Libertarians

[South Florida]

Posted: 8/16/16 at 7:54pm

Why are Libertarians so smug about their beliefs? Because they don't care about how their behavior affects other people? We all want to be free to do whatever we desire, and most of us don't pass judgement on people who are different than us. Libertarians don't care about people who have made bad choices in their lives. Remember this exchange between Wolf Blitzer and Ron Paul?

;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9fk7NpgIU

Libertarians are morons without a heart, anyone who believes we should have a for profit medical system run by insurance companies is a heartless idiot, you're both of those things. Stupid too, is anyone a bit angry that trillions of dollars go into a system and provides income to people that contribute nothing to your health? Let's be caring when we think about health costs, they're out of control. Why have we made the issue of life and death part of the profit economy? Any virtuous society wants to take care of the people who are sick, through chance or through bad choices, what the libertarians propose is survival of the fittest. Is that the right thing to do? Is that the right way to feel?  Roxy?

[kdogg36]

Posted: 8/16/16 at 9:25pm

Well, I'll ignore the series of ad hominems in your post :) and tell you how I answer the substantive question about my orientation towards things like government involvement in healthcare and other forms of economic aid.

I'm not a "libertarianism now!" kind of person when it comes to these things. That would bake in too many unjust inequalities, and would leave too many people stranded. Most of those people are just dealing with our world the way it is right now, and are doing nothing wrong at all by accessing the assistance available to them. 

Instead, I view (economic) libertarianism as a (very, very) long-term ideal, not something to be abruptly implemented by the next president or the one after that or the one after that. I think we all realize that would not only be unfair, but disastrous to an economy that is not used to playing by libertarian rules. I do believe humans can eventually build a world where the government programs that libertarians dislike are no longer needed, but it won't be anytime soon.

So my economic libertarian ideals are somewhat theoretical. I'm more animated by other issues - ending the War on Drugs that has destroyed so many lives; the military adventurism that has US troops occupying many dozens of countries; the NSA spying on innocent people; the imprisoning of human beings for life without trial; the sending of assassination drones to kill people on the other side of the earth. The two establishment parties are generally lousy on these issues, which makes it hard for me to imagine supporting them anytime soon.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 10:03am

Many libertarians get to be smug because their beliefs are only ever theoretical.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 10:46am

Kad said: "Many libertarians get to be smug because their beliefs are only ever theoretical.

 

"

 

And it is that way not be choice but by doctrine, thanks to a horribly flawed and corrupt two-party system created only to benefit corporations, lobbyists and career politicians. 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 1:33pm

Double post!

 

Updated On: 8/17/16 at 01:33 PM

[kdogg36]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 1:33pm

Kad said: "Many libertarians get to be smug because their beliefs are only ever theoretical."

Well, the ones that are most important to me aren't theoretical at all, as I noted in the last post. Of course, you may not be responding directly to me. In fact, I hope you aren't, because I don't think I behave smugly around here in general. :)

ETA: I get that some libertarians can come off as a little sanctimonious. But it's also true that others (progressives or conservatives) are not always respectful of even well-meaning libertarians. I could cite some examples from my interactions on this very board, and I think they're generally based on my opinions rather than my behavior.
 

Updated On: 8/17/16 at 01:33 PM

[artscallion]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 1:51pm

Well said, Kdogg. And I give you non-smuggness points for even replying to a thread like this.

[Petralicious]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 1:52pm

I do not think Mr Roxy is smug at all. I think what you mean to say is that he has a different outlook on life than you do. And your first post is very smug in my opinion.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 2:06pm

Whose post was smug? Surely you're not referring to kdogg's. 

[madbrian]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 2:11pm

I am curious as to how libertarians see our country's place in the world.  I find many of their tenets laudable, however the general tack towards isolationism is not.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 2:26pm

I didn't realize being a non-interventionist meant you were suddenly an "isolationist." Interesting. 

[best12bars]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 2:27pm

Most libertarians I meet and talk with are idealists without practicality. They don't want the government invading their lives because they have something to hide that makes them nervous about "big brother" watching. Again, that's MY experience with them. Also, they don't realize how much they rely on the government for so many things from sewage management to police and fire departments to road repair to any number of public services that require regulations and funding to make them work for everyone. "Independent" indeed. I find that notion riddled with hypocrisy.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 2:30pm

Libertarians believe in defending domestic and foreign interests whenever necessary, however they do not support any form of regime change (Libya, Iraq, etc.), nation building (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), or the expansion of the drone program in other countries (Pakistan, Libya, Yemen). Many of these misguided ideas were lauded on both sides for decades upon decades; most continue to be in some form or fashion. As shown by history, this only leads to more extremism and violence. 

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 2:38pm

best12bars said: "Most libertarians I meet and talk with are idealists without practicality. They don't want the government invading their lives because they have something to hide that makes them nervous about "big brother" watching. Again, that's MY experience with them. Also, they don't realize how much they rely on the government for so many things from sewage management to police and fire departments to road repair to any number of public services that require regulations and funding to make them work for everyone. "Independent" indeed. I find that notion riddled with hypocrisy.

 

"

 

You must not talk to real Libertarians, then; only those who are paranoid anarchists, like the McVeighs of the world. Most reasonable Libertarians, as I'm sure kdogg will back me up on, believe the government should (and must) continue to provide essential social programs, necessary infrastructure and security services to its people. Better define the scope and control of the government by removing the "excess fat" and hyper-focusing its functions on only the basic necessities (public works, law enforcement, national security).

