My whole point is that there IS no “definitive, correct libertarian viewpoint”. It’s just a bunch of different people with different views, just like any other political or philosophical ism.
The sad fact is, you have to take each argument on its merits. You can’t just categorically dismiss someone based on a label.
Like “government”?
Indeed, just like that. I didn’t know this was a debate about anarchy though. Even so, most people against government don’t just dismiss it out of hand. They have reasons, and if those reasons are wrong, you have to address them. No one is convinced by “nanny nanny boo boo, you’re stupid for believing X”.
For everyone but the self appointed elite there’s little distinguishable difference between anarchy and libertarianism; it’s called “the anarchy of the Right” for a reason.
Nope. And just for the record, pretty much everything you’ve posted in this thread (and the other libertarian threads) is wrong. I don’t care to engage you in a debate about this, since you are obviously completely uninformed on the subject. But just so that those “watching at home” are aware.
Yes, and the reason is ignorance. It’s what we’re supposed to be fighting on this MB, not spreading.
Translation: I don’t uncritically agree with whatever libertarians say, and have a sense of self preservation.
And what is it with the right wingers on this board and their fondness for “you aren’t worthy to debate me” tactics? It’s ridiculous.
@Ludovic, who said, “Funny, I was looking through your massive two posts looking for some substantive content as well, but couldn’t find any.”, I would assuage: there’s no shame in your not being able or willing to respond to my points, and instead going looking for other posts. Hypothetically (for I have never experienced this personally) if I couldn’t respond to someone’s points, or a give a single example in response to a solicitation for just one example, and I also didn’t want to concede, then I guess I could imagine having to resort to the same. Rather than trying to “deek me out”, though, would you care to rise to the challenge and answer meaningfully?
@elucidator, who said “Well, OK, who then? Suppose I gave a shit about libertarian policy on, say, global warming. Who would I ask to get the definitive, totally correct, libertarian viewpoint?”. You want to have a firm “Libertarian” target, a definition, a figurehead, a leader, a definitive authority, a strict hierarchy, a firmly unwavering and centralized doctrine that encompasses all issues (such as your example of global warming). Why? How? Does this indicate something about how you think? What? DrCube points out that Libertarians are not homogeneous, and that this is virtually a “by definition” attribute of them. There is no, and could never be any “libertarian position on global warming”, and the same is true of every single other imaginable issue that is not related to personal choice (freedom, liberty, what have you). As with cats, most or all would agree that they can’t exactly be herded around coercively, at least without massive effort. Of course, open a can of tuna, and you can then actually herd those libertarians, in a sense, because they will coalesce around your gambit via their exultation of the principle of voluntarism, coupled with their individual love, let’s say, of tuna and their sovereign choice to go get some tuna. There is nothing in the libertarian philosophy (in all its various flavors) that precludes collectivizing. Not at all. It is merely anathema to have do so involuntarily. See what I mean? You’re looking for a hive-mind in the one place it can’t ever possibly be found. That, obviously again by definition, is a fruitless quest. More than that, and I don’t mean to offend, it’s obviously an ill-posed and self-contradictory “question”. You are asking “where can I find the dictator that governs the people that repudiate dictatorship?” This is not a very smart thing to quest after, as even a very shallow and cursory skimming of libertarianism does immediately reveal.
