Libertarianism is built on selfishness and greed.

[ProgRockBest]

To be fair I agree with libertarians on freedom. Ron Paul telling those fake moral crusaders in the GOP debates that he supported legalization of drugs was priceless and I am grateful he did that because now weed is now legal in several states.

My issue with libertarians was clearly spoken when I saw Ayn Rand speak at the UW in 1976. She clearly stated that poor people, the elderly and the sick where leeches and she did not care if they lived or died if they needed public assistance. Sorry libertarians. I respect your right to brlieve as you please but the political equivalent of Satanism or Manifest Destiny is just not this liberals style. Where is the compassion? Thank God they are of minority opinion.

 

[Antiwar]

It sounds like you're talking about right-libertarianism.

 

[ProgRockBest]

It sounds like you're talking about right-libertarianism.

Yes that would be right I guess. Ayn Rand certainly preached that style of libertarianism. Too harsh and uncaring. I was a young buck when I saw her speak and was still a conservative then but that let them die stuff pissed me off then. Imagine what I think at 61 and being about as liberal as they come.

 

[PirateMk1]

Yes that would be right I guess. Ayn Rand certainly preached that style of libertarianism. Too harsh and uncaring. I was a young buck when I saw her speak and was still a conservative then but that let them die stuff pissed me off then. Imagine what I think at 61 and being about as liberal as they come.

Whats the problem? If you see something needs doing, do something about it. You don't need government for that.

 

[Captain Adverse]

To be fair I agree with libertarians on freedom. Ron Paul telling those fake moral crusaders in the GOP debates that he supported legalization of drugs was priceless and I am grateful he did that because now weed is now legal in several states.

My issue with libertarians was clearly spoken when I saw Ayn Rand speak at the UW in 1976. She clearly stated that poor people, the elderly and the sick where leeches and she did not care if they lived or died if they needed public assistance. Sorry libertarians. I respect your right to brlieve as you please but the political equivalent of Satanism or Manifest Destiny is just not this liberals style. Where is the compassion? Thank God they are of minority opinion.

A Libertarian believes in individual freedom to live one's own life as one choses as long as one does not intentionally act to harm other's or the property rights of other's. This allows for willing cooperation with a group as long as such cooperation is not turned into compulsory obligations to sacrifice more than originally contracted.

Thus an individual can be compassionate if one so choses, or selfish if one so choses, as long as one's actions aren't deliberately intended to cause harm to other's or their property.

This idea of "compulsory compassion" you argue is a moral construct used by those who think they have both a right and a duty to compel other's to submit themselves to the group and "share" in the fruits of their labor. Based on the weird idea that simply by existing one may demand to be taken care of by everyone else. That is the foundation of Socialism and it's extreme of Communism, i.e. that the group has the right to compel individuals to work as hard as possible and then "share" the bulk of their production with those less capable or less willing to put in the same effort.

Your fallacious use of both religious and economic demonization of the inherent individual rights to preserve one's own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness reflects a typical attempt to claim some "moral high ground" as justified in every ideology arguing "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Where is the compassion?

In charitable organizations, where people are free to decide what to give and who should receive it.

Also:

Libertarianism is built on selfishness and greed.

...and?

 

[Helix]

it's based on the mistaken conclusion that if government is pared down to its bare bones, then you'll get the freedom and wealth just like your employer, the rich, and everyone else with more power than you. in reality, you'll more likely end up as an independent contractor if you're lucky enough to be employed at all, and you still won't be able to smoke pot in your spare time due to limited worker rights and drug screens that you pay for yourself. also, bye bye, SS and Medicare.

 

[Bullseye]

A Libertarian believes in individual freedom to live one's own life as one choses as long as one does not intentionally act to harm other's or the property rights of other's. This allows for willing cooperation with a group as long as such cooperation is not turned into compulsory obligations to sacrifice more than originally contracted.

Thus an individual can be compassionate if one so choses, or selfish if one so choses, as long as one's actions aren't deliberately intended to cause harm to other's or their property.

