How Libertarian Are You?

[Lord of Elves]

Who on earth is threatening anyone with 'brutal force'? I've gone my entire life without being threatened wit 'brutal force', as have everyone I know.

As many people have pointed out, the implication that you might be subjected to trial and imprisonment/punishment if you disobey the law is "brutal force" as defined by libertarians who apparently feel you should be free to do absolutely anything you want, provided you have the money to afford it.

 

[Angst]

But it's rubbish, isn't it? Or am I being hasty?

The major movement right now bases itself on Ayn Rand.

 

[Borachio]

I've heard no good of Ayn Rand.

 

[Traitorfish]

CFC is the first place I've ever really encountered the notion of libertarianism, so I'm comparatively new to it.

But it's rubbish, isn't it? Or am I being hasty?

It's hard to say "it's rubbish", because that suggest the existence of a reasonably coherent "it", which I'm not sure we can reasonably do. "Libertarianism" is whatever any individual "libertarian" wants it to be; a personalised car-crash of every vaguely individualist writer, philosophy or toilet-wall graffiti that appeals to them.

We could, once, have talked about a "libertarianism" as a varied but reasonably identifiable tendency within American liberalism, which emphasises markets as a mode of social organisation (and even, at times, as an avenue towards economic equality!), and have attempted to make some generalised claims about its usefulness. But now? Nothing so convenient.

As many people have pointed out, the implication that you might be subjected to trial and imprisonment/punishment if you disobey the law is "brutal force" as defined by libertarians who apparently feel you should be free to do absolutely anything you want, provided you have the money to afford it.

Theorising the state as a violent entity is Weberian political theory 101. It's not some libertarian fringe-theory.

The major movement right now bases itself on Ayn Rand.

I dunno, a lot of libertarians certainly claim to like Rand, but I think that very few of them actually draw to any meaningful degree on her philosophy (

). They just like her boss-fetish novels.

 

[squadbroken]

CFC is the first place I've ever really encountered the notion of libertarianism, so I'm comparatively new to it.

But it's rubbish, isn't it? Or am I being hasty?

It's basically anarchism except with whatever government functions benefit the rich and powerful

 

[LegionSteve]

I got a disturbingly high 23 in the test. I'm off to reconsider my opinions.

CFC is the first place I've ever really encountered the notion of libertarianism, so I'm comparatively new to it.

But it's rubbish, isn't it? Or am I being hasty?

Same here, and I agree with your conclusion.

 

[Leoreth]

I've heard no good of Ayn Rand.

I've heard one good thing about Ayn Rand: she despised libertarians. (No, really!)

 

[Traitorfish]

It's basically anarchism except with whatever government functions benefit the rich and powerful

A bit like saying "it's basically a salad, only made entirely of pork", don't you think?

I've heard one good thing about Ayn Rand: she despised libertarians. (No, really!)

Not coincidentally, this was back when libertarians where the well-meaning gaggle of marketeering liberals I mentioned above. Hard to say what she'd make of the modern kind.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Theorising the state as a violent entity is Weberian sociology 101. It's not some libertarian fringe-theory.

Of course not. That doesn't mean that we should expect the kind of pointless and indulgent benevolence that GW apparently promotes from the state, wherein criminals are neither pursued nor prosecuted, and those who have the means to do so circumvent law and justice for their own uses. Vis a vis the "social contract", administering justice is just about the only acceptable purpose or justification for the existence of, the state.

GW is advocating stateless, authority-less anarchy, where affluence, money and privilege will ultimately and necessarily determine power. He is not taking the "evil state" in the usual or even reasonable direction of appeal-to-power, rule of law, blahblahblah.

I guess if you're born poor or otherwise disadvantaged it just sucks to be you according to the champions of freedom and liberty. Unless they want to go down some kind of path of Hindu caste system karmic justice, where the poor deserve to suffer and be oppressed for the sins of their past lives.

 

[squadbroken]

A bit like saying "it's basically a salad, only made entirely of pork", don't you think?

That's a pretty good analogy for contemporary American libertarianism.

 

[Leoreth]

Remember when he created this "model society" to illustrate his economic views?

The rich were rich because they made the right decisions and were hard working, the poor were poor because they were lazy and irresponsible.

 

[sophie]

A bit like saying "it's basically a salad, only made entirely of pork", don't you think?

Link to video.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I've heard one good thing about Ayn Rand: she despised libertarians. (No, really!)

I know, she said they were "Right-wing hippies" but I don't really know the details of her critique.

Of course not. That doesn't mean that we should expect the kind of pointless and indulgent benevolence that GW apparently promotes from the state, wherein criminals are neither pursued nor prosecuted, and those who have the means to do so circumvent law and justice for their own uses. Vis a vis the "social contract", administering justice is just about the only acceptable purpose or justification for the existence of, the state.

