• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Libertarianism is applied autism

mammador

mammador

Platinum Member
I have some libertarian leanings, but some libertarians are frankly autistic in their values.

Many say there is no such thing as a common good or common wellbeing, and thus governments cannot act in the common good.

What? Is that rational or reasoned? Here are some reasons why it's the contrary:

- Say hypothetically that North Korea invades South Korea. Yeah, people in Seoul have no reason to care about a common good, since their democracy may be replaced by xenophobic Marxism.

- If a city's water supply is tainted, yeah no common good there, since water is not required for basic living.

- If there is an epidemic or a pandemic, well mass sickness cannot affect common wellbeing, can it?

It's reasoning like this that makes libertarianism a fringe ideology. Think about it. ^_^
 
I agree with many libertarian social ideals, particularly the social issues like abortion, drugs, euthanasia, etc. I think economically they're totally and completely out to lunch, be it the budget or just macro stuff where many will follow fools like Peter Schiff, who's been wrong his whole life, mostly because he used to be Ron Paul's economic adviser.
 
I like a lot of Libertarian idead but I wantched Stossel one night go on and on about how buying all the stuff we do from China is good for our economy and he had a few more Libertarians come on and they all seemed to agree. They just don't get it.
 
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.
 
mammador said:
I have some libertarian leanings, but some libertarians are frankly autistic in their values.

Many say there is no such thing as a common good or common wellbeing, and thus governments cannot act in the common good.

What? Is that rational or reasoned? Here are some reasons why it's the contrary:

- Say hypothetically that North Korea invades South Korea. Yeah, people in Seoul have no reason to care about a common good, since their democracy may be replaced by xenophobic Marxism.

- If a city's water supply is tainted, yeah no common good there, since water is not required for basic living.

- If there is an epidemic or a pandemic, well mass sickness cannot affect common wellbeing, can it?

It's reasoning like this that makes libertarianism a fringe ideology. Think about it. ^_^
Click to expand...

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
 
If my choices are "libertarian autism" or the overbearing government worship of nanny-state control freaks that epitomize both the conservative and liberal political wings in this country, I'll take the former.
 
Matt1970 said:
I like a lot of Libertarian idead but I wantched Stossel one night go on and on about how buying all the stuff we do from China is good for our economy and he had a few more Libertarians come on and they all seemed to agree. They just don't get it.
Click to expand...

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.

Anarchist420 said:
I'm an autistic libertarian (libertarian Aspie) and I find the OP offensive.
Click to expand...

You're not a libertarian dumbass.
 
One thing i've noticed about your average libertarian is that they're:

a) White
b) Male
c) Creepy Neckbeards
d) Probably have some sort of Aspergers

They're probably less diverse than your standard Republican.
 
totally agree with the OP.

Libertarians basically relish being able to impose some unpleasantness and then claim to be standing on principle. That's what they live for.
 
nextJin said:
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.
Click to expand...

An $800 Billion trade deficit is pretty easy to define and over the last few decades we lost a lot of good jobs so we now have to work harder to afford those trivial of things. It's the exact thing we were warned about decades ago but choose to ignore and now blame on other things.
 
desura said:
totally agree with the OP.

Libertarians basically relish being able to impose some unpleasantness and then claim to be standing on principle. That's what they live for.
Click to expand...

rofl impose unpleasantness? Tell me, what have libertarians actually imposed on you. Be specific, when you reply I'll give you a history lesson in what Democrats and Republicans have imposed on you.
 
Matt1970 said:
An $800 Billion trade deficit is pretty easy to define and over the last few decades we lost a lot of good jobs so we now have to work harder to afford those trivial of things. It's the exact thing we were warned about decades ago but choose to ignore and now blame on other things.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Anarchist420 said:
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.
Click to expand...

lol.. this proves my point exactly.

Governments cannot serve the common good? Humans have common needs. Maybe your condition keeps you from perceiving that.
 
nextJin said:
rofl impose unpleasantness? Tell me, what have libertarians actually imposed on you. Be specific, when you reply I'll give you a history lesson in what Democrats and Republicans have imposed on you.
Click to expand...

Libertarians don't understand that life isn't atomistic. They think everything is individualised, when this is complete bull as cited.
 
mammador said:
Many say there is no such thing as a common good or common wellbeing, and thus governments cannot act in the common good.

What? Is that rational or reasoned? Here are some reasons why it's the contrary:

- Say hypothetically that North Korea invades South Korea. Yeah, people in Seoul have no reason to care about a common good, since their democracy may be replaced by xenophobic Marxism.

- If a city's water supply is tainted, yeah no common good there, since water is not required for basic living.

- If there is an epidemic or a pandemic, well mass sickness cannot affect common wellbeing, can it?

It's reasoning like this that makes libertarianism a fringe ideology. Think about it. ^_^
Click to expand...

The point of Libertarianism is that people should be able to choose what they believe is good for them.

What if the people wanted to live under a xenophobic Marxist? Why should a government, under the threat of violence, force them to fight their "invaders" that they sympathized with?

Your whole post is based on a misunderstanding of Libertarianism. When someone says "I do not believe government using the threat of violence to achieve what could be done through cooperation, not coercion" they don't mean "THERE IS NO PUBLIC GOOD I AM AUTISTIC AND DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYONE BUT MEEEEE".
 
mammador said:
I have some libertarian leanings, but some libertarians are frankly autistic in their values.

Many say there is no such thing as a common good or common wellbeing, and thus governments cannot act in the common good.

What? Is that rational or reasoned? Here are some reasons why it's the contrary:

- Say hypothetically that North Korea invades South Korea. Yeah, people in Seoul have no reason to care about a common good, since their democracy may be replaced by xenophobic Marxism.

- If a city's water supply is tainted, yeah no common good there, since water is not required for basic living.

- If there is an epidemic or a pandemic, well mass sickness cannot affect common wellbeing, can it?

It's reasoning like this that makes libertarianism a fringe ideology. Think about it. ^_^
Click to expand...

Funny I remember an argument being made about how without government acting in the US after WW1 during the flu pandemic of 1918 that situation would of been a lot worse.

However the person who proposed this argument failed to factor in the historical fact that it was government(s) who sent all these young men to die in a posturing war of egos during WW1 (which was in part triggered by some of the same economic woes we are seeing today) which then lead to all these men being exposed to the flu virus which rampaged across the world after they returned from WW1.

So excuse me if I don't buy into the bullshit argument that government is the answer when it acts to expose masses of people to dangers they would of normally not taken part in a war it not for the use of force by government to ship off the mass to fight a pointless war.
 
Last edited:
mammador said:
lol.. this proves my point exactly.

Governments cannot serve the common good? Humans have common needs. Maybe your condition keeps you from perceiving that.
Click to expand...

No (reasonable) Libertarian will claim that government can't serve the "public good".

There are helpful services provided by the government, and legitimate roles for it.

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.
 
Last edited:
DucatiMonster696 said:
Funny I remember an argument being made about how without government acting in the US after WW1 during the flu pandemic of 1918 that situation would of been a lot worse.

However the person who proposed this argument failed to factor in the historical fact that it was government(s) who sent all these young men to die in a posturing war of egos during WW1 (which was in part triggered by some of the same economic woes we are seeing today) which then lead to all these men being exposed to the flu virus which rampaged across the world after they returned from WW1.

So excuse me if I don't buy into the bullshit argument that government is the answer when it acts to expose masses of people to dangers they would of normally not taken part in a war it not for the use of force by government to ship off the mass to fight a pointless war.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mammador said:
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.
Click to expand...

So this entire thread is just one big strawman argument :hmm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top