How to Discombobulate Your Libertarian Friends

Just found an excellent article on why libertarianism won't work as a philosophical approach to government.

See: http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html

Here's a great quote from that article:

"Marxism of the right". I like that phrase. Catchy.

They're not against having a military or a private police force for just those things.

HI ENTY

@JUSTLEE:

Precisely. They most of the benefits of government, but few of the costs. If they recognize cost, it's only so that it can be spread around, but because they can opt out under their theory, they're not willing to bear their part of the spreading around for costs that other people may incur. If everyone thought the way they did, democratic government couldn't exist, because government would be bound by the desires of the wealthiest and the most powerful.

All we have to remember is this: The libertarian impulse is a purely selfish one. All else appears to follow with ease.

Hi, Baba. How about sticking to the topic, though?

^I don't care who he is, using 'discombobulate' in a thread title, correctly, deserves rep.

I've always loved that word. It's "bob" in it, and everyone knows how lovable the round-faced Bobs of the world are.

See: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ce_You_might_be_a_Bob/articleshow/2063139.cms

Bob is a limbless man floating in the sea.

How can you discombobulate that which was never combobulated in the first place?

My favourite Bob...

The entire article fails to distinguish between selfishness and self-interest. It's bunk.

Not entirely fair. Obviously, it's an awful long way from my own political beliefs, but I can just about understand why people who live in fairly small communities can see the attraction of it.
Not sure why anyone from a city wouldn't see the holes, though...

Actually that"s not right either. They hate government to no endand want nothing from the government.`

Excellent post. It is worth noting that no developed economy ever arose without substantial government interference.

The market fundamentalism that neoliberals are attempting to force on developing nations these days is doing them no good at all.

Basically, if it's not in the constituion then it shouldn't be done by government.

@HenryHill:

Thanks, dude. I'm glad I came across it. Note that the libertarians here haven't tried to refute it -- only dismiss it. Which, methinks, is telling.

My favorite Bob

The reasons why Japan has such a rich economy isn't because its regulation. It's (arguably) despite its regulation.

And Russia's economy clearly isn't where it is because of underregulation, but because of years of being stifled by communism.

I don't even know what point is trying to be made here, except for a straw man one.

No libertarian would argue for a "weak" state in the sense that is apparently meant here. What is meant is that the state should be restricted to a handful of core functions: self-defense, public safety, courts, and perhaps others.

No libertarian I've seen here or elsewhere would argue that most people would gravitate toward bourgeois lives. They argue that it's not my responsibility if person X wants to shoot up heroin and be unable to hold down a job, and therefore I shouldn't have to subsidize him. Also, they argue that an individual person is a better choice of what's best for him than the government, and so individual people should get to decide what he wants to do, barring force or fraud.

Why is that so complicated?

How so?

No civilization fell ever fell without a government, either. No one who has ever eaten bread and drunk water has failed, ultimately, to die. All of which is exactly as meaningful as the quoted text.

Not so. Deregulation has been tried in many developing countries, and has mostly been a failure. It is impossible to develop healthy local industries when they have to compete against those from developed rivals.

To be blunt, libertarianism is social darwinism.

1. Deliberately mis-calibrate the pattern buffer of the transporter by a .001 variance.

2. Yell "surprise!!", when the materialization cycle completes.

I believe that in a world with fewer safety nets, fewer people will need safety nets.

I also believe that in a world where your hard work, foresight, and intelligence was rewarded rather than ridiculed and/or penalized, more people would work hard, think ahead, and educate themselves.

Lastly, a world where people were FORCED (by lack of safety nets) to assume responsibility for their own well being would result in more people leading responsible lives.

Government has become an enabler of sloth and vice- not a solution to it.

It's been a long time since I originally posted this article. But yes, it's still a good one.

Why?

Ask the Propertarians.