GW is advocating stateless, authority-less anarchy, where affluence, money and privilege will ultimately and necessarily determine power. He is not taking the "evil state" in the usual or even reasonable direction of appeal-to-power, rule of law, blahblahblah.

I guess if you're born poor or otherwise disadvantaged it just sucks to be you according to the champions of freedom and liberty. Unless they want to go down some kind of path of Hindu caste system karmic justice, where the poor deserve to suffer and be oppressed for the sins of their past lives.

You don't pay any attention to my posts when I have said "Justice is a legitimate function of the state" do you

CFC is the first place I've ever really encountered the notion of libertarianism, so I'm comparatively new to it.

But it's rubbish, isn't it? Or am I being hasty?

Hasty.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You don't pay any attention to my posts when I have said "Justice is a legitimate function of the state" do you

You don't pay attention to anyone else's posts.

 

[Lord of Elves]

You don't pay any attention to my posts when I have said "Justice is a legitimate function of the state" do you

I'm glad you agree. Then I'm sure you won't have any issue when I say that part of administering justice is locking up tax evasion criminals.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I'm glad you agree. Then I'm sure you won't have any issue when I say that part of administering justice is locking up tax evasion criminals.

I usually think prison is a pretty poor form of punishment for pretty much any nonviolent crime.

Tax evasion isn't really violent so I think there are better ways of dealing with it than prison (And I'm not JUST saying "Lower the taxes" here)

And while I do personally subscribe to "Render unto Caesar" (Whatever he may thuggishly demand) I couldn't care less about the "Problem" of tax evasion until the imperialism and world policing ends.

 

[Angst]

Hasty.

What throughoutly well-written tomes do you base your ideology on?

Because the impression you're giving is, infact, that you have taken an ideology hastily upon you and the haste really present is the kneejerking American college-aged juveniles who read a little Rand and declare it their worldview.

It's as hasty as when I first stumbled upon communism, I widely accepted it as my own political position.

I have since slowed down - my hastiness has lessened - and I have embraced a number of political theorems much more appropriate for use in debate.

And those are a lot of things I say, but I can boil my position down to this; libertarianism as presented as a unisone ideological viewpoint from this American clique seems ridiculously shallow and is therefore always hastily processed, not only by its followers, but also its peers.

What political theory do you use to support your views? Can you give me some names that actually make your position less shallow?

Because I know you're not a supporter of Mises. The book you're usually citing is the Bible and it's contradicting libertarianism, so I don't see that as your political foundation.

And why the hell have you not typed out the quote I asked for? Do you not stand behind your viewpoints?

 

[AdamCrock]

I have tried this test and .... failed (if that's even possible ) Somehow I feel this is rigged for the average US citizen and that is why I failed ... being European EDIT: (read: smartass hehe )

 

[GhostWriter16]

What throughoutly well-written tomes do you base your ideology on?

Because the impression you're giving is, infact, that you have taken an ideology hastily upon you and the haste really present is the kneejerking American college-aged juveniles who read a little Rand and declare it their worldview.

I've never even read Rand

What political theory do you use to support your views? Can you give me some names that actually make your position less shallow?

Because I know you're not a supporter of Mises. The book you're usually citing is the Bible and it's contradicting libertarianism, so I don't see that as your political foundation.

I rarely cite the Bible in political discussions unless we are discussing how Christianity relates to politics specifically. I appreciate people like Mises and Rothbard although I think their support for total anarchy is somewhat naive. Then again, perhaps I'm the naive one for believing a government will ever restrain itself

The problem the average person has with libertarianism is they don't get the difference between the free market and crony capitalism. Ron Paul addresses this fairly well. He even proposed killing the foreign spending long before killing social security

And why the hell have you not typed out the quote I asked for? Do you not stand behind your viewpoints?

Which quote would that be?

 

[Lord of Elves]

And while I do personally subscribe to "Render unto Caesar" (Whatever he may thuggishly demand) I couldn't care less about the "Problem" of tax evasion until the imperialism and world policing ends.

The government does not exist to make you happy. It may exist to serve you in the highly general sense, but this is far and away from obey your every whim. Similarly, you don't get to just stop paying taxes when you disagree with the purpose they are being used for, or else society wouldn't function at all. The relationship between the government and the citizens has to be mutual, it cannot just be one making demands of the other. As it stands American democracy is already an increasingly one way street, where the citizens elect politicians who obstruct the process of government and the passing of legislature to fulfill the desires of their special interests.

In other words, there is a certain extent to which yes, government does know what's best for you. It exists to serve your interests, but not your whims.