Why would libertarianism not work?

[Blasveck]

So, Libertarianism:
An ideology that, typically, can be described as pro-free market, pro-civil rights, and anti-tax. A classical liberal, essentially.

Personally, I do believe that Libertarianism is the best ideology to follow to have a free society. I believe that it is the best way to organize a society with voluntary contributions and minimal governmental intrusion.

So, NSG, what's your thoughts on Libertarianism? Do you subscribe to the ideology? Do you not? If you do/don't, why?

(And if you have nothing to add to the discussion but "Lolbertarianism is STOOPID", please don't bother posting.)

I love Libertarianism......but I must ask, don't we already have a thread on this?

Didn't it die out or something?

[Mavorpen]

Left libertarianism is nice, right libertarianism is a joke for spoiled bratty teenagers.

[Vazdania]

I love Libertarianism......but I must ask, don't we already have a thread on this?

Didn't it die out or something?

ugh...I've no idea.

[Vazdania]

Left libertarianism is nice, right libertarianism is a joke for spoiled bratty teenagers.

That is a poor excuse for why Right wing libertarianism is bad.

[Blasveck]

Left libertarianism is nice, right libertarianism is a joke for spoiled bratty teenagers.

How so?

I'd like details.

(About Right-Libertarianism, I mean)

[Christian Promised Land]

I am a Conservative and my best friend is a Liberal. We always say that Libertarians are one of the few things that we can agree on politically. Libertarians are clueless.

[Souseiseki]

if you love libertarianism so much, why don't you marry it?

because marriage is a statist invention.

but seriously i've never been a fan of "voted ideology most likely to defend no niggers signs as the pinnacle of freedom 2011"

[Blasveck]

I am a Conservative and my best friend is a Liberal. We always say that Libertarians are one of the few things that we can agree on politically. Libertarians are clueless.

How exactly are Libertarians clueless?

[Ichverratnix]

Could you outline your definition of "free society"?
Why do you emphasise on "free" instead of, say, "egalitarian"?

[4years]

1. So, Libertarianism:
An ideology that, typically, can be described as pro-free market, pro-civil rights, and anti-tax. A classical liberal, essentially.

2. Personally, I do believe that Libertarianism is the best ideology to follow to have a free society. I believe that it is the best way to organize a society with voluntary contributions and minimal governmental intrusion.

3. So, NSG, what's your thoughts on Libertarianism? 4. Do you subscribe to the ideology? Do you not? If you do/don't, why?

(And if you have nothing to add to the discussion but "Lolbertarianism is STOOPID", please don't bother posting.)

1. No it can't. Stop trying to tie classical liberalism and libertarianism together.

2. It wouldn't work. For a start it would produce shit living standards and require a massive government crackdown on the revolution it would assuredly cause, e.i. it would become either fascism (corporate state cracks down) or socialism (revolution succeeds). Also it wouldn't be a free society even it was stable, no economic freedom.

3. Libertarianism is great. Your foolish attempt to tie it to right-wing economics isn't, however.

4. I am libertarian, yes. Largely because freedom is awesome and works better (read is more socially useful).

[4years]

Left libertarianism is nice, right libertarianism is a joke for spoiled bratty teenagers.

Essentially, although there are occasionally deluded adults mixed in with the bratty teenagers.

[Blasveck]

if you love libertarianism so much, why don't you marry it?

because marriage is a statist invention.

but seriously i've never been a fan of "voted ideology most likely to defend no niggers signs as the pinnacle of freedom 2011"

Yes, it is. And the state shouldn't be able to say who gets to marry and who doesn't.

[Vazdania]

Could you outline your definition of "free society"?
Why do you emphasise on "free" instead of, say, "egalitarian"?

egalitarianism is how you say...."dumb" Not all people are equal.

[Mavorpen]

Left libertarianism is nice, right libertarianism is a joke for spoiled bratty teenagers.

How so?

I'd like details.

