Libertarianism is applied autism

[nextJin]

Hint: Anarcho-Capitalism is a flavor of libertarianism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism



Also, see: Murray Rothbard, probably the most influential an-cap, and how he's described:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard



Your woeful understanding of libertarianism is quite surprising considering you fashion yourself as an 'expert' at libertarianism by continually questioning my knowledge of it.




Yes, he certainly beat you to being wrong.

You completely missed the "Ethics" portion of that wikipedia page. What you're suggesting is that "Anarcho-Capitalism" failed to "fix" Somalia, but "Liberalism" (in ANY form) would.

It wouldn't because the country was SEVERLY unstable in every single aspect, politically, economically, socially, etc.

 

[Phokus]

And which specific government of Somalia do you claim was "anarcho-capitalist" in nature?

I'll point out that the Wikipedia article you referenced actually lists a number of examples of civilizations that historians believe to include some aspects of anarcho-capitalism. Some of these survived for hundreds of years. Notably absent: any mention of Somalia.

I'll also point out that even if you are correct that Somalia qualifies as anarcho-capitalist, that would at most indicate a flaw in anarcho-capitalism, not mainstream libertarianism (which anarcho-capitalism most certainly is not). Attempting that sort of leap would put you in the same category as people who claim socialism can never work because the USSR failed.

Notably absent because Somalia was a failure. It's the belief of many an-caps that absent a state, there'd be a spontenous order into an an-cap society and anarcho-capitalism is the natural order of things.

Many of the 'flaws' in an-cap societies you will find in 'mainstream libertarian' societies.

Also, lol @ using ancient and primitive societies as examples of the success of anarchism.

You completely missed the "Ethics" portion of that wikipedia page. What you're suggesting is that "Anarcho-Capitalism" failed to "fix" Somalia, but "Liberalism" (in ANY form) would.

It wouldn't because the country was SEVERLY unstable in every single aspect, politically, economically, socially, etc.

Instability is a feature, not a bug of non-existant or weak governments.

Hey at least you guys stopped challenging me over whether an-cap is actually libertarianism or not. Baby steps i guess.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Hey at least you guys stopped challenging me over whether an-cap is actually libertarianism or not.

It's not, unless you are using an incredibly loose definition -- the same sort of definition by which people on the right lump together the Democrats with the USSR.

The defining requirement of anarcho-capitalism is the absence of a state. Libertarians do no advocate abolition of the state. If there's anyone who has ever run for office as a Libertarian who holds that view, I'd love to hear about it. The LP platform is clear that it is not a position of the party.

Oh, and you never gave me dates to indicate which Somalia you are talking about.

 

[Phokus]

It's not, unless you are using an incredibly loose definition -- the same sort of definition by which people on the right lump together the Democrats with the USSR.

The defining requirement of anarcho-capitalism is the absence of a state. Libertarians do no advocate abolition of the state. If there's anyone who has ever run for office as a Libertarian who holds that view, I'd love to hear about it. The LP platform is clear that it is not a position of the party.

Because the LP defines what libertarianism is?

Oh, and you never gave me dates to indicate which Somalia you are talking about.

The one mises keeps harping about constantly

https://mises.org/daily/2066

 

[nextJin]

Instability is a feature, not a bug of non-existant or weak governments.

Hey at least you guys stopped challenging me over whether an-cap is actually libertarianism or not. Baby steps i guess.

Uh no, Somalia was not wealthy with governing rules of law and stable government just to implement (insert whatever libertarianism) and collapse into what we see now.

I haven't stopped challenging anything. Somalia has absolutely no resemblance to An-cap which itself is extremely more anarchist than libertarian. Again, you failed to read the Ethics part of that wiki. Somalia in no way resembles Rothbards original intent and had he still been alive to hear your comments he would probably slap you.

 

[Phokus]

Uh no, Somalia was not wealthy with governing rules of law and stable government just to implement (insert whatever libertarianism) and collapse into what we see now.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. So you have to be WEALTHY for libertarianism to work. Gotcha! (Dear lord, now you're just making shit up).

