idea, broadly understood. The revolution wrought by John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and the Founding Fathers is the only real revolution going. And it's still unfolding." --Jonah Goldberg

The rest of his column from June 15: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-14/opinion/ct-oped-0614-goldberg-20130614_1_libertarian-real-world-ideal

DomKen, are you seriously trying to tar and feather these guys as authoritarians or potheads? Wouldn't you agree that their ideas are more reasonable than, say, Stalin or Pol Pot?




jlf1961 -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/18/2013 8:49:34 AM)

There was a tv movie that was based on a sci fi short story. There was an elite advisory council, but laws were passed by national, state and local governments. There was one scene where one of the Elite was trying to convince a state governor to veto a law that would put a mandatory death sentence for traffic violations.

Some Libertarians remind me of that movie, others remind me of cheech and chong, while still others seem to be anarchists, then guys like Ron and Rand Paul just seem to be nuts.




cloudboy -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/18/2013 9:32:21 AM)

quote:

DomKen, are you seriously trying to tar and feather these guys as authoritarians or potheads? Wouldn't you agree that their ideas are more reasonable than, say, Stalin or Pol Pot?


That's a pretty low bar.




DomKen -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/18/2013 9:52:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

"The only truly new political idea in the last couple thousand years is this libertarian idea, broadly understood. The revolution wrought by John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and the Founding Fathers is the only real revolution going. And it's still unfolding." --Jonah Goldberg

The rest of his column from June 15: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-06-14/opinion/ct-oped-0614-goldberg-20130614_1_libertarian-real-world-ideal

DomKen, are you seriously trying to tar and feather these guys as authoritarians or potheads? Wouldn't you agree that their ideas are more reasonable than, say, Stalin or Pol Pot?

Look at the pols who have emerged from the movement. Authoritarians who simply want power and wealth for themselves. They view Ayn Rand as if she had worthy ideas.
Ron Paul: racist who routinely lied to his gullible followers about his own beliefs and behavior (see his federal anti abortion bill for proof).
Rand Paul: worse than his father. A spoiled child who has never struggled but believes others should be denied the opportunities that were given to him
Paul Ryan: spoke frequently of his admiration of Ayn Rand until his national political ambitions brought him to the attention of the religious right when he promptly declared he cared nothing for her philosophy. Would destroy Medicare and Social Security despite overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of both programs and that neither have insurmountable finiacial problems.




Zonie63 -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/18/2013 10:27:04 AM)

I was originally attracted to libertarianism in the early 80s, when it seemed that they wanted the U.S. to take a more detached and less active role in world affairs. Nowadays, they're all about taxes, privatization, and Ayn Rand, and they seem to have forgotten about foreign policy altogether. What they really want is feudalism, not libertarianism.




Moonhead -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/18/2013 4:55:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

DomKen, are you seriously trying to tar and feather these guys as authoritarians or potheads? Wouldn't you agree that their ideas are more reasonable than, say, Stalin or Pol Pot?


That's a pretty low bar.

Which an awful lot of libertarians can't manage to clear, however low it is.
[sm=ubanana.gif]




hot4bondage -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/19/2013 7:44:51 AM)

Well, I for one don't think that executions have a legitimate place in a criminal justice system that is purportedly based on rehabilitation rather than punishment. The Ron and Rand brand of libertarianism seems to ignore the rights of women and gays. I wouldn't say that makes them nutty, just alarmingly inconsistent, which is especially frustrating considering how often they've been among the few in Washington who seem to have any concern at all for civil liberty. ..and I thought Up In Smoke was hilarious. [:D]




hot4bondage -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/19/2013 8:28:16 AM)

I think you might be conflating objectivism with libertarianism. Both philosophies rightfully advocate a merit-based society instead of cronyism or wealth redistribution, but unlike libertarianism, objectivism views charity as a weakness. Statism is even worse because it views charity as something that can be forced. There's nothing charitable about making other people give away their money.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the ideas of the "founding fathers" are nearly as new as America herself. Far from being discredited, they are based on the knowledge of what didn't work in the past.




DomKen -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/19/2013 10:39:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hot4bondage

I think you might be conflating objectivism with libertarianism. Both philosophies rightfully advocate a merit-based society instead of cronyism or wealth redistribution, but unlike libertarianism, objectivism views charity as a weakness. Statism is even worse because it views charity as something that can be forced. There's nothing charitable about making other people give away their money.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the ideas of the "founding fathers" are nearly as new as America herself. Far from being discredited, they are based on the knowledge of what didn't work in the past.

The Founders were not libertarians. They established a federal government with broad powers.

Objectivism is a type of libertarianism. BTW all nationally prominent "libertarians" are clearly authoritarian statists. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous.




sissibaby -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/19/2013 10:40:37 AM)

liberitarians need to remember this: Land of the free does not mean there is not a cost to opportunities America provides!




MrRodgers -> RE: Intelligent Human vs. Libertarian (6/19/2013 4:43:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

I've found that Libertarians follow this crazy philosophy:

They are against what they are For.

AND

They are for what they're against.


It makes no sense to most of us, right? But for libertarians, this is normal framework of mind. All the pieces fit neatly in their mind, yet when put into practical application the whole thing either falls down or implodes. An this is not a matter of stupidity or ignorance. Some of these people really are quite intelligent, but simply lack wisdom of any kind. Former Rep Ron Paul is a good example of this mindset. Half the time I agree with what he was saying and the other was wondering how he failed to take his 'anti-lunatic' medication.


I am wondering if you could bestow upon us some specific and fully explained examples ? My problems with Ron Paul are quite specific at least on the marketplace and its potential.

The marketplace for example was NEVER going to stop using and never remove lead from paint and gas. The marketplace would never have stopped using asbestos removed what has been used. (and that's just 2) The 'marketplace' or rather, the greedy capitalist scum were happy to have the rest of us die oh say 4-6 years younger yet hey...for a real nice profit.

Even Thalidomide and aspartame were as corrupt as you can imagine and devastated people...for a profit.

There's your regulation...how many people did that product kill or maim.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125