Libertarians are scary

Well, I know this will definitley draw some board heat, but I gotta speak up.

The Libertarian Purity Test

(Hint: to score the perfect score, hit yes on all of them.)

It all started with a simple test. A test to see how "Libertarian" I was...And what I found scared the crud. (BTW, my score was 63 out of 160.) The Libertarian ideals are quite scary to me. I will quote a few questions on this simple survey to show what truly scares me.

There are, obviously, some that I agree with. Such as:

Are taxes too high?

or

Is government spending too high?

or

Are we over-regulated?

or even

Should all drugs be legalized for adults?

But there are some questions that are just down right horrible if that is their suggested course for the country. Let's take a peak at a couple.

Is it morally permissible to exercise "vigilante justice," even against government leaders?

This glorious nugget is a long debated issue. It is roughly an eye for an eye argument. But, like Ghandi said, it will make the world blind. You see, once you exact your revenge that would entitle the family or friend of the poor sap to return the favor. After all, vigilantism is all about making people pay without using the law.

Should police be privatized? Should the courts be privatized? Should highways and roads be privatized? Should we privatize sanitation, fire, and other local services?

This is truly ludicrous. Does anyone else see the problem with being able to fire your cop because he did not do things the way you wanted him to? The reason why these departments are not privatized already is because it becomes too easily corruptable.

If your judge is offered more money to rule a different way, you could not charge him with anything other than having poor ethics. After all, how can you stand in the way of free enterprise? What about someone purchasing the roads in front of your house? Can you say "paying a five dollar toll just to go get a pack of cigarettes?" This is perhaps one reason why the Libertarians are not really taken seriously. Not even the "free market" folks of the right would not agree with this...except for the extreme right.

Should all taxes be abolished?

Well, if you take this by itself then it is awfully bad. But their prescription to remedy everything is to abolish all of the government.

Should we abolish worker safety regulation?

This is absolutely absurd. Do you know why our lungs still work? How about why are we not all horribly mangled? A lot of it is thanks to the safety regulations. You know that is why we no longer have the cheaper (I believe) and perhaps best insulation of all time...you know the little thing called asbestos. What about those warning signs that let you know of the danger? All brought about by safety regulations.

Should the Fed be abolished and replaced with free banking and privately-issued money?

I think I may have a misunderstanding with this. You see, with privately issued money, you have the issue of serious inflation. Also, most people won't have a sophisticated money producing machine, so they would be easy to counterfeit. Also, how about the potential for having to exchange your money umpteen times when going out on the town to shop? Maybe I have missed the point on it.

Should anti-discrimination laws be abolished?

This bothers me mainly because I have heard employers talk about how they hate to hire blacks/Mexicans/gays/etc. I think this thing is only talking about one or two of them rather than the whole lot. One is AA and the other is Hate Crime laws, both of which I believe are wrong. But, this also kicks out EOE and other laws that are still usefull.

Should the FDA and medical licensing be abolished?

Cause everyone loves to be operated on by a slack-jawed yokel who doesn't know the difference between angina and *ahem*. This is a poor ideal because it allows people who are not qualifed to play operation to be a doctor. Sure, after the first couple of times he kills somebody, he will stop getting work, but those first couple better watch out. Not to mention professional con-men can work over a system like this.

Should immigration laws be abolished?
As if Al-Qaeda needs anymore help getting into this country...moving on...

Should we abolish public schools and universities?

This is perhaps the scariest one out of the bunch. Get rid of public education? Is that just to keep poor people poor? One of the greatest things in this country is the K-12 absolutely friggin' free schools. How can you possibly against this? Simple fact is that if you did not have free schools, we would be a country of morons outside of the upper class ruling elite. Our current system at least gives some people a chance to change their station.

Is government an unnecessary evil?

I just wanted to point out that this is a loaded question. It is the equal to asking, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Should the Supreme Court strike down economic regulation as unconstitutional?

You see, our Government is supposed to protect people...not allow the upper class become the true ruling class. Not only are a good deal of economic regulations designed with this in mind, but actually prevent future evil that is inherent in a completely free market. But I am no socialist. I just believe that either taken to an extreme is evil.

Maybe I am missing the point on all of these...but I just see these and a few others as flawed and perhaps just not thought through all of the way. Granted there is a large mess in Washington, but I do not think these will solve anything. And may in fact cause more harm than good.

Originally posted by OXmanK
Maybe I am missing the point on all of these...but I just see these and a few others as flawed and perhaps just not thought through all of the way. Granted there is a large mess in Washington, but I do not think these will solve anything. And may in fact cause more harm than good.

Hehe. Now you see what I see.

The New Illuminati.


But as I'm sure will soon be explained by the many "shadow party" members here... they don't really believe what they believe.

