Them Libertarians

[Mr. Perfect]

You are right, I am prejudiced. Libertarians rest lazily on the social constructions of rule of law and social structures grown through the struggles of their ancestors working together over the centuries in that project.

I definitely agree with this. However, most (all?) such ideologies begin as fixes to the society and, hence, can be reduced to "If we did this, things would be so much better". Little thought is usually given to what happens after the fix was applied and to how society would adjust to it. In this respect, radical libertarians are the new socialists/communists, promoting a new miracle cure from within prosperous societies.

These are largely if not completely strawman arguments. This assumes that there is a false binary, no government or unlimited government.

Libertarianism, Conservatism and the US Founders were/are interested in limited government, that is that by abstract morals that government of any kind has no moral right to engage in certain activity. That government has a right to do certain things and not others. Government with a limit. Not a false binary.

Libertarians are no more or less lazy concerning the civilizing efforts of our ancestors than any other group. They/we would simply like obamacare repealed, options to get out of entitlements and disastrous public schools and so forth.

Nothing really radical about it.

[Mr. Perfect]

How is this off topic?

[YMix]

Since I expect this exchange to result in another protracted argument, there's no point in derailing the future society thread. Therefore, I haz made new thread.

[YMix]

How is this off topic?

It's not necessarily off topic, but if we're going to get down and dirty about who the libertarians are and what they want, that warrants a separate thread. If you disagree, ask CS to merge back the threads.

[Mr. Perfect]

Perhaps you could include the other posts because the whole thread was going libertarian. Nothing I did altered the trajectory.

[YMix]

Perhaps you could include the other posts because the whole thread was going libertarian. Nothing I did altered the trajectory.

Feel free to discuss Libertarian Socialism in the other thread. This one is first and foremost for your response to my post. Which I don't think you understood correctly.

[Mr. Perfect]

I was responding to the whole thread. Ethinker brought up libertarianism, NH commnented on it, kmich commented on it, noddy commented, then you commented on it, then I did. I cant imagine what possible objection or derailment based on anything I said.

I made a general definitional post that bore directly on the subject matter brought up by others, and I am happy to comment further on the schizophrenic "socialist libertarianism", but was not aware of a wording quota that one was required to mention both words per post in order not to be moderated. I am more than happy to comment on libertarianism and socialism together or separately, but am concerned this new moderation rule not based on anything int he SFRs is so rigid few will remember to follow it, and people will only mention socialism or libertarianism singly purely on accident, triggering new threads.

You already have a protracted argument on your hands, nothing I did added to that.

[YMix]

These are largely if not completely strawman arguments. This assumes that there is a false binary, no government or unlimited government.

Libertarianism, Conservatism and the US Founders were/are interested in limited government, that is that by abstract morals that government of any kind has no moral right to engage in certain activity. That government has a right to do certain things and not others. Government with a limit. Not a false binary.

Libertarians are no more or less lazy concerning the civilizing efforts of our ancestors than any other group. They/we would simply like Obamacare repealed, options to get out of entitlements and disastrous public schools and so forth.

Nothing really radical about it.

And my eyes beheld an army of strawmen. What the hell does Obamacare even have to do with what I said?

In your own country, the more or less unfettered (mostly) financial activity led to the rise of the robber barons, monopolists, trust-builders and other kinds of conmen of the 1870s. Some 10 years later, this led to the formation of the Populist/Progressive movement which demanded that the government protect the people from the financial predators. If the Libertarian fix leads to the same outcome down the road, if a significant movement demands government intervention, what are the libertarians going to do?

Opting out of entitlements, public schools and so forth will, as far as I can tell, further widen the cracks in your society. Obviously, libertarians expect to profit from these cracks and not suffer any negative consequences. I don't see that happening. If the rest of the society, the entitlement-based society, dies around them, what are the libertarians going to do? When the poor are no longer paid welfare to vegetate in front of the television and radical political action makes a comeback, what happens to the libertarians? And, more importantly, are they to blame at least in part for the new situation?

[Mr. Perfect]

Sounds like great material for the other thread. Let's merge it back over there.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/22/an ... epage=true

My social media feed has lit up with cyber-angst and the digital rending of robes in response to comments made by Ann Coulter in her most recent column. “Ann Coulter Wants to Drown Libertarian Voters” reads the headline over at Before It’s News. “Ann Coulter just told libertarian voters that she wants to drown them,” echos the libertarian publication Rare. Reason piles on as well. Even some lefty publications have jumped on the bandwagon.