Libertarianism is applied autism

[DucatiMonster696]

That's not the point. Libertarians dismiss the concept of a common good, well in reality that's bullshit, as aforecited.

Many libertarians seem to see society and the world as each individual acting on his or her in a bubble like existence.

The common good? You mean like when our government had a policy of sterilizing mentally challenged people (some of them with autism, how ironic) or when our government allowed young African American men to go untreated with syphilis to study its effects? That common good?

All to often throughout the history of governments around the world have used this fallacy laden phrase "The common good" as way to justify the use of force against individuals society who stood in the way of the "common good".

 

[davmat787]

I have my first sig in years. Eventually I'll get bored with it but for now, it is just golden.

Search google or whatever for "libertarian applied autism" and you will see the credit should probably not go to the OP. While I had never heard it before, apparently it is nothing new. For example, here is an article from 2007:

Libertarianism Is Applied Autism

No big deal either way, but it is your first sig in years.

 

[nextJin]

Search google or whatever for "libertarian applied autism" and you will see the credit should probably not go to the OP. While I had never heard it before, apparently it is nothing new. For example, here is an article from 2007:

Libertarianism Is Applied Autism

No big deal either way, but it is your first sig in years.

Liberalism is constipation of the brain is probably my personal favorite

 

[Genx87]

Wait a lecture on values from a guy who has an active thread discussing how much he doesn't care about trying to bang married women.

Sorry man but I'll pass on the lecture on values. Lol

He is banging married chicks for the common good.

 

[PokerGuy]

Idiot OP doesn't have a clue as to what libertarians actually believe, then proceeds to make a thread with a strawman argument about libertarianism -- using autism as a pejorative no less. Not bad, if your goal is to set new standards for stupidity.

 

[Genx87]

Idiot OP doesn't have a clue as to what libertarians actually believe, then proceeds to make a thread with a strawman argument about libertarianism -- using autism as a pejorative no less. Not bad, if your goal is to set new standards for stupidity.

He is just competing with himself from another thread in L&R where he says anything goes and the majority believe this line of thinking. Yet he cant quite understand by 90% of the posts disagree with him lol

Funny thing is it seems like he is arguing just the opposite in this thread. That anarchy is bad and big govt good. I think the OP is one confused soul.

 

[yllus]

I think you're describing anarchism, not libertarianism. Though lately they're easy to confuse as many people championing libertarianism do so for the most extreme manner interpretation possible.

 

[1prophet]

Apparently the full gravity of the situation alludes you, in economics there are so many different variables it's ignorant to just assume that yes it's bad or no it's not bad. If it were not for China we would be paying absurd amounts of money for the most trivial of things.

Not to mention human action and the global market place.



You're not a libertarian dumbass.

No you wouldn't and wages would be higher to compensate for the small difference, there was a time before outsourcing and china and somehow people weren't starving or not buying things,

You along with many others have been brainwashed with the cheaper is better mentality on this race to the bottom because they have told you it is all about you and if someone charges more you believe they are a thief,

unless it is you that is getting paid then you want as much as you can get and call those trying to chisel you down cheap.

 

[BoberFett]

All Libertarians argue is that some of what the government does could be more efficiently done by cooperation between private individuals via the free market. Coercing an individual to act in a certain manner with the threat of violence, as the government does, is both less efficient and more barbaric than peaceful cooperation.

I would say some libertarians would even agree that there are things which only government can do, but that government is an uncontrollable beast which should only be used when absolutely necessary, lest it stop serving those it represents. A libertarian believes that necessity is very rare, while a statist believes that government should be everywhere and in everything.

 

[BoberFett]

No you wouldn't and wages would be higher to compensate for the small difference, there was a time before outsourcing and china and somehow people weren't starving or not buying things,

You along with many others have been brainwashed with the cheaper is better mentality on this race to the bottom because they have told you it is all about you and if someone charges more you believe they are a thief,

unless it is you that is getting paid then you want as much as you can get and call those trying to chisel you down cheap.

