Why "Fusionist" Libertarian-Republicans Aren't Really Libertarians At All

[ReverendHellh0und]

This is not for the benefit of a party, it's for the benefit or libertarianism itself.

which is what exactly to you?

 

[Guy Incognito]

which is what exactly to you?

I'm glad you asked. It's the school of thought that believes in noncoercion and respect for personal autonomy, and therefore supports only the minimal government necessary to protect the rights of the individual.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I'm glad you asked. It's the school of thought that believe in noncoercion and therefore supports only the minimal government necessary to protect the rights of the individual.

What about property rights including rights to the fruits of my labor?

 

[American]

Hey, that's cool, we're on the same page. I don't view the Tea Party as anywhere close to libertarians, either. They're about as authoritarian as you can get.

Did you think taking a cheap shot at the Tea Party would make you seem less incorrect?

 

[Ockham]

This is not for the benefit of a party, it's for the benefit of libertarianism itself.

I still don't see how dragging down the tea party helps libertarians - it certainly helps liberals or is that what you mean?

 

[American]

What about property rights including rights to the fruits of my labor?

Definitely libertarian.

 

[Guy Incognito]

What about property rights including rights to the fruits of my labor?

That falls under the noncoercion part.

Of course you have the right to the fruits of your labor. And of course, individual must also be personally responsibilty to answer for their infringments against the right of others, don't you agree?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I still don't see how dragging down the tea party helps libertarians - it certainly helps liberals or is that what you mean?

again, he's not really a libertarian, he is a chomsky pseudo liberal type hiding behind the libertarian label in an attempt at legitimacy in smearing the tea party movement.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

That falls under the noncoercion part.

Of course you have the right to the fruits of your labor. And of course, individual must also be personally responsibilty to answer for their infringments against the right of others, don't you agree?

What does one have to do with the other? Or is this your smarmy way of saying you support wealth confiscation?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Did you think taking a cheap shot at the Tea Party would make you seem less incorrect?

The fact that I love to take cheap shots at the tea party has nothing to do with the fact that I am right and you are wrong.

 

[Guy Incognito]

What does one have to do with the other? Or is this your smarmy way of saying you support wealth confiscation?

Not at all. I oppose the taxation of any legitimately earned income as a matter of principle. Same goes for tariffs and trade regulations. It's all coercive.

I'm talking about tort liability. Like if a lifeguard lets a kid drown in a pool, he should be held responsible, right? That's essential to libertarianism, personal responsibility.

 

[DarkWizard12]

That falls under the noncoercion part.

Of course you have the right to the fruits of your labor. And of course, individual must also be personally responsibilty to answer for their infringments against the right of others, don't you agree?

Of course, that's why we have courts.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I still don't see how dragging down the tea party helps libertarians - it certainly helps liberals or is that what you mean?

I can't really follow what you're talking about. First explain to me how the Tea Party helps libertarians. I emphatically do not grant that premise.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Not at all. I oppose the taxation of any legitimately earned income as a matter of principle. Same goes for tariffs and trade regulations. It's all coercive.

Give me some examples of "illigitimatly earned income"


Why you have to be sneaky and dishonest about your position is beyond me.

I'm talking about tort liability. Like if a lifeguard lets a kid drown in a pool, he should be held responsible, right? That's essential to libertarianism, personal responsibility.

huh?>

 

[Ockham]

again, he's not really a libertarian, he is a chomsky pseudo liberal type hiding behind the libertarian label in an attempt at legitimacy in smearing the tea party movement.

I'm agreeing with ya. No libertarian I've ever met in RL or on a forum spouts this horse ****. I think I'm going to save a few brain cells, chalk this up to another liberal in libertarian clothing and move on. Can't argue with stupid.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I can't really follow what you're talking about. First explain to me how the Tea Party helps libertarians. I emphatically do not grant that premise.

Lower taxes,
less government,
more accountable representatives.