Left libertarianism has traditionally not been built upon irrational hatred for the evils of the government and the state. Rather, it advocates for minimal state power. However, this doesn't mean that a "small" government is necessarily the best. "Minimal," in this case refers to the least possible while maintaining a healthy society, even if it means the government does have a significant amount of power.

Right libertarianism however, has been hijacking the ideology to be "as small as possible, even if it harms us." It's built upon an irrational hatred for the government and the state wherein it claims that the free market can replace the government in many of its facets, ignoring the fact that the world has changed significantly since centuries ago.

[Wind in the Willows]

I haven't done much research on it. But I just found out that the UK has a libertarian party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertari ... y_%28UK%29

[4years]

Could you outline your definition of "free society"?
Why do you emphasise on "free" instead of, say, "egalitarian"?

egalitarianism is how you say...."dumb" Not all people are equal.

Of course all people are equal, don't be absurd.

[Souseiseki]

Could you outline your definition of "free society"?
Why do you emphasise on "free" instead of, say, "egalitarian"?

egalitarianism is how you say...."dumb" Not all people are equal.

it's only dumb if you interpret it in the strawman "everyone must wear a mao suit and be paid the same for everyhting and and and" way

[Blasveck]

How so?

I'd like details.

Left libertarianism has traditionally not been built upon irrational hatred for the evils of the government and the state. Rather, it advocates for minimal state power. However, this doesn't mean that a "small" government is necessarily the best. "Minimal," in this case refers to the least possible while maintaining a healthy society, even if it means the government does have a significant amount of power.

Right libertarianism however, has been hijacking the ideology to be "as small as possible, even if it harms us." It's built upon an irrational hatred for the government and the state wherein it claims that the free market can replace the government in many of its facets, ignoring the fact that the world has changed significantly since centuries ago.

I would probably identify more with Left-Libertarianism, in that case.

[Vazdania]

egalitarianism is how you say...."dumb" Not all people are equal.

Of course all people are equal, don't be absurd.

Of course all people aren't equal, don't be absurd. Some are far more intelligent, some are far more wealthy, some are swifter afoot, some are stronger...the list goes on and on.

[Souseiseki]

Of course all people are equal, don't be absurd.

Of course all people aren't equal, don't be absurd. Some are far more intelligent, some are far more wealthy, some are swifter afoot, some are stronger...the list goes on and on.

hey d00d

do you think that everyone should have the same political and civil rights?

[4years]

Of course all people are equal, don't be absurd.

Of course all people aren't equal, don't be absurd. Some are 1. far more intelligent, 2. some are far more wealthy, 3. some are swifter afoot, some are stronger...the list goes on and on.

1. That isn't innate to specific people, it is circumstantial and therefore irrelevant.
2. Random chance, actually inequality doesn't not make.
3. See point 1.

[Chestaan]

Of course all people are equal, don't be absurd.

Of course all people aren't equal, don't be absurd. Some are far more intelligent, some are far more wealthy, some are swifter afoot, some are stronger...the list goes on and on.

Are you actually trying to argue that a wealthy person is somehow better than a poorer person?

[Vazdania]

Of course all people aren't equal, don't be absurd. Some are 1. far more intelligent, 2. some are far more wealthy, 3. some are swifter afoot, some are stronger...the list goes on and on.

1. That isn't innate to specific people, it is circumstantial and therefore irrelevant.
2. Random chance, actually inequality doesn't not make.
3. See point 1.

Doesn't matter, it still differentiates people and makes them unequal.
Still unequal

[Regnum Dominae]

1. That isn't innate to specific people, it is circumstantial and therefore irrelevant.
2. Random chance, actually inequality doesn't not make.
3. See point 1.

Doesn't matter, it still differentiates people and makes them unequal.
Still unequal

Are you talking about income equality or civil equality?

if income equality I agree with you, if civil equality everyone deserves equal rights

[Vazdania]

Of course all people aren't equal, don't be absurd. Some are far more intelligent, some are far more wealthy, some are swifter afoot, some are stronger...the list goes on and on.

Are you actually trying to argue that a wealthy person is somehow better than a poorer person?

in matters of available and dispensable capital, yes.

In other matters...perhaps.