John Stossel: Why I am a libertarian

[nonlnear]

Libertarians aren't ACists.

Saying that to someone like earthman is like describing the difference between blue and green to a blind person. Once you reject the statist paradigm you're talking gibberish, and it all sounds the same to them.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I have heard Hong Kong being called Capitalist, but never Libertarian. The terms are not interchangeable.

Umm...Capitalism isn't a political philosophy it is a an economic system!

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Libertarians are hard to take seriously. They say they want freedom from rules and taxes, and that will make life better. The fact is, most of them would never survive in the world they dream of. No public schools, no police forces, no fire departments, no public roads, no mass transit, no regulation of food, drugs, or the environment, (remember, those things are all financed by the taxes they are opposed to)...
...not to mention, of course, no Medicare, no Social Security, no student grants, none of that horrible entitlement stuff...gee, wonder what will happen to all those old people? Yeah, it sounds like a dream world.

You are confusing Anarchist with Libertarians. Libertarians want a government system which strongly values and protects rights of the individual above that of the mob/majority. This does not mean they are a against having a government, or having laws or some regulations in place (minimal compared to Dem's or Rep's).

Anarchist on the other hand are complete loons who believe the world could function without rules, laws, etc.. and that any and all authority or claims of authority are oppressive.


The main hatred from those on the left against those who espouse a Libertarian ideology has more to do with the left hating their stance on economic issues (some of which admittedly bleed over to the social side of the political debate...e.g welfare discussions). The best sure fire way to spot a socialist/communist in the guise of the "Democrat" moniker is to bring up the Libertarianism idealogy. Since true Libertarians are not social conservatives and neither do they believe in placing the rights of the mob over the rights of the individual. So the only avenue left is to paint them as "anarchists" (which they clearly are not) or call them fascist (even though fascism is just a form of authoritative socialism) due to their views on the size and scope of government and their belief in the capitalist system.

 

[ProfJohn]

Yep. Like most political parties, the politics don't always follow the philosophy. I agree with a lot of the Libertarian ideals, but the current Libertarian politicians take things to extremes. Hell just check out their homepage. They're opposed to the census (of all things) and believe we should just hit the cancel button on the Afghanistan War.

http://www.lp.org/

They are not opposed to the census, just some of the questions on the census.

Why should the government care about the color of our skin or whether we are from a spanish background??

The only thing the government really needs to know is how many Americans there are in this country today.

BTW I am not a libertarian nor a member of that party. I am a fiscal conservative which is very close, but with some key differences such as legalized drugs etc.

 

[Praxis1452]

Libertarians are hard to take seriously. They say they want freedom from rules and taxes, and that will make life better. The fact is, most of them would never survive in the world they dream of. No public schools, no police forces, no fire departments, no public roads, no mass transit, no regulation of food, drugs, or the environment, (remember, those things are all financed by the taxes they are opposed to)...
...not to mention, of course, no Medicare, no Social Security, no student grants, none of that horrible entitlement stuff...gee, wonder what will happen to all those old people? Yeah, it sounds like a dream world.

There is a difference between wanting services done by the government to stop, and wanting services gone altogether.

This is strawman. If you can't put up a better argument than that, then all you know about libertarianism is a straw man.

 

[woolfe9999]

You are confusing Anarchist with Libertarians. Libertarians want a government system which strongly values and protects rights of the individual above that of the mob/majority. This does not mean they are a against having a government, or having laws or some regulations in place (minimal compared to Dem's or Rep's).

Anarchist on the other hand are complete loons who believe the world could function without rules, laws, etc.. and that any and all authority or claims of authority are oppressive.


The main hatred from those on the left against those who espouse a Libertarian ideology has more to do with the left hating their stance on economic issues (some of which admittedly bleed over to the social side of the political debate...e.g welfare discussions). The best sure fire way to spot a socialist/communist in the guise of the "Democrat" moniker is to bring up the Libertarianism idealogy. Since true Libertarians are not social conservatives and neither do they believe in placing the rights of the mob over the rights of the individual. So the only avenue left is to paint them as "anarchists" (which they clearly are not) or call them fascist (even though fascism is just a form of authoritative socialism) due to their views on the size and scope of government and their belief in the capitalist system.

It's all pretty much parallel. For the left ideologue, libertarian=anarchist; for the right ideologue, liberal = communist. Whoops.

Or maybe he's actually confusing antichrist with librarian. So many labels, so much confusion.

lib·er·tar·i·an (lĭb'ər-târ'ē-ən)
n.
One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing (i.e. not eliminating) the role of the state.

an·ar·chist   /ˈænərkɪst/ Show Spelled[an-er-kist] Show IPA
–noun

3.a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

Umm...Capitalism isn't a political philosophy it is a an economic system!

Yes, I know.

