Libertarian Hypocrisy

[Beetle Bailey]

Just lately, we seem to hear more people proclaim themselves to be "libertarian". They can't really seem to define what that means. But they like the sound of vague platitudes. Most of these recent "converts" are not very convincing. They are just angry about how far the Republican Party (their natural habitat) has drifted under the idiot in chief. They would like to psychologically distance themselves from the mess created by the president they voted for. Libertarians are just Republicans who want to avoid feelings of guilt and remorse.
So what do lapsed Republicans like about libertarianism? Is it the romantic image of the rugged individualist? Or is it just the idea of not paying taxes? Lets take a look at some of these beliefs. Here are quotes taken straight from official libertarian documents.
"People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others."
"Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person's life."
"We oppose all taxation."
"An armed citizenry is essential to a free society"
And so on. Mostly vague crap. But filled with far reaching implications. They are quick to point out how much they have in common with "liberals". They are against coerced military service, government spying on citizens, discrimination against gays. They are pro-abortion rights. They are for the right to free speech and disent, strict separation of church and state. Some good things. They seem to have some common ground with other people.
Yet, to libertarians common ground is a foriegn concept. They don't think anything should be commonly owned. And the common good means nothing to them. To libertarians government is evil. It should not regulate anything. Drugs, food, the environment, guns, anything. Libertarian credo dictates that your neighbor could have what ever fire power he wants and use it any way he chooses, as long as he doesn't shoot your dog. Libertarians are opposed to all zoning laws. They believe that if someone bought property next to yours, they ought to be able to build a gas station, a skyscraper, a toxic dump, what ever.
Sounds like a world that might work if it were only populated by a few hundred people. These people are so full of ****. Such hypocrites. I have yet to meet one who would turn down unemployment benefits or a social security check. I have yet to see any libertarian pick up his own garbage, repair his street, or reject FEMA money when his beach house was washed out to sea. They don't seem to have the courage of there so called convictions. Go figure.

 

[JavaBlack]

...

Libertarianism is a pretty diverse ideology ranging from left to right and moderate to radical. What you're talking about seems to be the vast exodus to the Libertarian Party by dissaffected members of other parties.
I've often thought of ditching the Democrats for the LP, as I have tendency to agree more with LP politicians nowadays! But my strategy is to try to encourage more libertarian and centrist behavior in the Democratic Party.

It seems that more people are looking to abandon the big parties, which they see as hopeless. The Libertarian Party appears to be a savior and has enough variability in it to appeal to disaffectives from both parties and independents.

 

[bokile]

hahaha

"People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others."
"Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person's life."
"We oppose all taxation."
"An armed citizenry is essential to a free society"

This is what I beleive in Show me what do you beleive in

 

[Beetle Bailey]

"People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others."
"Repeal all laws that presume government knows better than the individual how to run that person's life."
"We oppose all taxation."
"An armed citizenry is essential to a free society"

This is what I beleive in Show me what do you beleive in

This guy makes steveox look like a genius.

 

[9sublime]

A lot of the libertarian ideology I agree with, but the taxation thing has never been sufficently explained to me. To live as any sort of non-third world community, regardless of individual rights, you kinda need taxation, and in many respects its a great system.

Any libertarians want to give me a quick run down of how they think we should live without taxes?

 

[bokile]

hahaha

This guy makes steveox look like a genius.

Ask you some simple questions and you are trying to compare me to somebody. In your post you tried to show libertarians like some satanic group of people whose common goal is total anarchy in USA

Ok, I respect that. Now answer me you Clinton’s democrat, is this is what you support? (links below, killing christians in Kosovo, burning churches)

http://www.rastko.org.yu/kosovo/crucified/default.htm

http://www.savekosovo.org/default.asp?p=3&leader=0&sp=49

 

[Burning Giraffe]

A lot of the libertarian ideology I agree with, but the taxation thing has never been sufficently explained to me. To live as any sort of non-third world community, regardless of individual rights, you kinda need taxation, and in many respects its a great system.

Any libertarians want to give me a quick run down of how they think we should live without taxes?

