The electoral problem with Libertarians is that rather than appealing to leftists and rightists, they tend to have the opposite effect of angering both sides instead.
I think this discussion might be more centered if someone could point to a capitalist who believes in the free market. Let them get a leg up and they go for monopoly every time. Who truly wants competition? Despite what Bill Moyers said, Adam Smith did not eschew government regulation. He saw clearly that government regulation was necessary to keep free markets free. What he didn’t apparently didn’t see was how difficult it was to keep the regulators from being co-opted by the regulated. He didn’t see how easy it was for the regulated to suck up to the regulators. he did not forsee the revolving door between industry and government. And he especially didn’t see how easy it could become for lobbyists to bribe the legislators. Yes, bribe. As far as I can tell, both parties have been guilty of this, the Republicans a little more. Abetted, of course, by a supreme court that seems bent on assuring conservative control. Money talks, so restricting bribery is restricting speech.
This is an incredibly stupid argument. The War in Iraq is an atrocity. Those responsible should be hanging from the gallows both for initiating an aggressive war and fabricating the false threat of Iraqi WMDs to justify it. Ron Paul wanted the war ended and the troops brought home because doing so meant saving billions of dollars, stopping stomping all over the Iraqis’ right to not have foreign soldiers invade their country and do whatever they like with little accountability, and protecting the lives of US soldiers whose trust that the government would not spend their lives cheaply was betrayed when they were sent to fight a war under false pretenses. Trying to pretend Paul’s real motivation was a junta is fucking insane.
Once you realize that all libertarians are 13 y.o. boys at heart, it makes sense. Not good sense, mind you. But sense.
they need a good spanking and then ship them off to military school.
Only if nothing bad happened during his term. An economic crisis, a decision to cut taxes and balance the budget because the government is responsible for everything, and you’ll have an economy which would make Europe look like the US in the '90s.
According to this, not the worst.But still pretty bad.
I’m not a fan of libertarianism generally, but Ron Paul-style libertarianism is actually an especially bad version. He believes a state’s right to punish you for being gay or Muslim is far more important than your right to be gay or Muslim (cite).
I could sit here and list how and why your wrong on all your points but it’s honestly just a lot easier for me to say you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. 
That’s all I ever hear from libertarians. “Read Ayn Rand!” “You’re wrong!” I never hear good arguments from them, because there are almost none.
Now, now, they also go around re-defining words like altruism so that their viewpoints become true by tautology. I mean, “Libertarian.” You can’t oppose them without opposing liberty! 'Cause the word is right there in the name!
(Not to be too awfully smug: I’ve heard liberals use the same argument, pointing to the dictionary meaning of liberal, and claiming that this supports a liberal political stance as a good thing!)
The most telling argument against the Libertarian stance is that it has been tried, and the results were awful. Corporations did pollute streams when there weren’t any strongly-enforced regulations against it. Free enterprise did sell flammable pajamas made for kids. The “invisible hand” and the miracle of competition didn’t solve those problems. Laws and their enforcement did.
I am a libertarian. Your argument that Ron Paul wanted US troops out of Iraq so that he could enact a junta and not just because it’s cheaper, safer and more ethical is stupid.
You know what’s really terrible about all this? Strawmen.
Thanks for linking this; it was an excellent article.
The United States is hardly the “bully of the world”-it is simply undertaking its strategic role as the linchpin of the post-war world order and doing so accordingly.
Yes I’m sure the Chinese or the Syrian army exists to do nought but pass out heart-shaped candies to children or help old ladies cross the street. :rolleyes:
You might as well say the Third Reich had far better music than contemporary America.
Most of our military actions haven’t been “dumb”-Afghanistan was a logical response to 9/11, Libya aiding a native rebellion against a dictator who murdered hundreds of Americans, and the current intervention against ISIS protecting innocent people against a horde of bloodthirsty dervishes.
Possibly of any advanced, developed country but I’d very much rather be a worker in America than in China or South Africa.
What are 'worker rights"?