 

[Siddhartha]

Are Liberarians against all government services? If they are for some government services which ones do they want?

 

[totalnoob]

Are Liberarians against all government services? If they are for some government services which ones do they want?

federal: Roads, courts, defense, maybe a few national parks.
state: Pretty much status quo..roads, courts, police/fire/ems, schools, etc.

Most libertarians are focused on reducing federal power. State governments handle a large share of the infrastructure, education, unemployment benefits, etc. They have every right to run social services and other stuff if the voters decide to. Libertarians aren't worried about that sort of thing. They are worried about the $3 trillion+ monster in Washington.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Are Liberarians against all government services? If they are for some government services which ones do they want?

The ones outlined in the constitution that the government can legally force on us. All the ones they illegally force on us we are against. Sure, that's broad and sweeping, but it gets the point across.

 

[earthman]

There is a difference between wanting services done by the government to stop, and wanting services gone altogether.

This is strawman. If you can't put up a better argument than that, then all you know about libertarianism is a straw man.

I'm well aware of the difference. I'm also aware of the difference between anarchy and libertarianism. If the services stop being done by the government, then who will do them? Local governments? Local governments don't have the resources, many are near bankruptcy and depend on the federal government for assistance. Private corporations? Please. They would never do anything that didn't make a profit. Alot of services can't be offered on that basis because there is no profit. It's like these idiots that want to privatize the Post Office. Kiss your mail goodbye, because no private company is going to deliver mail to the middle of Montana for 44 cents a letter. Most so-called Libertarian theories about how their ideas would work in practice are simply nonsense from a practical point of view. Without the Federal government backing these services, they would collapse, or cost much more locally to maintain, which means they would disappear.

Is the government too intrusive into our lives? Yes. Are there too many rules and laws that have no good purpose? Yes. But this is not the result of the nanny-state left in this country, it's mostly the by-product of our hypocritical judeo-christian world view, that wants to impose an arbitrary morality on all of us in the name of law and order. If you "Libertarians" want to get rid of stupid laws about drugs and sex, fine, go for it. I'm behind you 100%. But when you want to dismantle the infrastructure of the country because it's not organized in a way that fits in tidily with your philosophy, I have to say no.

 

[nobodyknows]

Are Liberarians against all government services? If they are for some government services which ones do they want?

LOL. Libertarians are just as big of hipocrites as the rest of the political parties, aren't they. They are only concerned about their own best interests.

 

[nonlnear]

LOL. Libertarians are just as big of hipocrites as the rest of the political parties, aren't they. They are only concerned about their own best interests.

Libertarians are the only ones who aren't hypocrites for being concerned about their own best interests.

 

[nobodyknows]

Libertarians are the only ones who aren't hypocrites for being concerned about their own best interests.

LOL, of course your too opinonated to see the truth, and your wrong as usual.

The Liberatarians would have you believe what they want is what's best for the country, the same as every other political party. Why else would anybody vote for them? In truth all they want is what they see as being best for them.

Liberatarians want lower taxes and oppose the health care plan. Fuck them and the dumb ass Stossel. He's the new Geraldo Rivera and I for one don't take anything that either of those two say seriously.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I personally wish there was more social and personal responsibility. The entire concept of social responsibility falls apart if individuals are not personally responsible. Note that I do not believe social responsibility is the same thing as socialism, but it is easy to confuse the two concepts.

Also, the double negative I highlighted is conflicted the statement you are trying to make (not trying to be grammar police, I just wasn't sure what you meant).

Whoops, good catch, sir.

 

[werepossum]

As usual, non Prof John loses me as soon as he says "I Think."

The point being, the libertarian party or parties have been amply represented by various candidates in Statewide and national elections, and then fail to even come close to being elected.

The logical flaw in Libertarianism is that they assume we can retain the infrastructure big government has provided, and IMHO, as soon as most people think about the total anarchy that would result, the libertarian doctrine flops flatter than a pancake.

Mankind has tried nearly every form of Utopian government scheme imaginable, and they always rapidly fail, the spirit may be willing but the flesh is always weak.

But as a challenge to Non Prof John or a fellow Libertarian advocate, name me one government in the history of earth that worked on Libertarian principles.

Sorry, but those of us who enjoy Prof John's posts don't wish to see him use only words of four or fewer letters so that you can keep up. Perhaps there is someone who can explain them to you? 😀

There are no Libertarian governments, although probably Singapore and Pre-China Hong Kong come closest economically. Power always begets a desire for more power, and it's very difficult to get elected by promising to NOT do things or give people things.

 

[nonlnear]

LOL, of course your too opinonated to see the truth, and your wrong as usual.

The Liberatarians would have you believe what they want is what's best for the country, the same as every other political party. Why else would anybody vote for them? In truth all they want is what they see as being best for them.