This idea of "compulsory compassion" you argue is a moral construct used by those who think they have both a right and a duty to compel other's to submit themselves to the group and "share" in the fruits of their labor. Based on the weird idea that simply by existing one may demand to be taken care of by everyone else. That is the foundation of Socialism and it's extreme of Communism, i.e. that the group has the right to compel individuals to work as hard as possible and then "share" the bulk of their production with those less capable or less willing to put in the same effort.

Your fallacious use of both religious and economic demonization of the inherent individual rights to preserve one's own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness reflects a typical attempt to claim some "moral high ground" as justified in every ideology arguing "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Excellent post. The exercise of free will is, to me, the pivot of libertarian thought. One should be able to run his live as he chooses provide he doesn’t materially endanger other or cause damage. To me compassion is also a personal choice. I’m too old to dash into burning buildind or swim raging torrents to save people, but I will do whatever I can to aid a person in trouble; I will also voluntarily donate to various public service groups - particularly veteran and military assistance organizations.

 

[ProgRockBest]

Whats the problem? If you see something needs doing, do something about it. You don't need government for that.

why not? Waiting for selfish tight wads and it would never happen. What is your beef with the government doing it. The Germans have te best healthcare in the world and it is government ran so why not? That crap is mythology about the government can't do anything well in fact it is downright stupid.

 

[ProgRockBest]

A Libertarian believes in individual freedom to live one's own life as one choses as long as one does not intentionally act to harm other's or the property rights of other's. This allows for willing cooperation with a group as long as such cooperation is not turned into compulsory obligations to sacrifice more than originally contracted.

Thus an individual can be compassionate if one so choses, or selfish if one so choses, as long as one's actions aren't deliberately intended to cause harm to other's or their property.

This idea of "compulsory compassion" you argue is a moral construct used by those who think they have both a right and a duty to compel other's to submit themselves to the group and "share" in the fruits of their labor. Based on the weird idea that simply by existing one may demand to be taken care of by everyone else. That is the foundation of Socialism and it's extreme of Communism, i.e. that the group has the right to compel individuals to work as hard as possible and then "share" the bulk of their production with those less capable or less willing to put in the same effort.

Your fallacious use of both religious and economic demonization of the inherent individual rights to preserve one's own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness reflects a typical attempt to claim some "moral high ground" as justified in every ideology arguing "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Here is the deal. Libertarians at this point have never had enough power to prove their way of doing things work. Brownback in Kansas was the closest so far and that failed.

 

[PirateMk1]

why not? Waiting for selfish tight wads and it would never happen. What is your beef with the government doing it. The Germans have te best healthcare in the world and it is government ran so why not? That crap is mythology about the government can't do anything well in fact it is downright stupid.

Why wait when you can do something YOURSELF? Why depend on the government to do something you yourself wont do? We are not German and our government sucks.

 

[Good4Nothin]

To be fair I agree with libertarians on freedom. Ron Paul telling those fake moral crusaders in the GOP debates that he supported legalization of drugs was priceless and I am grateful he did that because now weed is now legal in several states.

My issue with libertarians was clearly spoken when I saw Ayn Rand speak at the UW in 1976. She clearly stated that poor people, the elderly and the sick where leeches and she did not care if they lived or died if they needed public assistance. Sorry libertarians. I respect your right to brlieve as you please but the political equivalent of Satanism or Manifest Destiny is just not this liberals style. Where is the compassion? Thank God they are of minority opinion.

Ayn Rand didn't speak for libertarians in general. She was extreme and not very reasonable, which helped her get attention. She was also often misunderstood.

Ayn Rand saw her parents' live destroyed by communism, and everything she stood for can be interpreted in that light. She was against the authoritarianism that results when socialism is taken too far.

I agree with libertarians on the importance of freedom -- to the extent that individual freedom is even possible, it should be protected. But almost no one would go along with Ayn Rands extreme statements.

It is very important to separate moderate and sensible philosophies from their more extreme versions.

The "left" hates libertarians because Ayn Rand was one of them. So they refuse to learn anything from moderate sensible libertarians.

 

[OlNate]

A Libertarian believes in individual freedom to live one's own life as one choses as long as one does not intentionally act to harm other's or the property rights of other's. This allows for willing cooperation with a group as long as such cooperation is not turned into compulsory obligations to sacrifice more than originally contracted.

Thus an individual can be compassionate if one so choses, or selfish if one so choses, as long as one's actions aren't deliberately intended to cause harm to other's or their property.

