I don't like to think of myself as someone who generalizes too much, but libertarians are all retards.

To examine the roots of this readily apparent fact, we must first ask ourselves, what is libertarianism? It is not, as some would hold, a single phenomenon, and its possible meanings are rather divergent.

In its original usage, it referred to a political view roughly equivalent to what we popularly call anarchism, while the modern American usage refers to the school of thought related to the writings of Ayn Rand. The difference between these two possible meanings is unmistakeable; while the former, often called 'socialist libertarianism' or 'anarcho-syndicalism' opposes private property as a root of inequality and therefore a barrier to liberty, the latter, which some like to call 'anarcho-capitalism' holds that government offends most when it limits private property, which its adherents revere like a god.

How can these radically different ideologies get confused? My friend with the poofy hair says that it's because they're insane. I don't disagree. However, I think that it's a more complex situation; libertarianism is an ambiguous and relatively flat buzzword because libertarians are stupid. Don't get me wrong, the left-libertarians that I described have wonderful writers among them, especially Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who was French, but modern-day anarchists are generally disaffected children/isolated as children and they are, therefore, socially inept and marginalized. Also, they don't know what they're talking about. Read some Proudhon and you'll probably be better-educated about anarchism than any anarchist (except those that read Proudhon, but I bet you a burnin' flag that most don't). Indeed, it isn't so difficult to be an anarchist/libertarian (in the traditional or modern sense), just as it isn't difficult to like popcorn:


The ordinary man is an anarchist. He wants to do as he likes. He may want his neighbor to be governed, but he himself doesn't want to be governed. He is mortally afraid of government officials and policemen.
-George Bernard Shaw


Exactly. George Bernard Shaw is whack, but the point is that it doesn't take much mental exertion to come up with the notion that power is inherently abusive. Where can you go with that, though? American libertarians are so stupid that they probably dribble food on their chins as they eat. All of them. If I could sue them for just being who they are, I would. When I was 13, I thought to myself, 'yeah, no one should be able to tell me what to do, because I know what's best!' then I grew up…

:schwartz:

*sigh*

I'll own you later when I have the time for a proper response to this copy and paste garbage.

You know what's annoying? When people begin a "discussion" with an ad hominem argument, then state their opinion as fact.

(08-18-2011 09:51 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  *sigh*

I'll own you later when I have the time for a proper response to this copy and paste garbage.

Your tone is arrogant. Additionally, you stooped to his level when you insulted his post by calling it "garbage".
What are the chances your carefully articulated response will influence him in the manner you wish?

(08-18-2011 10:15 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 09:51 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  *sigh*

I'll own you later when I have the time for a proper response to this copy and paste garbage.

Your tone is arrogant. Additionally, you stooped to his level when you insulted his post by calling it "garbage".
What are the chances your carefully articulated response will influence him in the manner you wish?

Sometimes arrogance is warranted when faced with such ignorance.

(08-18-2011 08:13 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I don't like to think of myself as someone who generalizes too much, but libertarians are all retards.

To examine the roots of this readily apparent fact, we must first ask ourselves, what is libertarianism? It is not, as some would hold, a single phenomenon, and its possible meanings are rather divergent.

In its original usage, it referred to a political view roughly equivalent to what we popularly call anarchism, while the modern American usage refers to the school of thought related to the writings of Ayn Rand. The difference between these two possible meanings is unmistakeable; while the former, often called 'socialist libertarianism' or 'anarcho-syndicalism' opposes private property as a root of inequality and therefore a barrier to liberty, the latter, which some like to call 'anarcho-capitalism' holds that government offends most when it limits private property, which its adherents revere like a god.