How would those ideals not help Libertarians? :roll:

 

[Guy Incognito]

Of course, that's why we have courts.

Exactly! So a libertarian would never get it the way of a legitimate tort judgment, right?

Let's say, for example, that the government stepped in and made a law protecting negligent lifeguards from having to pay valid court judgments against them for drowned children. That would be illegitimate from a libertarian perspective, right?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Exactly! So a libertarian would never get it the way of a legitimate tort judgment, right?

Let's say, for example, that the government stepped in and made a law protecting negligent lifeguards from having to pay valid court judgments against them for drowned children. That would be illegitimate from a libertarian perspective, right?

Yes, what's that got to do with the fruits of your labor?

 

[Harshaw]

Exactly! So a libertarian would never get it the way of a legitimate tort judgment, right?

Let's say, for example, that the government stepped in and made a law protecting negligent lifeguards from having to pay valid court judgments against them for drowned children. That would be illegitimate from a libertarian perspective, right?

Depends on why such immunity was put in place. Could go either way.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Yes, but what's that got to do with being right or left?

I'm glad you asked. That illegitmate law that unfairly protects lifeguard from liability actually exists in real life. Only it doesn't protect lifeguards from liability for drowned children, it protects the shareholders and board members of corporations from liability to the victims of any their negligent actions performed during the course of business. That is un-libertarian in the extreme, and it is the very basis for our corporate economic structure.

If it wasn't for the corporate tort liability shield, people wouldn't even form corporations, they'd just be doing business is no-frills partnerships where liability for personal assets in joint and several for each partner. Meaning that all partners a liability for any tort the business commits for up their entire personal worth. But if they get a magic piece of paper from the government (basically a promise of government coercion on their behalf, sort of like protection arrangement with the local mafia don) that liability vanishes. All of a sudden businessmen can be a whole lot more reckless in the way they conduct business.

That is unlibertarian.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Depends on why such immunity was put in place. Could go either way.

Not to a libertarian it doesn't. We're talking about minimal government to protect liberties of the individual, not extra government to subsidize certain sectors of business.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I'm glad you asked. That illegitmate law that unfairly protects lifeguard from liability actually exists in real life. Only it doesn't protect lifeguards from liability for drowned children, it protects the shareholders and board members of corporations from liability to the victims of any their negligent actions performed during the course of business. That is un-libertarian in the extreme, and it is the very basis for our corporate economic structure.

If it wasn't for the corporate tort liability shield, people wouldn't even form corporations, they'd just be doing business is no-frills partnerships where liability for personal assets in joint and several for each partner. Meaning that all partners a liability for any tort the business commits for up their entire personal worth. But if they get a magic piece of paper from the government (basically a promise of government coercion on their behalf, sort of like protection arrangement with the local mafia don) that liability vanishes. All of a sudden businessmen can be a whole lot more reckless in the way they conduct business.

That is unlibertarian.

You mean limited liability laws?

 

[Guy Incognito]

Yes, what's that got to do with the fruits of your labor?

Ok, so to tie it all together back to the fruits of your labor being protected. Remember, that is only when they are legitimately acquired. A thief doesn't have a legitimate claim to the money he stole, does he?

 

[Guy Incognito]

You mean limited liability laws?

Precisely! both corporations and the lifeguard from our hypothetical example are protected by "limited liability laws" which, as you might recall we both agree are illegitimate.

Exactly! So a libertarian would never get it the way of a legitimate tort judgment, right?

Let's say, for example, that the government stepped in and made a law protecting negligent lifeguards from having to pay valid court judgments against them for drowned children. That would be illegitimate from a libertarian perspective, right?

Yes, what's that got to do with the fruits of your labor?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Ok, so to tie it all together back to the fruits of your labor being protected. Remember, that is only when they are legitimately acquired. A thief doesn't have a legitimate claim to the money he stole, does he?

again, give some examples of illegitimate please. 2nd request. what are you hiding, "libertarian"? :roll: