Why the Left Fears Libertarianism

[bonker]

No, it's very concise. A standard of values can easily be subjective.

Explain

[Anonymous]

No, it's very concise. A standard of values can easily be subjective.

Explain

A standard is only based on the whims and desires of men.

[bonker]

No, it's very concise. A standard of values can easily be subjective.

Explain

A standard is only based on the whims and desires of men.

To be a standard requires consensus.
To be subjective requires the rejection of consensus.

Hence the term "standard of subjective values" is an oxymoron.

Your libertarian philosophy suffers the same problem as your writing. It's incoherent, fundamentally flawed and
indefensible to any rigorous inspection.

[Anonymous]

No, it's very concise. A standard of values can easily be subjective.

Explain

A standard is only based on the whims and desires of men.

To be a standard requires consensus.
To be subjective requires the rejection of consensus.

Hence the term "standard of subjective values" is an oxymoron.

Your libertarian philosophy suffers the same problem as your writing. It's incoherent, fundamentally flawed and
indefensible to any rigorous inspection.

There is not a single consensus. There is not one society.

Anyways, you have offered no sound rebuttal but only hollow claims.

[bonker]

There is not a single consensus. There is not one society.

Anyways, you have offered no sound rebuttal but only hollow claims.

"There is not a single consensus" - Jesus Christ! That's another oxymoron.. or even worse! Are you high?
Are you sitting there tripping your balls off writing this gibberish?

A consensus is singular by definition, if you have a collection of many differing consensus (s)
then that is a new thing.

[Tawsix]

bonker:  I'd like to know what is wrong with Libertarianism from your point of view, and how it is an oxymoron.  Libertarianism is simply strict adherence to the non-aggression pact, where no man has ownership or rights over another man, and coercion or aggression against him is morally wrong (unless he is coercing or aggressing you.)  I don't see how the logical conclusion of such a system is nihilistic decadence.  Are you saying that men will not collude for their betterment unless they are forced to? 

[The Script]

Liberartarians  can only exist within a conventional society

A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse

All societies collapse, eventually.  The length of a society's duration does not always equate with the quality of that society.  I would rather have a prosperous, moral society based on the non-aggression principle for a hundred years, than two thousand years of a repressive dictator or police state. 

[smellyBobby]

To be a standard requires consensus.
To be subjective requires the rejection of consensus.

Hence the term "standard of subjective values" is an oxymoron.

Your libertarian philosophy suffers the same problem as your writing. It's incoherent, fundamentally flawed and
indefensible to any rigorous inspection.

+1

There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.

The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

++1

[The Script]

To be a standard requires consensus.
To be subjective requires the rejection of consensus.

Hence the term "standard of subjective values" is an oxymoron.

Your libertarian philosophy suffers the same problem as your writing. It's incoherent, fundamentally flawed and
indefensible to any rigorous inspection.

+1

Libertarian philosophy is fairly well defined and actually quite rigorous.  Perhaps you have not done enough reading on it?

There is an profound mathematical analogy I could present to illustrate my original criticism.
For a flavour of this refer to Langron's Lambda parameter in the study cellular automata.

The most productive societies occur at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy.
A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

++1
[/quote]


Can you explain what you mean by "at the boundary between authoritarian and anarchy"?  Those are completely opposite and conflicting ideologies.  Most great societies collapse from decadence.  Societies are transient institutions in the long scheme of things.   

[NghtRppr]

A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

I've heard all these claims about how libertarianism can't happen and would fail. So why fight so hard against it? If I say that I plan on blowing up the Earth with my mind, which obviously isn't going to happen, would people spend countless hours arguing about why it can't happen and would fail? I think all the noise about libertarianism is precisely because it's not such an obviously doomed idea.

[em3rgentOrdr]

A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

I've heard all these claims about how libertarianism can't happen and would fail. So why fight so hard against it? If I say that I plan on blowing up the Earth with my mind, which obviously isn't going to happen, would people spend countless hours arguing about why it can't happen and would fail? I think all the noise about libertarianism is precisely because it's not such an obviously doomed idea.

Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?

[myrkul]

Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?

Afraid of losing their meal ticket?

[The Script]

Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?

Afraid of losing their meal ticket?

Ahahaha! 

[NghtRppr]

A society based on pure liberartarianism will inevitably collapse through decadence.

