Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren't Nice to You - Christopher Cantwell

Actually, you're thinking of anarchists...like Barak, who brags of beating up his bandmate to get his way.

Personally I find most Libertarians to be FAR MORE nice than hardcore Democrats or Republicans. I like much of what Libertarians stand for, but their version of economics is dangerously sophomoric. They would completely de-regulate Wall Street...even after seeing that the 2008 collapse was the direct result of reckless de-regulation and reckless regulatory intervention at the behest of large investment banks.

Everything that Anarchists espouse rests on everyone accepting that their version of morality is the only version of morality; specifically the use of force. Again, it's very sophomoric.

By the way, is that what you meant to write, Mr. Strunk & White?

I've done enough reading to know that he was using a group that advocates the governing of men to attempt to demonstrate how they don't, and that makes him smart.

TFF.

What Libertarians attempt to define Liberty as is in fact freedom, not Liberty. Liberty flourishes within a stable structure that Anarchy cannot provide. Freedom doesn't need such a structure, but then again, the nature of man itself will always destroy freedom.

Since men are not angels, men will always exploit other men. That is the provable nature of man that has been lived out since the dawn of time. That is in fact why Government itself is corrupt. It consists of men. It is a reflection of mankind itself.

Man's nature is to associate with other men. This developes into social rules called norms. Man has therefore made law. Law is nothing more than agreed upon norms.

Now, in the interest of keeping things honest, when men have a disagreement on how their agreed upon norms apply to a particular situation, they seek a 3rd party, preferably a nonbiased one. They have just participated in an election.

The anarchist is not an advocate of liberty. Liberty is not Liberty without the rule of law. Remove the rule of law you have freedom. At least until human nature takes over again.

Lord of the Rings all over again...

HugAJackass,

Libertarianism and anarchism are not the same things; they are in fact polar opposites. In other words, I�m agreeing with you, I just think you mixed up the label in one instance in your otherwise excellent post.

I have read that and again all of his premises are based off of a complete lack of understanding human nature. Especially the whole concept of embracing nonagression. Mankind is aggressive at their core and in his nature. The anarchist rejects this fact.

He makes the argument that aggression comes primarily from the State but again ignores the fact that the State is a reflection of the nature of man. You can remove the State but you cannot remove man's nature, especially when it comes to aggression.

Oh, I totally agree. Barak doesn't, so, I'm using his terms to demonstrate the fallacy that he espouses.

It's funny to me how anarchist speak out against republican concepts but use them to make that very argument.

They tell us to read specific authors. They fail to see that they have elected these authors to be their representatives.

Proving again that even they are subject to the nature of man.

If we were the ancient Jews, that might actually be some sort of an answer.

I'll assume you had no answer for the rest.

Ok. Maybe a reason ......

Ah, gotcha!

And I agree with you. All correct thinking about mankind is based on the reality that mankind is fallen. That�s why mechanisms are required to keep people from harming each other. Failure to recognize that is what enables dictators to assume absolute power�

�and what provides smug little band members justification for ganging up and ambushing their bandmates and then bragging about it.

Very true! Further proof that the fall of man is a real thing and we are indeed born into a corrupt nature.

You cannot get around the nature of man as an anarchist.

A great example of naive economic policy of the Libertarian Party is their stance on the bailouts (TARP) of the investment banks. They were/are 100% against it.

And while I agree with them on principle, the fact that they don't even recognize that our position was unique, just shows they don't get it.

If we COULD have let them fail, then letting them fail would have been the best thing.

But we couldn't, and few understand that; clearly the Libertarians don't get it. I honestly think they don't understand what really happened in 2008. They stand on their principle, and they would have plunged America down on it's own sword just so they could be "right".

2008 took deep economic understanding to know that letting the banks fail meant dooming every major corporation in America; whether they had any part in the crisis or not. That's just dumb. It would also mean instant worldwide economic depression.

It could have even gone so far as to collapse our currency (although I doubt it ever would have gone that far).

Saving Wall Street was the only sane option even though it was repugnant to everyone. Where we made our mistake, was not breaking the "too big to fail's" up after we stabilized our economy.

I'm not interested in political parties that are written in stone even when they have it clearly demonstrated to them that they're wrong. We need leaders and statesmen who are adult enough to recognize and admit when they're wrong.

George W. Bush was absolutely disgusted with TARP (as was anyone with any sense of morality). But he at least had the brains to listen to people who deeply understand economics. And fortunately during that crisis we had Bernanke; one of the leading scholars on the Great Depression. Bernanke was completely appalled by a socialistic nationalizing of banks, but he was at least smart enough to recognize that it was the only viable solution.

TARP was repugnant...but the real sin was not learning from our mistakes and not breaking up the banks afterward.

This is my problem with the Libertarian party. At least the Dems and Repubs could be reasoned with when push came to shove. Unfortunately, they couldn't be counted on to to the right thing once they were out of the fire.

Kevin,

The discussion is not about the Libertarian party in whatever form it currently is or what stance they have taken on particular issue. The discussion is about the principle of libertarianism.

A) there is no escaping complete collapse; Dems & Reps merely kick the can down the road for future generations to deal with

B) Dems & Reps didn't do the right thing while holding their noses; they acted out of self-preservation (ie: greed) and any indication it was otherwise was showmanship

C) it wasn't that they "couldn't be counted on to do the right thing once they were out of the fire" but that they NEVER INTENDED TO "do the right thing"

D) just because libertarians say we should have let them fail does NOT necessarily mean they didn't recognize the possibility of collapse; maybe they just think we should stop putting off the inevitable (see A)

E) as has already been said several times, this thread isn't about the Libertarian Party but about libertarian principle

* B & C are easily proven by checking out how many power brokers in the big party (yes, singular) are connected to the financial services industry

Libertarian principle is completely un-regulated markets. For some markets, that would be a god-send. For financial markets, it should be very apparent that complete de-regulation would be a disaster.

I agree with libertarians on many principles. But the economics of the libertarian credo is just wrong. You cannot run a nation on micro-economics. There's a good reason why NO nation in the world does it.

And God don't I wish we could; I really do. Would make life so much easier. But the reality is, that a nationwide economy is far too complex for such simplistic ideas.

No it's not and just because you say so doesn't make it so. On the contrary, the evidence is clear that open markets ("unregulated", as you call them) work quite well.

You keep posting these same gratuitous assertions about the applicability of libertarian principles but don't offer any proof. Barak and I have offered alternative points of view in response to specific assertions you've made. Simply restating your assertions doesn't really make for a debate or even a conversation on the topic.

I should have added another point to those above...

F) generally speaking, regulations are made by those who have been successful enough to have gained influence and are crafted to block others from doing the same