@Der Trihs. I think that the words “libertarian” and “right wing” are neither interchangeable nor even very well correlated. You may have been saying just this when you said: “For everyone but the self appointed elite there’s little distinguishable difference between anarchy and libertarianism;” which was an extremely telling and valid point, providing that you meant the “non-libertarian elite”. Sure, these “self-appointed elites” would have to say that, given that libertarians are such a threat to their privileged situation. Their only real hope would be to label them, despite that they privately know better, as “rightists”…in order to avoid/preclude substantive debate leading to the possible erosion of their oligarchical underpinnings. Alas, this is the nature of labels, and “pigeon holes”. Virtually every non-libertarian belief system is, of course, susceptible to some degree of accurate “pigeon holing” on many more specific issues. Sure, you can point out that “not every democrat agrees on every issue”, but this is not even remotely at issue here. Every democrat does believe in one thing that is consistent between all of them: supporting the democratic party hierarchy, aligning themselves hierarchically, being and becoming the cogs of a hierarchy–this is what it is to be a Democrat, plain and simple. Libertarians, conversely, don’t do that. They don’t even generally support the “libertarian party”. If you ponder libertarianism for a moment, you’ll notice why: “libertarian party”, to them, verges on oxymoron, and the libertarians that engage with a libertarian party must needs do so with suspicion, credulity, tentativeness, and a willingness to run away from it instantly if and when it becomes a non-voluntary, gun-point collective, such as is the “Democrat” or “Republican” party. Of all of the various forms of libertarianism, one of the several common principles is that no-one should initiate force or violence (i.e. including hurt or theft) on anyone else. There is certainly no aversion to the use of force, but there is a ferocious, pan-libertarian aversion to the initiation of it. Right-wingers, in radical, stark, and mind-numbingly obvious contravention of this libertarian principle, are in love with the initiation of force for the “greater good of…whatever…God, country, you name it…” and they believe that “we know what everyone else should be forced to do whether they like it or not”, just as do Democrats, Communists, Fascists, and what have you. Libertarians simply will never ever use force against people for “those people’s own good”. This is the very thing that sets them apart, perhaps the only thing. They definitely will use proportionate force on behalf of their own selves, but solely in response to the unwelcome use of force against their own selves, or by extension those they love or wish to protect. I would really like to know how on earth “libertarian” and “right wing” relate. As far as I can see, they don’t. Heck, people coming together to form an individual property-less commune, providing that they do so voluntarily, could easily be libertarians and often are. But they would still be of the mind “don’t screw with our collective property, because we will shoot back!” (which is not the slightest bit right-wing if you think about it, not historically, and not now). Similarly, nuclear and extended families are collectives that are avidly embraced by libertarians (not by edict or coercion, of course, but voluntarily if not instinctively). State-worship and collective action are not, they would argue, the same thing.
I regret not being able to offer a more comprehensive response, but, as you may know, I am obliged to offer any such thoughts for approval by the hive-mind Central Committee. I was going to offer the observation that your stance appears to be an inexplicable hybrid of Mahatma Gandhi and Ayn Rand, but that has not been approved by the Central Committee of the People’s Front for the SDMB (Trotskyist).
There is a note of approval for the proletarian tone of your prose, which reads as though it were pounded out with a steam hammer in a foundry.
Nonsense. Libertarianism is normally classified as a right wing movement. And it isn’t a threat to any “oligarchical underpinnings”; it’s a massive handover of power to them. It’s a removal of all restraint from the powerful, and a removal of all protection from the common people. It is a movement that favors oligarchy because it wants to gut the only source of freedom and rights the common people have; the government. Some of them realize this and want it for that reason; some are so naive or irrational that they refuse to acknowledge the obvious, but ultimately that’s what they are fighting for, to give those with wealth and power absolute license to do as they will while stripping away all protection from their victims.
Of course not. They want to remove all nonviolent, legal recourse from the common people, so naturally one of the few functions they want a government to have is to keep the people they intend to exploit from raising a hand to their masters.
“That’s libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” - Kim Stanley Robinson
Of course you’re right. The only libertarian “collectivism” involves the central libertarian hive-phlosophy, to wit:
“I don’t give a shit, and you can’t make me.”
We don’t have to dress that up for every occasion.
You’ll have to ask a right winger if you want such an opinion. My lack of interest arises from your unwillingness to offer anything other than your opinion, which is never backed up by any cites. This is GD, not IMHO.
TLDR
This forum is brain-damaged.
Which would include you, the self-admitted libertarian.
As opposed to your nonexistent cites supporting the effectiveness and moral superiority of libertarianism? Whenever someone brings up real world examples of what happens when you strip away government aid & oversight you insist they don’t count. As is typical of libertarians; regulations are never weak enough, taxes never low enough, the market never free enough, the Scotsmen never True enough.
Another falsehood. You can call a dog a cat, but that doesn’t make it a cat.
I’ve never claimed Libertarianism is morally superior or more effective. In fact, regarding the latter, I explicitly stated that libertarian solutions are not about effectiveness. So, we’ll chalk up two more falsehoods. Can we count on you not repeating them in the future?
Nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope.
No, he only admits to “leaning” libertarian, whatever the hell that means. But still, fail.
I’m not lying, however fond you seem to be becoming of accusing me of that.
Such eloquence.
Missed this whopper. Here’s the press release from the Libertarian Party executive director in Aug 2002:
I have not accused you of lying, so that’s another falsehood. The only thing I’ve become “fond” of wrt to your posts is correcting errors for those folks playing at home.
If Libertarianism isn’t more effective, doesn’t it stand to reason that the market would crush it out of existence? 
Hasn’t it? 