HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » Why Libertarianism is Wro...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:08 PM

Why Libertarianism is Wrong

&feature=youtu.be

17 replies, 3376 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Libertarianism is Wrong (Original post)
AProgressiveThinker Feb 2013 OP
jollyreaper2112 Feb 2013 #1
AProgressiveThinker Feb 2013 #2
jollyreaper2112 Feb 2013 #3
cgnick Feb 2013 #14
jollyreaper2112 Feb 2013 #4
freshwest Feb 2013 #9
Ravajava Feb 2013 #12
freshwest Feb 2013 #5
AProgressiveThinker Feb 2013 #6
Ravajava Feb 2013 #11
freshwest Feb 2013 #13
DonB Feb 2013 #7
DAngelo136 Feb 2013 #8
Ravajava Feb 2013 #10
Eric Zuesse Mar 2013 #15
MrScorpio Mar 2013 #17
S.A.M Mar 2013 #16

Response to AProgressiveThinker (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:34 PM

1. Decent

A few flaws with the way he framed his argument but he's on the right track. Many libertarians are well-meaning but approaching the problem with the wrong toolset. Others are just selfish choads.

The primary flaw is libertarians are idealists and their ideals fail in the real world. Like the free market. They believe the powerful won't do all they can to subvert it. They believe that you can vote with your dollar when the three giant market makers offer identical shitty products. It's a childish and simplistic world view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jollyreaper2112 (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:43 PM

2. Yes

I did not make this video, my friend did but I think everything he said was right. Libertarianism is sort of the belief that if you give an individual (in this case an employer) a gun and tell him he can shoot anyone with no punishment, the individual won't kill anybody. But that isn't true, most people would kill someone. If you put no regulations on an employer's power over a company, well it's obvious he will start making working conditions harder to make a better profit. It happened in the Industrial Revolution.

There are so many things wrong with their idea, it would be long and tedious to explain. Also, their idea of free banking without a Federal Reserve is completely idiotic. Do they not understand why the Glass-Steagal Act was implemented?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AProgressiveThinker (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:52 PM

3. Made a post about this in my journal

Short version: libertarian says we don't need government regulation. A third party company could inspect and give their rating to products.

Oh, you mean like bond ratings agencies? The ones who sold their ratings? Like auditing firms that took bribes? Whatever happened to Arthur Anderson?

It's like arguing rape shouldn't be a crime because no self-sovereign man would rape a woman. Problem solved!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jollyreaper2112 (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 24, 2013, 12:44 AM

14. I agree with some elements of Libertarianism.

I also think that capitalism is a good thing overall that does need regulation. The first thing that I would change is patent laws. Patent laws (Not to be confused with trademark laws) should be drastically reduced/changed if not done away with all together. This would create true competition in markets. That would making "voting with your wallet" a reality. Copywrite laws also should be reexamined. Intellectual property should not be owned. You should not be able to own an idea or thought process. If you want to own it keep it to yourself like would any other personal property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AProgressiveThinker (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:56 PM

4. One more thing

It's hard enough just settling a dispute between two equals. What recourse does an individual have against a powerful neighbor or a corporation? We need collective force of the weak to counter the strong. Just being in the right doesn't mean shit if you cannot protect your rights. And just having a gun doesn't mean shit if the other side can field an army.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jollyreaper2112 (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 11:34 PM

9. Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jollyreaper2112 (Reply #4)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 11:02 AM

12. Playing Devils Advocate

Even Ayn Rand believed that you still needed some body for that exactly, settling disputes. Of course, on the other hand, she believed that it was okay if the strong ruled over the weak, so, somehow I don't think Libertarians would view either of those things as "problems". :p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AProgressiveThinker (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:44 PM

5. Best one yet, all points covered in every aspect, will be looking at your channel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 07:48 PM

6. Thanks

Thank you, please do look into javakris' channel, his videos are great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:59 AM

11. Just so we are clear

I made the video. Aprogressivethinker posted it here, but I uploaded the video. https://www.youtube.com/user/javakris