I've heard all these claims about how libertarianism can't happen and would fail. So why fight so hard against it? If I say that I plan on blowing up the Earth with my mind, which obviously isn't going to happen, would people spend countless hours arguing about why it can't happen and would fail? I think all the noise about libertarianism is precisely because it's not such an obviously doomed idea.

Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?

I can read, thanks. I was trying to make a point to bonker.

[freespirit]

I did not read that looong article but I can answer this question concisely:

"the Left" is essentially a totalitarian/fascist (and also expansionist, see below) ideology as it gives you no choice even in its mild form like modern "socialist states" (think Scandinavian and other European countries) as you either pay their high taxes to support "welfare state", contribute to "redistribution of wealth" etc. or go to jail. (or at least get your property confiscated)
They fear libertarianism because for them to sustain their model of society they need to COERCE a LOT of people to give up some of their property (and their lives) to them (remember USSR's "dream" of worldwide communism?) and libertarianism is a totally anti-coercion idea.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Robert Wenzel points out some glaringly obvious flaws in Stephen Metcalf's Slate attack article on libertarianism.  Primarly, Metcalf incorrectly thinks that Nozick is "the philosophical father of libertarianism".

"The real scam here is Metcalf associating Nozick with the beginning and end of libertarianism. At best, Nozick is a footnote in libertarian history that can be used to gingerly irritate the Metcalf's of the world. They are still obsessing over the guy, even though no serious libertarian thinks the guy's views are thorough or complete."

[evoorhees]

Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?

Answer:

A leftist can't win an economic argument against the right, because central planning fails. But, the leftist CAN win the moral argument against the right in terms of personal liberty, rights, tolerance, etc. So when the damn libertarians come around and pull that rug out from under the leftists also, they get understandably pissed.

So a leftist can't win economic NOR personal liberty arguments with a libertarian. That is why they hate them - and would much rather debate a conservative. Leftists and rightists balance each other out... they are both half wrong on the issues and thus can perpetuate arguments indefinitely against each other.

Libertarians make the leftists look like inconsistent fascists (which they are), and they also make rightists look like inconsistent socialists (which they are). It's no wonder that everyone hates a libertarian. His consistency is confounding and infuriating.

The last defense of the left, and the right?  "Libertarianism can never work," they say, and so they go back to arguing amongst each other to figure out who is more effective at enslaving humanity.

[AyeYo]

Hence the question of this forum topic: "Why does the Left Fear Libertarianism"?

Answer:

A leftist can't win an economic argument against the right, because central planning fails.

Except for the proven track record of centrally planned nations having much better standards of living and faster growth than more "free market" nations (See: China, Sweden, Japan, India, almost any pre-revolution socialist Latin American country, etc.).


The real reason it's impossible to win an argument against the right is that the right has an illogically tendency to attitube all market success to the "free market" and all market failures to the market "not being free enough."

[freespirit]

Except for the proven track record of centrally planned nations having much better standards of living and faster growth than more "free market" nations (See: China, Sweden, Japan, India, almost any pre-revolution socialist Latin American country, etc.).

Are you kidding? China has "much better standards of living"? Better then where? Somali? (not to mention China is hardly socialist economically)
Sweden and the likes: in short term maybe (and at what cost?) but in long term highly unlikely. Their "standard of living" exists[ed?] just for a few decades which is nothing historically.
Check out this article for example: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

BTW, Greece is ruled by socialists and has a rather socialist economy. Look where it got them.

[AyeYo]

Except for the proven track record of centrally planned nations having much better standards of living and faster growth than more "free market" nations (See: China, Sweden, Japan, India, almost any pre-revolution socialist Latin American country, etc.).

Are you kidding? China has "much better standards of living"? Better then where? Somali? (not to mention China is hardly socialist economically)
Sweden and the likes: in short term maybe (and at what cost?) but in long term highly unlikely. Their "standard of living" exists[ed?] just for a few decades which is nothing historically.
Check out this article for example: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510

BTW, Greece is ruled by socialists and has a rather socialist economy. Look where it got them.

China is not socialist, but it heavily controlled by central planners and is financially far better off, as a nation, then any "free market" nation like the US.

Not sustainable?  Based on what?  Prove it.  It's been sustaining just fine.


No one cares about Greece.  The US is the most free market nation in the world and we're also the furthest in the shitter.  One case is proof of nothing.