I agree with you 100%. Thing is, only libertarians are honest about this motive. Every party selling a platform built upon a claimed lack of self-interest is the worst kind of liar. Of course, this is the kind of liar that many people gravitate towards, yourself apparently included.

Liberatarians want lower taxes and oppose the health care plan. Fuck them and the dumb ass Stossel. He's the new Geraldo Rivera and I for one don't take anything that either of those two say seriously.

I have no opinion on Stossel or Rivera as I can't be bothered to watch TV, but your insightful use of vulgarity and derision is as convincing and elegant as usual.

I now summon the powers of Hayabusa Rider:

typical inane, content-free, insulting post

Here we have an example of Ignornoramous extremus. There is an unusual symbiotic relationship between it and the related species Ignornamous congressionium var. democraticus.

Extremus hates many things, but the most recent behavior is the paradoxical claimed support for health care on one hand, and the hatred of those who work to have it.

Note it's characteristic reflexive behavior captured in it's territorial cry above. Note how it mimics human speech, and at times one would almost believe it's sentient, but upon reflection that's seen not to be the case.

In the example I cite, it puffs out it's internet appendages, clearly mocking- a part of it's natural defenses.

...

Extremus is a herd animal, and seeks others on the host and link up to provide a defensive armor for democraticus.

Internet taxonomy is a relatively new field and fraught with difficulties analogous to the early days of classification of real world flora and fauna.

For example it has been suggested that this particular variety of extremus is in fact identical to Partisian hackerii. The problem is that members of the Internet fauna are mimics and display a broad overlap of phenotype.

It's hoped that these lower forms of I-life can be properly categorized in order to halt such things as the Black Plague of Ignorance, however that day is sadly not in our immediate future.

Thank you for your attention.

 

[daishi5]

So let's see if I got this straight:

1) Claim: Private Charity is capable of taking care of All Social Need
You have not defined need, if the person making the claim has a different definition than you do (which I suspect) their claim may have merit according to their definition, and no merit according to yours.
2) Fact(?): The US has the "highest rate of Charitable Giving" in the World
3) Fact: The US also has extensive Publicly Funded Social Safety Nets
4) Fact: Yet despite 2 and 3, Social Need remains unmet
5) So why does 1 have merit?

I think you are very well aware of the fact that different groups have different ideas about what "social needs" are. So, fact 4 is really just begging the question, and were back to the old argument of how much welfare we should provide to the less fortunate/lazy (depending on your viewpoint).

 

[Siddhartha]

LOL. Libertarians are just as big of hipocrites as the rest of the political parties, aren't they. They are only concerned about their own best interests.

It looks like they are for government that benefits them, their friends, and family.

 

[werepossum]

I think you are very well aware of the fact that different groups have different ideas about what "social needs" are. So, fact 4 is really just begging the question, and were back to the old argument of how much welfare we should provide to the less fortunate/lazy (depending on your viewpoint).

Quoted for profundity. The left thinks freedom of religion = freedom from religion; the right thinks its organized religion is acceptable in public schools. The left thinks freedom is having your basic needs met by others, especially government; the right thinks freedom means that others, especially government, do not infringe on your G_d-given rights. The left thinks broadband is a basic need; the right thinks it is not. And both sides are in love with using the power and armed might of government to enforce on others their own preferences.

There is a not a good side and an evil side, there are two fundamentally different visions of what society should be and how it should function. Even though most of us are not binary on most issues, we have to make binary choices, take a black or white position, because of the nature of our government. And as the power and intrusiveness of government grows, as it controls or affects more of your life, these arguments are only going to get more heated and better funded.

 

[Genx87]

It looks like they are for government that benefits them, their friends, and family.

Go look at their website. It gives a pretty good rundown of what they believe govt's role is.

The simple fact is govt is needed. But they dont believe big govt is needed. So pointing out they are for lets say a defense budget on the federal level doesnt make them hypcrits because they believe the welfare state should be abolished or severly cut.

 

[sandorski]

I think you are very well aware of the fact that different groups have different ideas about what "social needs" are. So, fact 4 is really just begging the question, and were back to the old argument of how much welfare we should provide to the less fortunate/lazy (depending on your viewpoint).

Incorrect. All sides recognize the same Needs, they differ on how to address those Needs.

 

[daishi5]

Incorrect. All sides recognize the same Needs, they differ on how to address those Needs.

Really, could you list these needs, they should be easy to list since everyone recognizes the same list.

 

[nonlnear]

Really, could you list these needs, they should be easy to list since everyone recognizes the same list.

Werd.

 

[sandorski]

Really, could you list these needs, they should be easy to list since everyone recognizes the same list.

Homelessness, Hunger, Addiction, yadda yadda ya. The same Needs All agree on.

Useless tangent is useless.