The vast majority of Libertarians don't oppose taxation. They oppose the income tax.

 

[Coyote]

The problem with Libertarianism is that the only way such a system works is if everyone around you is equally responsible and ethical.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Ask you some simple questions and you are trying to compare me to somebody. In your post you tried to show libertarians like some satanic group of people whose common goal is total anarchy in USA

Ok, I respect that. Now answer me you Clinton’s democrat, is this is what you support? (links below, killing christians in Kosovo, burning churches)

http://www.rastko.org.yu/kosovo/crucified/default.htm

http://www.savekosovo.org/default.asp?p=3&leader=0&sp=49

Hey dip****. Do your own home work. You want to know what I think? Read as many of my posts as you like. Form your own opinion.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Ask you some simple questions and you are trying to compare me to somebody. In your post you tried to show libertarians like some satanic group of people whose common goal is total anarchy in USA

Ok, I respect that. Now answer me you Clinton’s democrat, is this is what you support? (links below, killing christians in Kosovo, burning churches)

http://www.rastko.org.yu/kosovo/crucified/default.htm

http://www.savekosovo.org/default.asp?p=3&leader=0&sp=49

Oh, by the way. Now that I understand your agenda a little better I would just like to respond by saying **** Serbia.

 

[palerider]

The problem with Libertarianism is that the only way such a system works is if everyone around you is equally responsible and ethical.

Bingo! As is the case with all utopian ideologies.

Aside from that, libertarianism has a serious paradox within its core philosophy that renders it invalid as a workable system of government.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Bingo!

I should have known two dumb minds would think alike. The proposition that everyone has to act in an identical manner is completely absurd. Early libertarians, like David Bergland, have asserted all along that libertarianism does not offer utopia. Utopia is impossible.

We've already been through this all before palerider...remember?:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=899

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Just lately, we seem to hear more people proclaim themselves to be "libertarian". They can't really seem to define what that means.

Really? I'll define it for you - it's a society in which everyone is free to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity of their choosing. Government only steps in if someone INITIATES force, fraud or coercion against others.

If you need a clearer picture, it would be similar to Hong Kong economically and The Netherlands socially.

Basically, it's the original intent of the U.S. Constitution minus slavery - properly interpreted to forbid permanent internal taxes:

"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see Federalist Paper #45] reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and tariffs connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons. The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SeparationOfPowersDoctrine.htm


From Federalist 45:

"If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Really? I'll define it for you - it's a society in which everyone is free to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity of their choosing. Government only steps in if someone INITIATES force, fraud or coercion against others.

If you need a clearer picture, it would be similar to Hong Kong economically and The Netherlands socially.

Basically, it's the original intent of the U.S. Constitution minus slavery - properly interpreted to forbid permanent internal taxes:

"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see Federalist Paper #45] reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and tariffs connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons. The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SeparationOfPowersDoctrine.htm


From Federalist 45:

"If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."

So, in other words, a confused mix of ideas that obviously don't all work together. Hong Kong economically? The Netherlands socially? Perhaps you don't see the contradiction. It really doesn't matter if you pretend not to. Libertarian arguments are all designed to distract from the fundemental immorality of their position. They don't believe in community. We are apparently not our brother's keeper. They believe that they don't owe anybody anything. That some how they have gained all that they have through their own initiative and hard work. As far as they are concerned, every man IS an island. They try to disguise their selfish non-philosophy with a narrow interpretation of the constitution. As if we should rely on their special wisdom to define what the founding fathers intended. To libertarians every one is a free agent. Responsible to no one.

 

[Coyote]

Really? I'll define it for you - it's a society in which everyone is free to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity of their choosing. Government only steps in if someone INITIATES force, fraud or coercion against others.

So, my neighbor could build a coal powered power plant right next to me - pollute the air etc. and I couldn't do a damn thing because it's peaceful, honest, and voluntary. On the other hand I guess abortion would be totally legal too. And father's could easily avoid paying child support. Not to mention all those pesky animal rights people wouldn't have a leg to stand on because in a libertarian society you can do anything you want with and to your "property". Utopia.