Why don't libertarians care about non-economic freedom? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#1844363
All I hear from libertarians is how their economic ideas are supreme, no matter what the social consequences of them might be, and anyone who disagrees is an evil statist/socialist/fascist/whatthefuckever.

Allegedly you guys are for freedom as well as extreme capitalism; but you hardly display it. There is very little in this subforum about civil rights, police brutality, or other such things associated with the freedom of the individual from the state - its all about bloody taxes, as if the taxation of the small businessman was the greatest injustice ever.

You've established the upper middle class as the 'good guys' burdened by government that just exists to prop up those above you and below you in society, and you label and hector anybody who you perceive as an obstacle to the reduction of taxes for your social class. To pursue this you are willing to give up practically every facet of individualism and freedom which you claim to uphold; you create cults of personality around people like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Ron Paul, you enforce an intellectual orthodoxy through yelling at people (suggesting, to me at least, that were you in real power you would not be above doing so with guns) and you show a startling tolerance to the political authoritarianism of places like Pinochet's Chile and Singapore due to their favoring of capitalism.

Are you surprised, then, that I question your commitment to human freedom? Are you surprised that nobody outside your clique really gives any credence to your ideas?
By HR_Barca
#1844364
Allegedly you guys are for freedom as well as extreme capitalism; but you hardly display it. There is very little in this subforum about civil rights, police brutality, or other such things associated with the freedom of the individual from the state - its all about bloody taxes, as if the taxation of the small businessman was the greatest injustice ever.


I second. Somehow, I just can't understand a politic orientation that focuses on economy. :hmm:
But i would be curious to hear some libertarians.
User avatar
By Frank_Carbonni
#1844380
Allegedly you guys are for freedom as well as extreme capitalism; but you hardly display it. There is very little in this subforum about civil rights, police brutality, or other such things associated with the freedom of the individual from the state - its all about bloody taxes, as if the taxation of the small businessman was the greatest injustice ever.


Not from me. I comment on gun rights, freedom of speech, tobacco, drugs, alcohol, freedom of religion, and other civil liberty issues pretty regularly, so do many other libertarians on this board. The focus is mainly on economics because other posters already talk about those issues as well.

You've established the upper middle class as the 'good guys' burdened by government that just exists to prop up those above you and below you in society, and you label and hector anybody who you perceive as an obstacle to the reduction of taxes for your social class. To pursue this you are willing to give up practically every facet of individualism and freedom which you claim to uphold; you create cults of personality around people like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Ron Paul, you enforce an intellectual orthodoxy through yelling at people (suggesting, to me at least, that were you in real power you would not be above doing so with guns) and you show a startling tolerance to the political authoritarianism of places like Pinochet's Chile and Singapore due to their favoring of capitalism.


Funny. Most of the libertarians here are not rich. I'm certainly not (not by Western standards). In fact, I'm barely above the poverty line.

As far as excusing Pinochet or Singapore, I don't see too many people outright excusing them. However, I see many socialists and so-called liberals excusing or even condoning Stalin (he did industrialize the Soviet Union!), Cuba and Castro (they have an excellent healthcare system!), and even taking the side of the Taliban and Hamas for whatever fucked up reason.
User avatar
By RonPaulalways
#1844384
I believe economic actions encompass the majority of human actions. IMO, taking away someone's economic freedom does more damage to an individual than any other infringement of liberty (with the exception of arbitrary imprisonment/murder of course).

You've established the upper middle class as the 'good guys' burdened by government


I haven't. Much of the upper middle class lives off of others through government coercion/regulations (e.g. professional associations protected from competition through licensure regulations, much of Wall Street, political lobbyists, etc).

you create cults of personality around people like Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Ron Paul, you enforce an intellectual orthodoxy through yelling at people


Not really, we strongly adhere to certain ideologies because we truly believe in ideas. Certain individuals like Ron Paul and Milton Friedman have written large bodies of literature on these political/economic ideas and thus we often cite them. In the case of Ron Paul, I'm actively promoting him because he's a political representative, and thus increasing his name-recognition increases the chance of his being elected and the ideas I support being implemented. Cults of personality revolve around an individual, are driven solely by emotion, and have little in the way of comprehensive political ideas behind them. This for example, is a cult of personality:



you enforce an intellectual orthodoxy through yelling at people


The fact is we strongly disagree with your ideas, this doesn't mean we're "yelling" at you. I've only used harsh words against you when I've perceived that you've been lying about my positions in a deceitful attempt to demonize me (e.g. claiming I want concentration camps for poor people).

I actually find a lot of the allegations you are making against libertarians describe your own personality and debate-style. For example, I disagree that people should be able to trespass, so suddenly, I become an 'authoritarian' according to you, who wants to put poor people in concentration camps. I consider this an attempt to silence those who disagree with your socialistic paradigm through demonization/character-assassination -a form of "yelling".