How can these radically different ideologies get confused? My friend with the poofy hair says that it's because they're insane. I don't disagree. However, I think that it's a more complex situation; libertarianism is an ambiguous and relatively flat buzzword because libertarians are stupid. Don't get me wrong, the left-libertarians that I described have wonderful writers among them, especially Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who was French, but modern-day anarchists are generally disaffected children/isolated as children and they are, therefore, socially inept and marginalized. Also, they don't know what they're talking about. Read some Proudhon and you'll probably be better-educated about anarchism than any anarchist (except those that read Proudhon, but I bet you a burnin' flag that most don't). Indeed, it isn't so difficult to be an anarchist/libertarian (in the traditional or modern sense), just as it isn't difficult to like popcorn:


The ordinary man is an anarchist. He wants to do as he likes. He may want his neighbor to be governed, but he himself doesn't want to be governed. He is mortally afraid of government officials and policemen.
-George Bernard Shaw


Exactly. George Bernard Shaw is whack, but the point is that it doesn't take much mental exertion to come up with the notion that power is inherently abusive. Where can you go with that, though? American libertarians are so stupid that they probably dribble food on their chins as they eat. All of them. If I could sue them for just being who they are, I would. When I was 13, I thought to myself, 'yeah, no one should be able to tell me what to do, because I know what's best!' then I grew up…

:schwartz:

This is what I was thinking:

http://thesaurus.com/browse/idiot

(08-18-2011 10:15 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  Your tone is arrogant. Additionally, you stooped to his level when you insulted his post by calling it "garbage".
What are the chances your carefully articulated response will influence him in the manner you wish?

Seems pretty clear his mind isn't open to influence on this matter. Besides, if the end user cannot sift through tone to make reasoned decisions about facts and observations ... then they're a lost cause anyway.

Insert Chris Christie ranting about tone here.

(08-18-2011 11:03 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 10:15 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  Your tone is arrogant. Additionally, you stooped to his level when you insulted his post by calling it "garbage".
What are the chances your carefully articulated response will influence him in the manner you wish?

Seems pretty clear his mind isn't open to influence on this matter. Besides, if the end user cannot sift through tone to make reasoned decisions about facts and observations ... then they're a lost cause anyway.

That is kinda funny coming from you.

The underlying premise of this treatise is inherently flawed. It attempts (poorly) to set up a position that Libertarians believe "We should be able to do whatever we want." In no way does Libertarian philosophy involve lack of rules to govern peoples behavior. To even infer so shows ones ignorance or blatant prevarication of the facts. I love the way the author likes to toss about the word anarchy in his rant. This is a commonly use ploy to arrouse sentiment that Libertarians are bomb throwing maniacs. This ploy is so transparent and silly that I would be ashamed to post such dribble as a serious conversation on the issue.

You are of course welcome to stop back by and play with the adults anytime...Ciao!

(08-18-2011 11:38 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  That is kinda funny coming from you.

?

(08-18-2011 01:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 11:38 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  That is kinda funny coming from you.

?

It reminded me a great deal of your posts on Christianity.

(08-18-2011 01:22 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 01:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 11:38 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  That is kinda funny coming from you.

?

It reminded me a great deal of your posts on Christianity.

If The Bible were Aesop's fables, that's one thing. But when you call it the word of God, that's a whole new ballgame.

This thread just seems to be IMATY being provocative without a point to make.

(08-18-2011 08:13 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I don't like to think of myself as someone who generalizes too much, but libertarians are all retards.

To examine the roots of this readily apparent fact, we must first ask ourselves, what is libertarianism? It is not, as some would hold, a single phenomenon, and its possible meanings are rather divergent.

In its original usage, it referred to a political view roughly equivalent to what we popularly call anarchism, while the modern American usage refers to the school of thought related to the writings of Ayn Rand. The difference between these two possible meanings is unmistakeable; while the former, often called 'socialist libertarianism' or 'anarcho-syndicalism' opposes private property as a root of inequality and therefore a barrier to liberty, the latter, which some like to call 'anarcho-capitalism' holds that government offends most when it limits private property, which its adherents revere like a god.