This idea of "compulsory compassion" you argue is a moral construct used by those who think they have both a right and a duty to compel other's to submit themselves to the group and "share" in the fruits of their labor. Based on the weird idea that simply by existing one may demand to be taken care of by everyone else. That is the foundation of Socialism and it's extreme of Communism, i.e. that the group has the right to compel individuals to work as hard as possible and then "share" the bulk of their production with those less capable or less willing to put in the same effort.

Your fallacious use of both religious and economic demonization of the inherent individual rights to preserve one's own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness reflects a typical attempt to claim some "moral high ground" as justified in every ideology arguing "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

This explanations helps me understand libertarianism better, but it places it firmly in the realm of obsolescence. For this vision to work, you'd need to kill off a bunch of the world's population, and forget a good number of technological advances. All national metrics suffer under libertarianism. It is simply not compatible with the 21st century.

 

[soylentgreen]

Excellent post. The exercise of free will is, to me, the pivot of libertarian thought. One should be able to run his live as he chooses provide he doesn’t materially endanger other or cause damage. To me compassion is also a personal choice. I’m too old to dash into burning buildind or swim raging torrents to save people, but I will do whatever I can to aid a person in trouble; I will also voluntarily donate to various public service groups - particularly veteran and military assistance organizations.

This is just ridiculous. Do neither of you see the inherent contradiction.

The idea that a person can be both "able to run his live as he chooses", and , "doesn’t materially endanger other or cause damage" would be dependent on the ability of said person to show compassion, altruism and empathy. So, no it is not as you falsely claim that one is simply a choice while the other is a life style. Instead one cannot exist without the other.

 

[soylentgreen]

Why wait when you can do something YOURSELF? Why depend on the government to do something you yourself wont do? We are not German and our government sucks.

How laughable. Try building your own hospital if you ever get cancer.

 

[Captain Adverse]

This is just ridiculous. Do neither of you see the inherent contradiction.

The idea that a person can be both "able to run his live as he chooses", and , "doesn’t materially endanger other or cause damage" would be dependent on the ability of said person to show compassion, altruism and empathy.

Wrong.

It only requires one to look at things "rationally," not "emotionally" as you assert.

Libertarianism is not "everyone for himself," that is Anarchy.

You seem to miss the part where a Libertarian may act to live his own life as he sees fit as long as such action does not harm other's or other's property. This comes with the unspoken understanding that if one DOES act to harm other's or their property one will face the consequences as those harmed will exert their inherent rights to self-defense and the defense of other's they have establish mutual obligations with.

It also ignores the fact that Libertarians can voluntarily agree to social "contracts," as long as those contracts are honored by all parties and not modified to change the terms without the participants mutual consent.

Thus a Libertarian respects the rights of everyone else to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No need for "altruism, compassion, or empathy. No, just a practical and rational mindset.

So, no it is not as you falsely claim that one is simply a choice while the other is a life style. Instead one cannot exist without the other.

On the contrary, IMO it is YOU who seek to impose whatever ideas of "altruism, compassion, and empathy" you envision onto others.

By such assertions of "superior moral views," demanding compulsory adherence to whatever you consider "altruistic, compassionate, and empathic." In so doing making others subordinate to the "needs, wants, and desires" of the many.

Thus your "side's" arguments are almost always made up of appeals to emotion, and other fallacious tactics. But if met with disagreement, then your side turns to scapegoating, demonizing, and other efforts at moral panic or even violence to either compel compliance or utterly destroy those who don't see things your way.

 

[Bullseye]

This is just ridiculous. Do neither of you see the inherent contradiction.

The idea that a person can be both "able to run his live as he chooses", and , "doesn’t materially endanger other or cause damage" would be dependent on the ability of said person to show compassion, altruism and empathy. So, no it is not as you falsely claim that one is simply a choice while the other is a life style. Instead one cannot exist without the other.

No, I don’t think so. Those traits are part of a person’s makeup that is solely his to determine and would be part of how the person chooses to live.

 

[ProgRockBest]

Ayn Rand didn't speak for libertarians in general. She was extreme and not very reasonable, which helped her get attention. She was also often misunderstood.

Ayn Rand saw her parents' live destroyed by communism, and everything she stood for can be interpreted in that light. She was against the authoritarianism that results when socialism is taken too far.

I agree with libertarians on the importance of freedom -- to the extent that individual freedom is even possible, it should be protected. But almost no one would go along with Ayn Rands extreme statements.

It is very important to separate moderate and sensible philosophies from their more extreme versions.

The "left" hates libertarians because Ayn Rand was one of them. So they refuse to learn anything from moderate sensible libertarians.

Fair enough. I did see some very uncaring crap come out of Paul Ryan and company during the great recession however in the face of no work and people suffering. I bet you remember too.

 

[calamity]

To be fair I agree with libertarians on freedom. Ron Paul telling those fake moral crusaders in the GOP debates that he supported legalization of drugs was priceless and I am grateful he did that because now weed is now legal in several states.

My issue with libertarians was clearly spoken when I saw Ayn Rand speak at the UW in 1976. She clearly stated that poor people, the elderly and the sick where leeches and she did not care if they lived or died if they needed public assistance. Sorry libertarians. I respect your right to brlieve as you please but the political equivalent of Satanism or Manifest Destiny is just not this liberals style. Where is the compassion? Thank God they are of minority opinion.

I have yet to meet a libertarian who wasn't handed a spot on easy street by mom and dad.

 

[TurtleDude]

I have yet to meet a libertarian who wasn't handed a spot on easy street by mom and dad.

I have experienced the same thing with many socialists and SJWs I have met. radical chic-mercedes Marxists or blue book bolsheviks.

 

[soylentgreen]

Wrong.

It only requires one to look at things "rationally," not "emotionally" as you assert.

Libertarianism is not "everyone for himself," that is Anarchy.

You seem to miss the part where a Libertarian may act to live his own life as he sees fit as long as such action does not harm other's or other's property. This comes with the unspoken understanding that if one DOES act to harm other's or their property one will face the consequences as those harmed will exert their inherent rights to self-defense and the defense of other's they have establish mutual obligations with.

It also ignores the fact that Libertarians can voluntarily agree to social "contracts," as long as those contracts are honored by all parties and not modified to change the terms without the participants mutual consent.

Thus a Libertarian respects the rights of everyone else to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No need for "altruism, compassion, or empathy. No, just a practical and rational mindset.



On the contrary, IMO it is YOU who seek to impose whatever ideas of "altruism, compassion, and empathy" you envision onto others.

By such assertions of "superior moral views," demanding compulsory adherence to whatever you consider "altruistic, compassionate, and empathic." In so doing making others subordinate to the "needs, wants, and desires" of the many.

Thus your "side's" arguments are almost always made up of appeals to emotion, and other fallacious tactics. But if met with disagreement, then your side turns to scapegoating, demonizing, and other efforts at moral panic or even violence to either compel compliance or utterly destroy those who don't see things your way.

No, it is you who have missed the point.
It is being rational to point out that to have the ability to understand the very concept of " as such action does not harm other's or other's property. " one must have the ability to empathise, to be altruistic. Without those abilities your claim of caring is worthless.

 

[soylentgreen]

No, I don’t think so. Those traits are part of a person’s makeup that is solely his to determine and would be part of how the person chooses to live.

Those traits are necessary if you want to be able to understand how and why your actions may be harmful to others.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, it is you who have missed the point.
It is being rational to point out that to have the ability to understand the very concept of " as such action does not harm other's or other's property. " one must have the ability to empathise, to be altruistic. Without those abilities your claim of caring is worthless.

supporting government coercion is not caring. Supporting organizations that support more socialism and more government coerced income redistribution is not caring

 

[soylentgreen]

supporting government coercion is not caring. Supporting organizations that support more socialism and more government coerced income redistribution is not caring

If you are referring to that corrupt joke you call a government in your country I would agree.

However judging all forms of governance based on the pathetic and failed experiment that is the american government is simply you demonstrating a lack of education about the world.

 

[TurtleDude]

If you are referring to that corrupt joke you call a government in your country I would agree.

However judging all forms of governance based on the pathetic and failed experiment that is the american government is simply you demonstrating a lack of education about the world.

ah the old us americans are not as educated as foreigners. More bullshit