Look how many times you've suggested that libertarians are really authoritarians just in this thread.. Of course you think you're justified in making these allegations, and it's ok for you to do it..
User avatar
By DDave3
#1844412
Libertarians aren't against 'force' or 'coercion' as most of us understand it. They are, rather, against the type of force or coercion that might lead to a more equitable system, the rich being disinherited of some of their wealth for the sake of the poor, or any change to the huge and entrenched inequalities of the system as it stands. Libertarianism is ultimately all about upholding the 'freedoms' of those that already enjoy them while ignoring the 'potential freedoms' of those that are worse off.
User avatar
By RonPaulalways
#1844416
^ That's why it's libertarians/constitutionalists more than any other group criticizing the bank bailouts which will destroy opportunities for hundreds of millions of Americans for the next few decades so that a few wealthy banking interests can continue living it large.

Whether it's wealth redistribution to the rich, or to the poor, both are wrong, and both create a culture of predation on fellow citizens, rather than individual effort to create.
By Average Voter
#1844719
I do not see why we should not expect to see libertarians focus their attention towards particular policies. It is almost human nature for people to find more interest in one thing over another. Hence, we would see people driven by what they are most passionate about.

There are libertarians whom seem to think that focusing on privatizing business would create a transitional stage into libertarianism. My personal opinion is that it is just another transition fantasy. A society would easily find itself in a another system conflicting to libertarianism, possible to a greater degree, if policies only focused on privatization.

On civil rights, modern civil rights movements seem to want government protection rather than protection from government. It should not be any wonder why libertarians do not support such misconceptions.
By grassroots1
#1844732
Allegedly you guys are for freedom as well as extreme capitalism; but you hardly display it. There is very little in this subforum about civil rights, police brutality, or other such things associated with the freedom of the individual from the state - its all about bloody taxes, as if the taxation of the small businessman was the greatest injustice ever.


This is one of the biggest problems I have with the libertarians I speak to on this forum. I hear very little or nothing about the Iraq war, police brutality, ICE raids, military intervention in general. I hear nothing about the hundreds of US military bases all over the world, I hear nothing about the consistent subversive actions by the CIA, all I hear is a HATE for 'socialists,' whoever they may be, and a HATE for any kind of taxation at all.

Why don't we target the 800+ Billion dollar military budget? The corporate favoritism of Halliburton? No, libertarians, at least on this forum, tend to target socialists as the greatest obstacle against their ideal, when, in reality, the greatest obstacle is established powers that are NOT socialist IN THE LEAST, they are oligarchical, they are dictatorial. There is a very small number of people who have a significant amount of influence for decision-making, and this is a major problem for our society right now. This should be the main target of people throughout the world.

But no, I hear far more attacks on Hugo Chavez than I do on George Bush, I hear much more about Evo Morales and Fidel Castro than I do about Tony Blair and Barack Obama. I mean, GET YOUR FUCKING PRIORITIES STRAIGHT.

Government intervention is not socialist unless it fulfills certain standards. Socialism for the rich is not socialism at all.

That's why it's libertarians/constitutionalists more than any other group criticizing the bank bailouts which will destroy opportunities for hundreds of millions of Americans for the next few decades so that a few wealthy banking interests can continue living it large.


I wouldn't say more than any other group. For one, socialist groups, including one of which I am a member, have been very active in denouncing and fighting the government bailouts.
User avatar
By DDave3
#1844857
RonPaulalways wrote:That's why it's libertarians/constitutionalists more than any other group criticizing the bank bailouts

Errr, I don think so Ron. This is just misty-eyed romanticism, opposite to bank bailouts has a wide ideological spread.

canadiancapitalist wrote:Because your idea of freedom is to take away mine

Yes, the standard rhetoric. But the thing is CC, you don't seem to care about anyone else's freedom bar your own - it's all about preserving present inequalities of freedom for fear of the state (ooooh) intervention to stamp them out.
By Michaeluj
#1845087
I hear very little or nothing about the Iraq war, police brutality, ICE raids, military intervention in general. I hear nothing about the hundreds of US military bases all over the world, I hear nothing about the consistent subversive actions by the CIA, all I hear is a HATE for 'socialists,' whoever they may be, and a HATE for any kind of taxation at all.
Why don't we target the 800+ Billion dollar military budget? The corporate favoritism of Halliburton? No, libertarians, at least on this forum, tend to target socialists as the greatest obstacle against their ideal, when, in reality, the greatest obstacle is established powers that are NOT socialist IN THE LEAST, they are oligarchical, they are dictatorial. There is a very small number of people who have a significant amount of influence for decision-making, and this is a major problem for our society right now. This should be the main target of people throughout the world.