How can these radically different ideologies get confused? My friend with the poofy hair says that it's because they're insane. I don't disagree. However, I think that it's a more complex situation; libertarianism is an ambiguous and relatively flat buzzword because libertarians are stupid. Don't get me wrong, the left-libertarians that I described have wonderful writers among them, especially Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who was French, but modern-day anarchists are generally disaffected children/isolated as children and they are, therefore, socially inept and marginalized. Also, they don't know what they're talking about. Read some Proudhon and you'll probably be better-educated about anarchism than any anarchist (except those that read Proudhon, but I bet you a burnin' flag that most don't). Indeed, it isn't so difficult to be an anarchist/libertarian (in the traditional or modern sense), just as it isn't difficult to like popcorn:


The ordinary man is an anarchist. He wants to do as he likes. He may want his neighbor to be governed, but he himself doesn't want to be governed. He is mortally afraid of government officials and policemen.
-George Bernard Shaw


Exactly. George Bernard Shaw is whack, but the point is that it doesn't take much mental exertion to come up with the notion that power is inherently abusive. Where can you go with that, though? American libertarians are so stupid that they probably dribble food on their chins as they eat. All of them. If I could sue them for just being who they are, I would. When I was 13, I thought to myself, 'yeah, no one should be able to tell me what to do, because I know what's best!' then I grew up…

:schwartz:

This post smacks of ignorance. Anarchism and Ayn Rand's philosophy are not libertarianism. Some anarchism, i.e. Anarchy-capitalism, is an off-shoot of libertarianism, but it is not the same. Ayn Rand's philosophy is not libertarianism either, it is Objectivism. Both have some ideas in common with libertarianism but they are not the same. Libertarianism is most closely related to classical liberalism which is what our founding fathers believed in. Please know the subject you are talking about before calling others idiots. It only shows your own ignorance when you confuse the ideas of a whole group of people with different ideas and then call them retards.

Allow me to finish your thread title:

Libertarians are .... CONSISTENT. Liberals want to have a government big enough and powerful enough to run your economic life for you. They think government can spend your dollars better than you can. But then liberals don't want government dictating social values. Conservatives want to have a government big enough and powerful enough to run your social life for you. They think government can tell you who to love and how to love them and how to live better than you can do yourself.

Libertarians view liberty as one package. Social liberty and economic liberty are two sides of the same coin. You cannot simply eliminate one side. To ascribe away one half of that coin to government is to surely by gradual means attack, erode, and eliminate the other half.

Libertarians favor a government, but one that is strictly limited. The government's primary role is to defend liberty, and punish those who infringe upon other's liberty. This means courts. This means a police force for domestic criminals. This means a military force for international criminals. That is the only proper role of government in a free society. Furthermore, government cannot itself take liberty, even if a majority support doing so. True Democracy without Constitutional restrictions is merely the tyranny of the majority.

Libertarians want what all other power not expressly authorized by the Constitution to carry out the defense of liberty to otherwise reside with the people, and to be handled through voluntary transactions within the free market.

Now that's elegant and simple, but think hard about those implications. That means we're against property taxes because it's an affront to property rights ... it's like you don't own the land but merely lease it. That means we're against a mandated currency, especially if it's fiat. Currency should be determined by the marketplace through competition. Big wealthy businesses do this through the international currency exchange markets, why shouldn't everybody have this luxury? This means we're against a nanny state telling you what kind of light bulbs you can have or how much a toilet can flush or forcing you to wear seat belts or banning pornography. These are all decisions that government has no business being in. And so on, and so on, and so on...

Since GTS posted the Rand interview, I'd like to ask the floor to define the contradictions (if any) between Libertarianism and Objectivism.

(08-18-2011 10:51 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Since GTS posted the Rand interview, I'd like to ask the floor to define the contradictions (if any) between Libertarianism and Objectivism.

Libertarianism is a philosophy for government. Objectivism is a complete moral and ethical philosophy. Libertarianism is the equivalent of applied Objectivism, in much the same way that physics is applied mathematics.

(08-18-2011 10:55 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 10:51 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Since GTS posted the Rand interview, I'd like to ask the floor to define the contradictions (if any) between Libertarianism and Objectivism.

Libertarianism is a philosophy for government. Objectivism is a complete moral and ethical philosophy. Libertarianism is the equivalent of applied Objectivism, in much the same way that physics is applied mathematics.

Haters be hatin...

(08-19-2011 09:45 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Haters be hatin...

Troll has no meaningful response.

The response will come on election day when RP isn't on the ballot.