I haven't stopped challenging anything. Somalia has absolutely no resemblance to An-cap which itself is extremely more anarchist than libertarian. Again, you failed to read the Ethics part of that wiki. Somalia in no way resembles Rothbards original intent and had he still been alive to hear your comments he would probably slap you.

The terrible state of Somalia is a CONSEQUENCE of an-cap philosophy.

But hey, they even have 'pirate stock exchanges' over there now, i guess markets really do work!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576341223910765818.html

Anyway, which wiki are you talking about? The murray ethics section is short, while the an-cap section is incredibly long, not sure which passage you're refering to.

 

[nextJin]

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. So you have to be WEALTHY for libertarianism to work. Gotcha! (Dear lord, now you're just making shit up).



The terrible state of Somalia is a CONSEQUENCE of an-cap philosophy.

But hey, they even have 'pirate stock exchanges' over there now, i guess markets really do work!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304520804576341223910765818.html

Anyway, which wiki are you talking about? The murray ethics section is short, while the an-cap section is incredibly long, not sure which passage you're refering to.

The whole page you linked too;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

Specifically the Ethics section, everything in that page basically goes against what you are saying Somalia has.

 

[nextJin]

What you failed to refute was my comment;

You completely missed the "Ethics" portion of that wikipedia page. What you're suggesting is that "Anarcho-Capitalism" failed to "fix" Somalia, but "Liberalism" (in ANY form) would.

It wouldn't because the country was SEVERLY unstable in every single aspect, politically, economically, socially, etc.

And your argument about it being a CONSEQUENCE is complete bullshit and you know it. For that system to work (I doubt it would) it would have to follow the ethical guidelines setforth by Rothbard. Considering you can be murdered in the street for no reason, kidnapped, ransomed, skined alive, etc. and absolutely nothing would happen to anyone means its not going to work. Your liberal utopia couldn't fix it, a conservative utopia couldn't fix it, etc.

There are many factions at war and there is literally no stability, there hasen't been since those same factions overthrew old boy in 91? 90? I dunno whenever their actual government collapsed. An-Cap didn't cause the collapse, war did.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Because the LP defines what libertarianism is?

As opposed to whom -- you?

Can you name ANY person who has run for major office (not town dog catcher) under the Republican or Libertarian banners with a policy of eliminating the government in favor of an anarcho-capitalist society?

 

[OverVolt]

Heh all the craziest posters in one thread :awe:

 

[Incorruptible]

As opposed to whom -- you?

Can you name ANY person who has run for major office (not town dog catcher) under the Republican or Libertarian banners with a policy of eliminating the government in favor of an anarcho-capitalist society?

He cant but then again based on his stupidity he will keeping spouting more BS.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The fact that Ron Paul was the hero of the libertarian movement in the US is enough to realize that Libertarianism is actually a front for racism. It's a shame that some people have been duped by that con man.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The fact that Ron Paul was the hero of the libertarian movement in the US is enough to realize that Libertarianism is actually a front for racism. It's a shame that some people have been duped by that con man.

It's a shame that people use reasoning so awful it would make a child roll his eyes.

 

[RabidMongoose]

It's a shame that people use reasoning so awful it would make a child roll his eyes.

Oh, the fact that the leader of the Libertarian movement in the US is a huge racist is just a coincidence. And the fact that the Libertarian movement in the US is probably the most monolithic group of people in the entire country (more so than the GOP) is just another coincidence.

Yup.

It's also funny when a Libertarian attacks someone else's reasoning when the school of economic thought attributed to Libertarianism refuses to acknowledge reality.

 

[Steeplerot]

Right wing libertarianism is a pseudo religious cult of the free market brought to us by the priests of corporate PR. Very sad to see hard working people so hell bent on self destruction just to feel warm and fuzzy about selling out themselves just to believe in something.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Oh, the fact that the leader of the Libertarian movement in the US is a huge racist is just a coincidence. And the fact that the Libertarian movement in the US is probably the most monolithic group of people in the entire country (more so than the GOP) is just another coincidence.

Yup.

I see I was too subtle for you in the preceding post.

Ron Paul may or may not be a racist. That doesn't mean that people who support him are racist, even if they think he is. People do not vote monolithically, and sometimes they have to choose the best of the available options, even if not all are ideal.

You are employing a fallacy to badmouth a large group based on absolutely nothing but your own prejudices.

There are black racists as well as white racists. My guess is that nearly all of them voted for Obama. That doesn't mean everyone else who voted for Obama is racist.

It's also funny when a Libertarian attacks someone else's reasoning when the school of economic thought attributed to Libertarianism refuses to acknowledge reality.

Feel free to show how libertarianism "refuses to acknowledge reality". Maybe you can do better than Phokus, but you're not off to a strong start.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I see I was too subtle for you in the preceding post.

Ron Paul may or may not be a racist. That doesn't mean that people who support him are racist, even if they think he is. People do not vote monolithically, and sometimes they have to choose the best of the available options, even if not all are ideal.

You are employing a fallacy to badmouth a large group based on absolutely nothing but your own prejudices.

There are black racists as well as white racists. My guess is that nearly all of them voted for Obama. That doesn't mean everyone else who voted for Obama is racist.

Ron Paul is a racist. That is well known. You don't write racist newsletters unless you're a racist. And his following is the most monolithic political group in the entire country. It's convenient that you tried to gloss this over. Ron Paul's monolithic political group conveniently fits into his racist views. How convenient.

I'm sure that a few racists did vote for Obama. But people who voted for Obama were very diverse in general, as opposed to racist Ron Paul's following which is more monolithic than even the GOP.

Feel free to show how libertarianism "refuses to acknowledge reality". Maybe you can do better than Phokus, but you're not off to a strong start.

Feel free to show that you don't have autism. You're not off to a strong start.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Heh all the craziest posters in one thread :awe:

You know what? You're right. All the foaming at the mouth left-wingers are here circle-jerking on how much they dislike Libertarianism.

 

[Incorruptible]

You know what? You're right. All the foaming at the mouth left-wingers are here circle-jerking on how much they dislike Libertarianism.

Agree. These idiot leftists are circle-jerking each other and think they have accomplished something.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Feel free to show that you don't have autism. You're not off to a strong start.

And another person more interested in spewing than discussing. Typical.

You know what? You're right. All the foaming at the mouth left-wingers are here circle-jerking on how much they dislike Libertarianism.

Pretty much. They're all pretty long on accusations and generalizations, but not so hot when it comes to actually supporting their claims.

 

[Incorruptible]

And another person more interested in spewing than discussing. Typical.



Pretty much. They're all pretty long on accusations and generalizations, but not so hot when it comes to actually supporting their claims.

Thats typical of them. They love to pull the race card but are too stupid to back it up.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Thats typical of them. They love to pull the race card but are too stupid to back it up.

Stop agreeing with me, it's making me think they are right.

 

[Incorruptible]

Stop agreeing with me, it's making me think they are right.

You said something I dont see you do very often, You made a good point so I agree.

 

[RabidMongoose]

And another person more interested in spewing than discussing. Typical.

You're the one who is saying that a man who wrote racist newsletters for years and has recent racist statements may not be a racist. Another person more interesting in spewing his support for his racist leader than actual discussion. Typical of that old stupid man's followers.

And then you had the gall to talk about reality? When you have just displayed your own delusion with regard to Ron Paul! You proved my point with your own post.

This is the problem with discussing anything with Ron Paul fanatics. They don't live in reality.

 

[Steeplerot]

How can a rational sane person think markets (a wholly human made construct) is immune to having to police itself like there is a big daddy capitalist God is so silly you would THINK anyone over the age if 5 would know better. But right wing libertarians are literally children emotionally. Thus the self centered faith based worldview.