But no, I hear far more attacks on Hugo Chavez than I do on George Bush, I hear much more about Evo Morales and Fidel Castro than I do about Tony Blair and Barack Obama. I mean, GET YOUR FUCKING PRIORITIES STRAIGHT.


Isn't our position obvious? Do we have to spell out everything in long rants? Do we all have to focus on present political activities as fondly as we do our economics debates? Bad, bad, bad, badbadbadreallybadbadbadbad: this is our opinion for everything you've mentioned, and it barely contradicts what's being posted so often, it's practically trolling. Do we really have to say that? Do we really have anything to add along with the dozens of drones who already go, "this is BAAAAAD"? I say that if enough people agree with me, I do not have to go along with the posting. There, happy that I've expressed many of our opinions? :roll:

Now, I never hear you, grassroots, talking about the Bailout, the Conservatives, Obama, what will become of China, India, inflation, hyperinflation, how Europe will come out of the recession, Russia, the mideast, and so on. Since you freely admit that you are ignorant about most of these details(probably because you never opened Capital and only breezed through The Communist Manifesto), this means that you are intentionally kept in the dark, which is something I can say for YOU. All I ever hear from you is droning and bitching about "the environment", big bad rich people, people are consumerist pigs, socialism is not ALL bad....and that's it. GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!
User avatar
By RonPaulalways
#1845101
This is just misty-eyed romanticism, opposite to bank bailouts has a wide ideological spread.


There is no significant organized resistance to the bank bailouts from any political movement other than CampaignforLiberty:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com

The libertarian/Constitutional movement is the only significant political movement that supports small government and therefore it rejects all the bailouts/stimulus plans on principle.
User avatar
By ingliz
#1845488
The libertarian/Constitutional movement is the only significant political movement

Why do you think libertarianism is significant, politically, when it is almost wholly confined to the US and even there the movement can barely raise 0.50% of the vote? (2008 Presidential Election; Barr 0.40%, Baldwin 0.15%)
User avatar
By RonPaulalways
#1845505
It IS significant. It's the third biggest party in the US. A lot of libertarians vote Republican in the elections because the Libertarian party has no chance of winning, so the Libertarian party's vote results don't reflect the total support for libertarianism. 10-20% of Americans are estimated to be libertarians.

Also note that I wrote libertarian/Constitutional, not just libertarian.
By canadiancapitalist
#1845660
Why do you think libertarianism is significant, politically, when it is almost wholly confined to the US and even there the movement can barely raise 0.50% of the vote? (2008 Presidential Election; Barr 0.40%, Baldwin 0.15%)


Because there was a time in America when libertarianism got virtually 100% of the vote. Because things come in cycles. If bell bottoms can come back, so can liberty.
By grassroots1
#1845667
Now, I never hear you, grassroots, talking about the Bailout, the Conservatives, Obama, what will become of China, India, inflation, hyperinflation, how Europe will come out of the recession, Russia, the mideast, and so on. Since you freely admit that you are ignorant about most of these details(probably because you never opened Capital and only breezed through The Communist Manifesto), this means that you are intentionally kept in the dark, which is something I can say for YOU. All I ever hear from you is droning and bitching about "the environment", big bad rich people, people are consumerist pigs, socialism is not ALL bad....and that's it. GET YOUR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!


I'm part of an organization that regularly confronts all of these issues, which is why I mentioned them, and I have spoken on this forum on the Israel-Palestine conflict, police brutality with Oscar Grant, the Iraq War, and others I can't remember. I don't just want you to express your opinion, I want you to DO things. Like ORGANIZING.
By Michaeluj
#1845756
Oh, so it's ORGANIZING you want, eh?

Quick show of hands by liberals and communists: how many of you participate in projects, especially those that may actually have an impact? Don't forget, your votes count as 1/4 of a libertarian because you outnumber us by an obscene number, and we don't want to fudge the numbers, do we?


Wait, I don't recall very many of you ever talking about actually DOING things. Is grassroots just imagining that every liberal and communist is as hardworking as he is? :roll:


And for the record, I think I post in the News Topics more than you.
Last edited by Michaeluj on 24 Mar 2009 21:30, edited 1 time in total.
By SpiderMonkey
#1846003
Because there was a time in America when libertarianism got virtually 100% of the vote. Because things come in cycles. If bell bottoms can come back, so can liberty.


This was also a time when black people were chattel. Kind of proves my point...
User avatar
By Dave
#1846061
canadiancapitalist wrote:Because there was a time in America when libertarianism got virtually 100% of the vote. Because things come in cycles. If bell bottoms can come back, so can liberty.
That's complete nonsense.
By canadiancapitalist
#1846161
That's complete nonsense.


Well I agree bell bottoms are an absurd fashion statement, one cannot argue with their historic popularity. Nor can one argue against the historic popularity of libertarianism in America. During the 19th century, libertarianism was a mass movement. We had the votes.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 14

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]