Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html ^

[Paradox]

I dont think any political philosophy is perfect. Libertarianism, however, is probably the most consistent of the "western" philosophies. I see it as more of a guidepost, an ideal, which one should strive for, wherever possible.

[Captain Shady]

More relevant links:

Democratic Freedom Caucus

Republican Liberty Caucus

The Progress Report

[Exnihilo]

Is that your rebutle to the author's points about Libertarians? I don't care what "side" he's on. His points about the inconsistancies of Libertarianism are exactly right.

[WindMinstrel]

yeah, I found it illuminating that you chose a socialist's arguements against libertarianism. That's much like selecting a harlot's assault on chastity.

[tacticalogic]

I checked out some of the author's other writings.

Same here. I found this little snippet interesting:

``For every principled minority, for every oppressed minority, for all who suffer injustice, democracy is a nightmare without end, and every year more intense. Democracy destroys hope. Above all, it destroys the hope of change.'' (Paul Treanor, April 15, 1996)

[Exnihilo]

Then start by refuting the author's points which demonstrate repeated inconsistancies in Libertarian thinking.

[tcostell]

While this is clearly a well crafted post, and it makes many a valid point, I wonder at the wisdom of investing so much energy in such an attack. I consider myself a libertarian even though my political beliefs may not fall precisely on the tradtitional libertarian line. None the less, it's a political stance with which I find the most agreement. In my experience, I have far more in common with my freinds who call themselves conservative, than I do with any lefties. So while I think debating the "pure" virtue of a political belief is valid, I really have to wonder if our energies wouldn't be better spent promoting those areas where we agree.

[FreedomIsSimple]

Reality: libertarians legitimise economic injustice, by refusing to define it as coercion or initiated force

Economic injustice? What, the rain in NYC keep you from marching with your communist, anti-capitalist breatheren, so all you have to do all day is bash Libertarians? And bashing us with this collectivist crap? Shouldn't you be trolling DU?

[riley1992]

I'm sure it will get pulled.

No, that only seems to apply to the Libertarians questioning Republicans threads. This one is likely an untouchable.

[palo verde]

Hi Aquinas
I was just thinking God gave us free will
and probably man-made law which reflects it
is the most sensible one

libertarianism makes common sense to me --
it carries out the Constitution in spirit and letter
and allows as much free will as possible
Love, Palo

[FreedomIsSimple]

Is that your rebutle to the author's points about Libertarians? I don't care what "side" he's on. His points about the inconsistancies of Libertarianism are exactly right

It's hard to argue with someone who comes from the standpoint that it's the government's job to solve "economic injustice", which is merely a code word for "giving the tax dollars of hard-working citizens to worthless, lazy parasites". It's so completely opposite of my ideology there is no common ground to argue from.

[biblewonk]

Well said. They definitely are defensive and love to get the last word in. They seem to be out of touch with the reality of how to really make any changes. "Either remove the whole tax code or just forget it". I've also noticed an alarming number of them are mensas. This shows that they are extreme elitists and simply don't want to be involved in a normal party because they can't stand out in a crowd well enough that way.

[decimon]

Libertarianism is anything but an argument for a perfect world. Libertarianism denies the folly of perfection imagined by those who would control others.

[Paradox]

For the most part, he simply _disagrees_ with libertarians, even down to the level of word definitions.

Some US employers require their employees to smile at all customers, or lose their job. I call that coercion: libertarians call it freedom of contract. There is no point in further discussion of these issues: they are examples of irreconcilable value conflicts.

I think this sums it up pretty much.

[El Sordo]

Whoa now!!

Many of the author's "points" about Libertarian thought depend entirely on how he chooses to define his terms. His apparent definition of "coercion" being chief among them.

I find that the aurhtor is flagrantly using logical fallacies and selectively defining his terms in order to make a specious argument.

[Exnihilo]

I find that the aurhtor is flagrantly using logical fallacies and selectively defining his terms in order to make a specious argument

Funny, I and the author both find that Libertarians consistantly do that.. hmm...

[Exnihilo]

I and the founders would agree. That's why we have a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.

[Cold Heat]

Bookmarked and bumped! However, I titled it a study of libertarianism. LOL! I tried not to offend. I must be too liberal.

[The Green Goblin]

If minarchy means minimal outside influence, on the life of the individual, then libertarians are not minarchists. By the same token, they can certainly not be anarchists.

Notice that the only way that he can make the argument that libertarians are not minarchists is by changing the definition of minarchy from "limited government" to "minimal outside influence." In doing this, the author is guilty of the classic strawman argument.