Good god some people are so very small minded. Cheap foreign labor has created a trade deficit. In simple terms, this means we consume more than we create. If we had balanced trade, then simple math tells us our consumption would be reduced. You may argue that may be a good thing, but we would definitely have fewer things. Less gadgets, less cars, less consumer goods of all types. Look back to before we had such a massive trade deficit. People lived far simpler lives than the average American expects today. Americans want to complain about foreign workers taking all their jobs, but do you really think the average American wants to go back to a small house, one car, and not getting the newest iShit every 6 months?

 

[mammador]

Trade deficit? Like any debt, it's not inherently bad.

I thought mercantilism was discarded centuries ago.

 

[mammador]

Idiot OP doesn't have a clue as to what libertarians actually believe, then proceeds to make a thread with a strawman argument about libertarianism -- using autism as a pejorative no less. Not bad, if your goal is to set new standards for stupidity.

lol.. how is my argument unrepresentative?

Even Rothbard, one of the libertarian gurus, mentioned that there is no such thing as the common good and all "good" is individual.

 

[mammador]

So this entire thread is just one big strawman argument :hmm:

So tell me how the common good cannot exist? You dismiss my points about utilities and foreign invasion, so you don't think if a country is invaded people will not rally in commonality and solidarity? You don't think if there is a pandemic, well gee most people like to get sick?

 

[exdeath]

I serve myself. That's just the way it is.

 

[nextJin]

So tell me how the common good cannot exist? You dismiss my points about utilities and foreign invasion, so you don't think if a country is invaded people will not rally in commonality and solidarity? You don't think if there is a pandemic, well gee most people like to get sick?

Am I on ignore or something? I posted a link perfectly refuting your entire post. In great detail I might add.

 

[OutHouse]

Also, fuck the common good. Govts can't serve the common good. Hitler wanted to regulate the fuck out of things for the common good.

Well it only took 6 post for hitler to be brought up.

 

[Matt1970]

Ok so how do we fix it and give millions of Americans jobs in manufactoring, keep costs low, while providing an above average livable wage? Be specific.

Easy, stop buying crap made in China.

 

[nextJin]

Easy, stop buying crap made in China.

Right, and how many people would be thrown into the already huge poverty group we have.

The middle class already largely shops at Walmart and other retail outlets where 90% of the goods sold are made overseas.

Hell some can't even afford that and the poor are in even worse shape.

The only way to fix it is to be competitive with China and absolutely no major party is about to abolish labor rights and the minimum wage. Nor are they going to be drastically lower corporate taxes.

 

[Anarchist420]

The only way to fix it is to be competitive with China and absolutely no major party is about to abolish labor rights and the minimum wage. Nor are they going to be drastically lower corporate taxes.

I agree with that. Bush cut tax rates only because he thought it would give the govt more revenue. The Republicans today are dipshits and aren't any different than the historical faction called the "Radical Republicans". Today's Republicans are radical in their love for government revenue.

 

[mammador]

The item below is from Rothbard:

"The first, and most important, occurring in the early to mid-nineteenth century, was the abandonment of the philosophy of natural rights, and its replacement by technocratic utilitarianism. Instead of liberty grounded on the imperative morality of each individual's right to person and property, that is, instead of liberty being sought primarily on the basis of right and justice, utilitarianism preferred liberty as generally the best way to achieve a vaguely defined general welfare or common good."

Yet he didn't realise that a common good does exist, and to cite otherwise is crap. How can a society not have common interests? Even a family has common interests. Did he believe families (,i.e. the basic social unit) denied freedom? The common good exists and can never be "vaguely defined".

 

[Moonbeam]

As a fine gentleman once posted in one of my threads:

Libertarians have an almost infinite optimism in the wisdom and altruism of their fellow man, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Scratch a libertarian and you will find a person whose ideology gleefully embraces the notion that such things as traffic lights are an unneccessary imposition of a dark and arbitrary facistic government power -- a tri-hued symbol of the dead hand of bureaucracy, if you will -- on the self sufficent yeoman spirit of the American individual.