According to those links they are only concerned with “basic rights to bargain collectively, strike for decent conditions or simply join a union at all.” in other words- workers rights= union rights. And, in the USA workers have those rights, they are hardly: “the government and/or companies are engaged in serious efforts to crush the collective voice of workers putting fundamental rights under continuous threat.”
But in any case, workers have more important rights than simply to unionize. A* safe workplace*, wage protections, labor laws, and of course the general freedom to quit your job and go to another. I find that study ridiculous and biased. It’s a study by one rather biased org- ( a Trade Union org, who of course considers trade unions to be the benchmark for “workers rights”), who if they show the USA (gasp!) to be low of course their ridiculous study will get publicity.
[excellent responses also snipped]
My name is Septimus G. Stevens, VII and I endorse this message!
Thirty years ago, “libertarian” was not a dirty word; I even described myself as libertarian when I supported things like cap-and-trade. However, the 21st-century Hyperlibertarians at SDMB strongly reject cap-and-trade which started as a libertarian idea!
In one thread, some libertarian Dopers rejected the idea of public work projects too expensive for private entities. In their view, Thailand’s rice farmers should seek safety from excess flooding NOT with dams and levees but by buying weather hedges from Chicago Board of Trade. :eek:
(If this thread were in the Pit I’d expound on Hyperlibertarian cognition and information, and mention that scholastic textbooks are sometimes better-reasoned than YouTube rants about the Illuminati.)
There are two big reasons I’m no longer a Libertarian, one practical and one philosophical.
The practical reason is I like capitalism, and regulation is the only way we’re going to keep it. Remember Karl Marx? He predicted that capitalism was dying, inevitably, because he looked around himself circa 1850 or so and saw child laborers, people dying in the gutter, and rich business people using humans as a disposable commodity to further their own aims, even in countries where slavery had been outlawed.
Marxism is what happens when capitalism is allowed to run unchecked; I’m not a Hegelian and I certainly don’t think the full-bore Dialectical Materialism that only grad students still believe in is worth much, but there is something to be said for over-the-top reactions to over-the-top circumstances.
Once you regulate capitalism, once you begin to make sure there are floors below which nobody can fall, the wind goes right out of those “Kill everyone who owns their own house”-type movements.
The philosophical reason is Libertarians deny the role chance and other human beings played in their success. Can you use language? Great, you weren’t born with a grossly malformed brain! Not everyone can say that. Who gets those bum brains? Not people who deserve them, usually, but people who had them from birth. If you can lose the game before you ever get to make a move, simply through blind chance, the idea of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps as a universal social policy is frankly idiotic.
Similarly, the idea of someone making it on their own is mostly a dramatic device with little bearing on reality. So they founded their own factory. That’s nice. Did they also found the economic system which allows a factory to be successful? Did they create the technology that factory relies on? Did they single-handedly maintain the social order which made their factory a profit center, as opposed to a sitting duck for roving bands of violent people who want what’s inside? Did they create air, water, and food clean enough to breathe, drink, and eat such that they could have the energy and intelligence required to found a factory?
My point is, success happens in a context, and success as Libertarians seem to define it happens in the context of a rather advanced capitalist system with notions of bonds, stocks, money, and ownership of intangibles, all of which require government regulation to exist. To the extent they want to destroy government regulation outright, they want to cut off the branch they’re sitting on, in the apparent expectation that it will be the tree which comes crashing down to Earth.
I’m not sure how Ron Paul libertarianism differs from other forms of libertarianism. I’m not sure what a normal or typical libertarian is.
I feel like Libertarianism and its cousin Ayn Rand Objectivism is largely a philosophical movement and less of about maximizing economic output and equality.
Basically the idea is that the needs of society are best served when individuals are free to engage in transactions with each other. According to them, government, no matter how well-meaning, will ultimately do more harm than good due to corruption, bureaucratic inefficiencies and unintended consequences.
And if one were to believe the teachings of The Road to Serfdom, enabling well intentioned government to control people’s lives for the better puts society on a path towards Nazi-like tyranny. Even though AFAIK, this has never happened in any democratically elected government ever.