Mr. Shodan has conflated several issues.
[ul][li] Are the Koch brothers despicable billionaries who are not motivated by the betterment of society? I have my opinion. Others?[/li][li] Are the Koch brothers and their ilk a major source of funding for “Libertarian” candidates? Yes.[/li][li] What actually motivates politicians like Ron Paul? This is an interesting question. Certainly there is evidence that Paul supported racist causes. Many rational observers believe his policies would tend to “rape America for the sake of billionaires.”[/li][li] Did septimus exaggerate in this thread? Perhaps; I have a tendency to do so.[/li][li] What do Dopers sympathetic to “Libertarianism” think about their party platform? I don’t know; none has condescended to answer.[/li][li] Is the debate about libertarianism, or whether septimus overstated something for impact? I think I know the answer, but Shodan evidently disagrees.[/li][/ul]
There. I’ve conceded my tendency to hyperbole. Now, can you condescend to answer the more relevant question?
And I’d ask those who self-identify as “Libertarian” because they support both social liberty and economic liberty to answer one key question:
Libertarians support the right of innkeepers and restaurant operators to refuse service to Blacks – that’s “economic liberty.” How do libertarian Dopers views this in relation to “social liberty”?
No, I haven’t conflated anything. As mentioned, nothing of what you have posted bears any resemblance to mainstream libertarian thought.
I’ve never met one. IME the more exaggerated and hysterical the rhetoric, the less they understand and the less it is a product of rational thought.
It’s probably not your fault. A thread that starts with the kind of wildly false accusations found in the OP is likely to attract the kind of “hyperbole” that you apparently either do or do not mean to be taken seriously.
Libertarians in general do not as a rule have classicidal ideations. Heck, there are two dozen different varieties of libertarian just in the USA, as Barry Deutsch has pointed out.
But if one had classicidal ambitions, what label would he use? I suspect, “libertarian.” It implies a lack of regard for custom and authority, and an attitude that privileges individual initiative.
Well, of course if there is less of a need for charity, there won’t be as much of it. But I notice libertarian types tend to be stingy too, like they are the kind to blame the poor for their plight in the first place and advocate anti homeless legislation. If their party was in power it would only legitimize such cold hearted positions.
This gets it exactly backwards. Government certainly discriminates by race, social circle, and other means. I presume I don’t need to list the countless examples where the US government and others have done so over the centuries.
On the other hand, in all the occasions when I have worked at the Salvation Army, or a food bank, or any other private charity, I’ve never seen any discrimination against anyone by race, social circle, religion, etc…
Every year people in rich countries donate tens of billions of dollars to far-away third world countries. Plainly not everyone follows this theory about social networks.
What do you dislike about that sentence? Are you opposed to a world of liberty? Do you not want individuals to be in control of their own lives? Should people be forced to abandon their values?
If so, I’ve got another sentence for you to hate: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
What do you dislike about that sentence? Are you opposed to a world of liberty? Do you not want individuals to be in control of their own lives? Should people be forced to abandon their values?
If so, I’ve got another sentence for you to hate: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
[/QUOTE]
I consider it snarky the way you’ve compared these quotations.
The plank from the Libertarian preamble is straight out of Ayn Rand. To babble blithely about “Are you opposed to a world of liberty?” is the kind of pretentious simple-minded “gotcha” I’d discuss only in the Pit.
*** I still ask Libertarians in the thread what they think of the libertarian platform in general and that first sentence in particular.*** No one deigns to answer?
Hint: Anyone who thinks that if the government ceased spending tax dollars to help the needy (“forcing citizens to sacrifice for the benefit of others”) that grateful former taxpayers would fully fund the poor through charity are … [checks forum] under-informed.
So asking if you oppose liberty is a gotcha for the Pit, but libertarian politicians “want to rape America for the benefit of billionaires” is appropriate for GD?
foolsguinea: don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Yes, the Declaration of Independence, and the United States that sprung from it, were and are both flawed…but they’re also pretty good, overall. The DOI is an elegant statement of an ideal, one which, in practice, we couldn’t live up to. And the U.S., for all its sins, is an above-average country, somewhere in the top 20 today and probably the top 20 in all history.
Don’t get suckered into playing ITR champion’s game. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” No system of government can ever be perfect…but the system we have now is a damn sight better than what the Libertarian Party would impose on us if, by some ugly miracle, they ever attained significant legislative power.
If you want a political party with a consistent history of supporting gay rights, the Libertarian Party would seem to be the one. Here’s what they wrote on the issue in 1976:
That’s a better position than what the Democrats offered then, or now. I’m not quite sure why it’s so “sad” for those favoring gay rights to support a party that has always supported gay rights. Today most Democrats will say that all consenting adults should be legally allowed to make their own choices in sexual matters, including when two join together in marriage. Now imagine we applied the same thinking in other areas. Imagine we could all make our own decisions about buying health insurance. Imagine two consenting adults were always free to enter an employer/employee relationship as well as a marriage relationship. What you’re imagining is libertarianism.
It is reasonable and normal to support a party with disagreeable positions, especially when the positions you support have a chance of success, and when the ones you don’t do not.
Yes. BUT causes like gay rights, gun rights, drug rights are proceeding largely with or without federal attention, let alone Presidential attention. The Congress and especially the President (e.g. because of his appointments to regulatory bodies) have great scope to change economic and regulatory policies.
I think it would be quite logical to emphasize social rights issues in a state election. For federal elections, I’d recommend that voters be far more concerned about economic and foreign policy issues.
Perhaps. Either way, they are issues that are more widely supported nowadays. So while you and I can argue about whether it used to be a good reason for support, it’s harder to argue that it’s a good reason today.
No, I think you should have been free to join Washington and Franklin in their treason, and then been hanged with them.
The fact that you appeal to the authority of your beloved slavers and genocides indicates the problem. “Liberty” seems to mean doing what you, as an individual want, even if it harms others, and damn the consequences.
George Washington was very explicit about the fact that he was going to war to seize the western slope of the Appalachians from the indigenous nations and the territory of Quebec. Multiple nations were purged and dispossessed. “Liberty” was an excuse for evil.
If the best you can offer for your program is that it’s “liberty,” and not whether it does any good, than maybe it does harm, or maybe you just don’t care if it does harm.
The problem with libertarianism is that it’s an authoritarian argument: It determines that an action is permissible because an authority decides it is, not because it is healthy or beneficial. It just makes everyone an authority, no matter how stupid that person is.