Meanwhile, those of us stuck here on the endlessly messy and unnervingly uncategorizable miasma that is planet Earth, those of us who have lived here long enough to have actually tried to cross a busy intersection with a non-functioning traffic light put these earnest young ideologues in the same remainder bin with all the other angry, insistent ideologues -- communists, neocons, flat-earthers, Reaganites, dittoheads, neo-nazis, creationists -- and gladly if wearily accept a country where our meat is inspected.

Mention Hobbes to a libertarian and they will tell you Calvin was the real star of that comic strip, and mourn its short, brutal existence. Libertarians yearn for a return to a past that never was.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

The item below is from Rothbard:

"The first, and most important, occurring in the early to mid-nineteenth century, was the abandonment of the philosophy of natural rights, and its replacement by technocratic utilitarianism. Instead of liberty grounded on the imperative morality of each individual's right to person and property, that is, instead of liberty being sought primarily on the basis of right and justice, utilitarianism preferred liberty as generally the best way to achieve a vaguely defined general welfare or common good."

Yet he didn't realise that a common good does exist, and to cite otherwise is crap. How can a society not have common interests? Even a family has common interests. Did he believe families (,i.e. the basic social unit) denied freedom? The common good exists and can never be "vaguely defined".

What Rothbard is stating is that the "Common Good" was a fallacy used by those who believe in technical and statistical utilitarianism in society to achieve vague and undefined goals in society (e.g. the false search for "equality") and this fallacy was/is used to subvert and move away from the ideals of the philosophies of individual and unalienable rights in addition to dismissing the view that the "Common Good" is best served by recognizing and protecting the right of the individual in society.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

As a fine gentleman once posted in one of my threads:

Libertarians have an almost infinite optimism in the wisdom and altruism of their fellow man, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Scratch a libertarian and you will find a person whose ideology gleefully embraces the notion that such things as traffic lights are an unneccessary imposition of a dark and arbitrary facistic government power -- a tri-hued symbol of the dead hand of bureaucracy, if you will -- on the self sufficent yeoman spirit of the American individual.

Meanwhile, those of us stuck here on the endlessly messy and unnervingly uncategorizable miasma that is planet Earth, those of us who have lived here long enough to have actually tried to cross a busy intersection with a non-functioning traffic light put these earnest young ideologues in the same remainder bin with all the other angry, insistent ideologues -- communists, neocons, flat-earthers, Reaganites, dittoheads, neo-nazis, creationists -- and gladly if wearily accept a country where our meat is inspected.

Mention Hobbes to a libertarian and they will tell you Calvin was the real star of that comic strip, and mourn its short, brutal existence. Libertarians yearn for a return to a past that never was.

Thank you Kim Jong-un il but don't you have a army of brainwashed people to lead?

 

[Juror No. 8]

LOL, who gets to determine what the "common good" is?

 

[nextJin]

The item below is from Rothbard:

"The first, and most important, occurring in the early to mid-nineteenth century, was the abandonment of the philosophy of natural rights, and its replacement by technocratic utilitarianism. Instead of liberty grounded on the imperative morality of each individual's right to person and property, that is, instead of liberty being sought primarily on the basis of right and justice, utilitarianism preferred liberty as generally the best way to achieve a vaguely defined general welfare or common good."

Yet he didn't realise that a common good does exist, and to cite otherwise is crap. How can a society not have common interests? Even a family has common interests. Did he believe families (,i.e. the basic social unit) denied freedom? The common good exists and can never be "vaguely defined".

Until you address my previous link you should just stop posting. EVERYTHING is refuted and covered in painstakingly great detail. Even your" families" rhetoric is owned.

You have absolutely no idea what libertarians believe in, again you should honestly stop reading libertarian thought processes from people who are not libertarians.
It's like me reading what Democrats believe from Karl Rove or Shawn Hannity.

Fuck you're stupid.

Moonbeam would do good to read that link as well. His ass is so deep in marxism he should come up for some air every now and then.