It's complicated. We just don't understand.

I am suprised that none of the Libertarians here have responded. I just want to know if these are truly your ideals or not...maybe have a little dialogue on them...

You're talking about extreme Libertarianism, they come in alot of stripes. I'm sure alot of people have some Libertarian tendancies now and again. I myself would be classified as a Green Libertarian I guess. I hate labels though so I'm just me.

Your link doesn't work. But I think this is the test you used:

www.bcaplan.com...

You put this in a forum no one ever looks at, or else several people would have jumped in.

I'm not going to respond to that point by point, but as Sardion said, much of that is the "radical" wing of libertarianism.

We'll just take a quick look at Ayn Rand's Objectvism:

My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Should immigration laws be abolished?
As if Al-Qaeda needs anymore help getting into this country...moving on...

I'll kill two birds with one stone here (and show why libertarism isn't all that crazy to me). If you follow Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism (and she's pretty radical), there would be no US military presence in the Middle East. There would be no US backing of Israel. What we do that makes Al Qaeda angry, wouldn't be occuring.

If we ceased doing what makes people that commit acts of terror angry we wouldn't have to worry about terrorists coming here to commit acts of terror.

To add to that there's a difference between abolishing immigration laws and just letting the gates open. A libertarian view of open immigration doesn't mean that the huddled masses can just show up and live off the state (remember, that's not what libertarians believe. ). An open immigration policy coupled with a militarized border (all those troops would be coming home), would actually make it much easier to keep unwanted people out.

The Cato "Handbook for Congress" to dispell some myth's about immigrants:
www.cato.org...

What sounds crazy if you delve into the philosophy a little bit more and see how one action will effect another (albeit theoretical), you can understand why some of us embrace it.

Personally, I just don't trust the government to do anything. Ask Terry Schiavo.

Furthermore, the differences between Libertarians and libertarians (from this thread):

There's a difference between small "l" libertarians and big "L" Libertarians. Big "L" Libertarians being people affiliated or agreeing with the Libertarian Party. Small "l" libertarians are simply people that follow a libertarian philosophy. There can be a big difference.

There are several different forms of libertarianism. Libertarian Socialism is really just a pretty word for anarchism. This sums it up well: "adherents believe that management of the common good (socialism) is necessary, but that this should be done in a manner that preserves individual liberty and avoids concentration of power or authority (libertarianism). Some libertarian socialists say individual liberty and societal harmony are necessarily antagonistic, and anarchist philosophy must balance the two. Others feel that the two are symbiotic, and that the liberty of the individual guarantees the harmony of the society and vice-versa."

Then there's Libertarian Capitalism, the philosophy more closely associated to the LP.

There are many people that say they are libertarians, yet believe in completely different things. In fact, some libertarians say that voting in elections and the very idea of a political party are both anti-libertarian.

I'd be willing to compromise on many issues, but the state has grown so gluttonous that's almost impossible.




[edit on (3/21/0505 by PistolPete]

[edit on (3/21/0505 by PistolPete]

Hehe. Yeah, anarchy is still and quite alive these days, though most of the anarchists I know are socialist anarchists. They would have no hesitation to throw a bomb into some corporate headquarters. Don't worry, I'm not an anarchist. I'm more of a Green, though sometimes I feel a little Libertarian. That depends on my mood.

Actually, the Green party is really just a reaction to blunders of the Democratic party.

I find it interesting that debates between a Green and a Libertarian are much more civil, calm, and orderly than those between a Dem and a Rep. I await the day that Greens and Libertarians take over the governmennt. I think both parties would do quite a bit to prevent abuses by the government, and politics wouldn't be so emotionally charged.

Its issues like that turn me off of Libertarianism. I see the point though that there is no set definition of libertarianism so basically as long as the freedom of the individual is maintained a philosophy can be libertarian in nature. In which case I guess you could call me a lower case libertarian. I never call myself libertarian though to seperate myself from the more extreme positions the philosophy can take.

When i first read the title i thought it Librarians are scary!:bnghd:

Originally posted by boogyman
Its issues like that turn me off of Libertarianism. I see the point though that there is no set definition of libertarianism so basically as long as the freedom of the individual is maintained a philosophy can be libertarian in nature. In which case I guess you could call me a lower case libertarian. I never call myself libertarian though to seperate myself from the more extreme positions the philosophy can take.

Why? There are extremes to any ideology, but that doesn't affect the people with more balanced views on those particular ideologies. Just because some people have an extremist take on an issue doesn't mean that should affect your views. If people did take the extremist position on issues, then all leftists would be vegans, but very many of us aren't even vegetarians. I'm a vegetarian myself, but I'm not a vegan.