Not that you shouldn't subscribe to Aprogressivethinker, he's good to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ravajava (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 12:18 PM

13. Hi, Ravajava. All I said is for you, then, and will go to get the other video mentioned.

Just went to see your uploaded videos.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AProgressiveThinker (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 08:17 PM

7. A great Synonym for libertarian

 

Libercarelessian

A synonym for libertarian that more accurately describes their adherence to the bankrupt theory of objectivism propagated by the soulless and vulgar excuse for a human being, ayn rand.

libercarelessians - plural for libercarelessian

ayn rand, the true model of a libercarelessian, a vigorous supporter of self sufficiency, and a crusader against any and all government intervention in the lives of "We the People", spent the waning years of her pathetic, hypocritical, and heartless life sucking off the dole of Medicare and Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AProgressiveThinker (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:41 PM

8. Here's a pretty comprehensive critique of Libertarianism

by Mike Huben that you can find here at:http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html He gives a very detailed critique about Libertarianism including a section on how to debate with a Libertarian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DAngelo136 (Reply #8)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:57 AM

10. Thanks

"It's dangerous to go alone. Take this"

I'll certainly give that a read. Could be useful down the road.

-Guy in the video

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AProgressiveThinker (Original post)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 12:04 PM

15. This guy misunderstands "libertarianism"

Libertarianism grew from fascism; libertarianism is the belief that the basic right, to which all rights ultimately reduce, is the right to property, so that the more property a person has, the more rights they possess, and a person who possesses no property (or, even worse, whose net worth is below zero because of debts) possesses no rights (other than to himself, which is worth less than nothing if he is in debt, so that serfdom or peonage should be his lot).

Samuel Freeman’s penetrating 29 September 2011 critical paper “Liberalism, Capitalism, and Libertarianism,” cited (page 49) a number of prominent libertarians, as saying such things as that, “Liberty is Property. ... The libertarian thesis is really the thesis that a right to our persons as our property is the sole fundamental right there is,” and as that, “there are no rights but property rights.” (This means, of course, that to be born an aristocrat is to be born with extensive rights, whereas to be born poor is to be born with little or no rights; i.e., that rights are proportional to property.) Freeman also cites libertarians saying that if a person sells himself into slavery, then the government should enforce the master’s right and the slave’s obligation in the master-slave relationship, regardless of how stupid or ignorant or desperate the slave’s “choice” had been to sign such an exploitative contract. (If he signed it, he’s considered a fool, and fascists consider fools to be not pitied, but rather despised.)

However, even these bolder modern libertarians would rather not discuss what they mean by “property.” It’s all they’ve got (since it’s the basis of all rights in their view); it’s defined by the laws, which come from the government; and so they don’t even want to understand it – they just want to “have” it (and not to think at all about the extent to which their ownership depends upon the prevailing legal system – i.e., upon the government).

However, this new generation of bold libertarians are perfectly willing to acknowledge their hatred of democracy. For example, the libertarian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe headlined at the libertarian website lewrockwell.com on 17 November 2000, “Down With Democracy,” and he wrote that, “One-man-one-vote combined with ‘free entry’ into government – democracy – implies that every person and his personal property comes within reach of – and is up for grabs by – everyone else. ... It can be expected that majorities of the ‘have-nots’ will relentlessly try to enrich themselves at the expense of minorities of the ‘haves.’ ... The rich are characteristically bright and industrious, and the poor typically dull, lazy, or both. ... As a result of subsidizing individuals because they are poor, there will be more poverty. In subsidizing people because they are unemployed, more unemployment will be created. ... In subsidizing the malingerers, the neurotics, the careless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts, the AIDS-infected, and the physically and mentally challenged, ... there will be more illness, malingering, neuroticism, carelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, AIDS infection, and physical and mental retardation. By forcing non-criminals ... to pay for the imprisonment of criminals ... crime will increase. By forcing businesses, through ‘affirmative action’ (‘non-discrimination’) programs, to employ more women, homosexuals, blacks, or other ‘minorities’ than they would like to, there will be ... fewer employers, and fewer male, heterosexual, and white employment.”