 

• "We are now vibrating between too much and too little government, and the pendulum will rest finally in the middle." --Thomas Jefferson to S. Smith, 1788.

 

• "I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." --Thomas Jefferson to W. Ludlow, 1824.

 

• "Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians... It is a problem not clear in my mind that the first condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Madison, 1787.

 

• "The happiness and prosperity of our citizens... is the only legitimate object of government and the first duty of governors." -- Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41

[madbrian]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 2:49pm

From the Libertarian Party Platform (emphasis mine): "American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."

To me, the highlighted phrase sounds like isolationism, and does not embrace our leadership place in the world.  While I would readily agree that our foreign policy has been a mess for decades, I would also suggest that no one on the planet has gotten it right without the benefit of hindsight, especially the Middle East.  In my opinion, we are still the best country to lead, warts and all, and the Libertarian foreign policy position seems contrary to that.

 

Updated On: 8/17/16 at 02:49 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 3:23pm

I was certainly not referring to you, kdogg. You've always been a friendly and reasonable poster here.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 3:55pm

Kad, artscalion, and Carlos - thanks for your kind words!

Liza - Yes, I agree, as implied by my first post. Of course there are many libertarians who are a bit more radical. :)

madbrian said: "To me, the highlighted phrase sounds like isolationism, and does not embrace our leadership place in the world."

I think most libertarians, including me, look for a more open, connected, interactive world, with lots of travel, trade, and communication across borders. That seems like the opposite of isolationism to me, though I realize there's a conventional definition of "isolationism" that refers only to the government's behavior towards other nations.

You're right that most of us oppose the US government's heavy-handed system of carrots and sticks to make the world do what we want. In fact, I think this system is more likely to hinder than to help the development of (what I consider to be) deeper connections with the world, human-to-human connections rather than government-to-government ones.

[South Florida]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 5:43pm

I heard the Libertarian candidates on MSNBC today.  They both agreed that government has to get out of health care.  Here we are, claiming to be the world authority on morality, and we can't recognize that making health care a basic right, as other nations have done, is not only the most moral but more cost effective. Libertarians tend to have a me first attitude, in order to tone down the rhetoric Weld added today, "we have a system now that saves the indigent."  We don't want to be saved those of us who at different times have not been able to afford health insurance.  What we want is fairness.  The current system is not working, with so many non contributing hands in the pie, and Libertarians want to unleash the wonders of the free market in this realm.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 5:51pm

The government is incapable of effectively administering healthcare. You need only look at the VA Hospital system for definitive proof of that. Do you know what the mortality rates and average wait/screening times are in Canada and England wherein "universal healthcare" is in place? Do some research before spouting your ridiculous BS. The only genuinely effective healthcare system is a hybrid public/private offering with a government-sponsored voucher (inclusion) option for the severely indigent. 

[Petralicious]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 5:56pm

South Florida said: "I heard the Libertarian candidates on MSNBC today.  They both agreed that government has to get out of health care.  Here we are, claiming to be the world authority on morality, and we can't recognize that making health care a basic right, as other nations have done, is not only the most moral but more cost effective. Libertarians tend to have a me first attitude, in order to tone down the rhetoric Weld added today, "we have a system now that saves the indigent."  We don't want to be saved those of us who at different times have not been able to afford health insurance.  What we want is fairness.  The current system is not working, with so many non contributing hands in the pie, and Libertarians want to unleash the wonders of the free market in this realm.

 

"What is fair to you and  is me first to you is not to everybody.. Socialism is the selfish. They want other peoples money. Other people to pay for and buy them stuff other eople to provide them with stuff. Libertarians seem to want to pay their share and be left alone. At least that is how i understand it.

 

[South Florida]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 5:59pm

#1 in cost, #30 something in quality of care, before you spew you little tw*t.

[South Florida]

Posted: 8/17/16 at 7:42pm

That was meant for Liza.  Feel sorry for the Libertarians they seem to be self absorbed.  We're in this together guys, not for our country, but for our world.  How are we going to fight the global disaster from happening without cooperation  How is isolationism and fracking going to solve the problems we face.  I'm 54 now and I want my grandchildren to start seeing a cooperative world, peace is everything, bringing the greatest minds in the world together to solve this disaster should be our priority.

 

[HorseTears]

Posted: 8/18/16 at 5:20am

From my experience, kdogg has always been a reasonable and fairly pragmatic contributor to political discussions on here.  But, with regard to hardcore true-blue libertarians, I think it's rather telling that the overwhelming majority of self-described libertarians are white men.  

[Petralicious]

Posted: 8/18/16 at 8:27am

HorseTears said: "From my experience, kdogg has always been a reasonable and fairly pragmatic contributor to political discussions on here.  But, with regard to hardcore true-blue libertarians, I think it's rather telling that the overwhelming majority of self-described libertarians are white men.  

 

" Well if they white men it must be evil!!  oh and Salon. really? 

 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 8/18/16 at 1:05pm

South Florida said: "How are we going to fight the global disaster from happening without cooperation  How is isolationism and fracking going to solve the problems we face."

Well, I think libertarians support global cooperation; we just don't support the system of threats and bribes the US government uses to get other countries to "cooperate" (see my last post). 

You threw fracking in there, so I might as well give it a go. :) If fracking is harming people and their property, as it seems to be, then the courts should provide a mechanism for dealing with this. In other words, victims should basically be able to sue those companies out of existence. Unfortunately, the court system doesn't currently seem to be willing to entertain these kinds of suits; see the Wikipedia article on Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. for an example.