Although that sounded remarkably like Adolf Hitler’s condemnations of democracy in Mein Kampf, it was actually a highly respected American libertarian who wrote this. In 2001, Hoppe published his DEMOCRACY: The God that Failed, which was considered a libertarian masterpiece. Hoppe unapologetically argued there that libertarianism and conservatism are one and the same – and that he wanted it, passionately: he hated democracy.

Before Ronald Reagan became President, the Kochs’ Reason interviewed him in their July 1975 issue, headlining “Inside Ronald Reagan,” and he said there: “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom , and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” Hoppe wasn’t saying anything new. But he was being bolder, less “politic” or diplomatic, about it, than Reagan or other politicians.

On 30 August 2011, Michael Lind at salon.com headlined “Why Libertarians Apologize for Autocracy : The experience of every democratic nation-state proves that libertarianism is incompatible with democracy.” He quoted Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek praising the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile (this was the very same Hayek who had stolen and made famous ALL’s equation socialism = communism = fascism; Hayek was now fawning over fascism, once it had finally returned to the world, in Pinochet’s Chile); and Lind also quoted Friedman’s own grandson, Patri Friedman (son of the prominent libertarian writer David Friedman), praising Hoppe’s works (and his father David’s) as convincing him that (in Patri’s words) “Democracy is rigged against libertarianism,” and that, “Democracy is not the answer” and must be replaced with libertarianism by forceful means. Lind then concluded: “Libertarianism really is incompatible with democracy.”

As for Milton Friedman himself, he was far more tactful than his grandson Patri. There is an undated youtube video of Milton, headlined “U S is not a democracy Milton Friedman,” in which he argues much like von Mises, against democracy, and simultaneously against violence. He says: “Nobody believes in democracy. ... You will find it hard to find anybody who will say that at 55% of the people believe the other 45% of the people should be shot, that’s an appropriate exercise of democracy. What I believe is not a democracy but an individual freedom in which individuals cooperate with one another, and in which there is an absence of coercion and violence. Now it turns out that democracy in the sense of majority voting is an effective means for achieving agreement on some things, on things which are not very important. Really important things we require much more than a simple majority. We require as close to unanimity as we can get.” Of course, that’s false: The most important political issues tend to be the most-fought-over ones, not the least-fought-over. Fascism is based upon lies, and Friedman was a master-liar. The real purpose of Friedman’s lies was to enable money to rule, instead of individuals’ votes to rule. He wanted people to hate government, in a democracy. The purpose is to enable the aristocracy to rule, and to negate the rights of the poor. The goal is to achieve that purpose with as little “coercion and violence” as possible. The ideal, in other words, is a passive public, who peacefully accept their exploitation by aristocrats. When policemen’s billy clubs crack the heads of striking workers, even aristocrats’ pacifist words can be just totalitarian lies.

So, I would say that "AProgressiveThinker" takes the PR for "libertarianism" as being libertarianism, and then tries to argue against it, but what is really needed is instead an accurate understanding of what libertarianism actually is.

I have written in draft a mini-book about this subject, and it documents that libertarianism originated from the same aristocrats who had planned a fascist coup d'etat to replace FDR with a dictator patterned upon Mussolini and Hitler: when their plan had to be aborted in 1934, they refocused upon a plan to sell fascism in democratic countries by rejiggering fascism and by renaming it when the military defeat of the fascist nations in WWII caused virtually everyone to detest fascism under its then-existing name. These people financed the rise of Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and even arranged their Nobel prizes. If you are interested in seeing this 100-page manuscript (as a pdf or in the body of an email) and are willing to tell me your thoughts about it, I'll be happy to email it to you for your comments. Send your request to eric.zuesse@aol.com

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eric Zuesse (Reply #15)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 06:53 PM

17. Yeah… Good luck with that. Welcome to DU

For now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AProgressiveThinker (Original post)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 12:46 PM

16. I like this guy

 

He's got a great future

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread