The Libertarian Con: Favorite 'Rebel' Ideology of the Ruling Class

[quote name='Temporaryscars']It's unnatural for humans to not be at one extreme or another? I'm willing to bet that most people fall into that category. Maybe not you though.

I never said the second protects the first, I said that the second is there if the first fails.[/QUOTE]

What I'm saying is that you don't understand jack shit about "human nature." It's the same phenomenon when you say freedom and liberty; it's vague nonsense to the point of meaninglessness. You could substitute those words with "marshmelons" and it'd make just as much sense.

And you want to know the difference between how you said it and I said it? You said it and I said it; it's operationally the same.
 
[quote name='dohdough']What I'm saying is that you don't understand jack shit about "human nature." It's the same phenomenon when you say freedom and liberty; it's vague nonsense to the point of meaninglessness. You could substitute those words with "marshmelons" and it'd make just as much sense.

And you want to know the difference between how you said it and I said it? You said it and I said it; it's operationally the same.[/QUOTE]

Again, you're the one being vague. Specifically address what I say. Either you can't do it, or you won't do it. Am I wrong that most people don't hold extreme views on topics? I said everyone has a line that they draw on topics. Am I right or am I wrong? It's very simple and I really don't think I can make it any easier for you, and quite frankly, at this point, I no longer care.

No, it's not the same. You refuse to address any specific points, you refuse to answer questions, you strawman. I'll leave it at that. Arguing with entitled leaches just isn't worth it.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I can't believe I'm quoting you again, but first off, who said anything about conditions?! Once again, you're switching the topic and putting words in my mouth, THEN accusing me of not knowing history. I simply pointed out that raising the minimum wage would result on either one of two things since companies don't just absorb costs. Instead of addressing what I said, you go on a historical tirade and then start throwing baseless accusations around.[/QUOTE]

Tying minimum wage to inflation would change the conditions of employment and if wages were tied to it, then it would be a boon for a vast majority of people. It'd just be shitty for those with stockpiles of money because it'd be worth less, not to be confused with worthless. You're obviously not in favor of that and it isn't a far stretch to assume that you're not in favor of any minimum wage from your posts. I'm just jumping to the chase, so stop acting so indignant about it.

People familiar with history don't make the arguments you do unless its for ideological reasons.
 
You're still not answering the question. What happens to the cost? Companies don't just absorb it. Either it contributes to inflation or people get fired. Which scenario sounds better to you?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']Again, you're the one being vague. Specifically address what I say. Either you can't do it, or you won't do it. Am I wrong that most people don't hold extreme views on topics? I said everyone has a line that they draw on topics. Am I right or am I wrong? It's very simple and I really don't think I can make it any easier for you, and quite frankly, at this point, I no longer care.

No, it's not the same. You refuse to address any specific points, you refuse to answer questions, you strawman. I'll leave it at that. Arguing with entitled leaches just isn't worth it.[/QUOTE]

I'm directly addressing the fact that you assume that human nature is immutable when its been long proven that in most cases, it isn't. This is a very basic tennet of any social and behavioral science...like day 1 in 101 type shit. Then you try to change the context of the usage to mean extreme political or ideological stances, which is still related to the initial context. It's not that I'm not addressing anything, but that you're having problems following your own arguments and reasoning. The fact that you think it's "that simple" is exactly your problem.

The reason why you think I'm being vague and strawmanning you is because you're not as familiar as you may think with your arguments. Why do I need to get into the nitty gritty when you don't even have the basic foundation of basic sociological concepts, muchless history, down?

Given a proper social safetynet, then firing and inflation would be fine. But that's because I support a proper social safetynet, unlike you. And if there isn't, inflation is just as good because it still makes debt worth less. As you can see, I already answered the question; just not in the manner you wanted me to. Don't ask me to be specific and then ask for a yes/no answer because you didn't like what I had to say about it. This isn't my first debate, muchless with a lolbertarian, so your rhetorical tricks are pretty transparent.

And this is going to be my last content-post on a mobile...I can't muster the effort for more biting criticisms and snark.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Really? I missed the news articles proclaiming which federal agencies and employees took the fall for A) The damage that the land they were leasing out caused and B) The damaged caused by them doing a half-***ed job when it came to the required safety inspections they were supposed to be completing. And, before someone brings it up, C) The politicians who cut funding to the agencies that were responsible for conducting and auditing BP... I missed the articles where they were held accountable as well. Maybe you could link us all to a few of them? I'm curious if Obama summoned them all to his office for private, closed door (a.k.a. "Open and Transparent") meetings with him and his Attorney General.[/QUOTE]

Well that's true. We, the people, should hold our govt accountable by voting out the asshole Republicans who allowed this reckless drilling to occur in the first place (by foreign companies taking advantage of our natural resources)

We need to demand more accountability from our govt. Stop buying into the slick marketing campaigns of corrupt politicians who are bought-and-paid for by corporations.

However it's still true that BP got off way too easy.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'm directly addressing the fact that you assume that human nature is immutable when its been long proven that in most cases, it isn't. This is a very basic tennet of any social and behavioral science...like day 1 in 101 type shit. Then you try to change the context of the usage to mean extreme political or ideological stances, which is still related to the initial context. It's not that I'm not addressing anything, but that you're having problems following your own arguments and reasoning. The fact that you think it's "that simple" is exactly your problem.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. People are hedonistic. Would private donations increase if taxes were cut drastically? It's an empirical question and we've never had drastic enough tax cuts to really know. But I'm extremely skeptical (i.e. no fucking way it would happen) that if we dropped medicaid/medicare, welfare/food stamps etc. and reduced taxes by that amount that private donations would pick up the slack. Both due to human nature and the fact that it would require HUGE donations from the wealthiest segment of the population. And for every super rich fairly liberal type like Bill Gates there are a ton of Mitt Romney types who cling to their money, dodge taxes and openly say they "don't worry about the poor."

So I just view that libertarian crap as just nonsense. They just don't care about the poor. They all believe in bootstrapping and think they made it all on their own (ignoring public schooling they and their ancestors got, subsidized loans or grants they got for college etc.). Know one makes it on their own. The lower and middle classes almost all benefit from public schooling among other things. The upper middle class and upper class may have had private schooling etc.--but that's still not doing it yourself. That's being lucky to be born into a rich family and having your parents give you everything. Yes, one still usually has to work hard to achieve success. But not everyone that works hard has the same opportunities to succeed or the same ceiling on how high they can rise. Anyway, they thus misguidedly believe they made it on their own and think everyone can and should do the same, and anyone who fails only has themselves to blame. Thus they have no obligation to help the poor, be it through taxes or private donations the majority of them wouldn't make even if there taxes were cut.

Libertarianism is an entirely self interest based view point. Just a bunch of selfish pricks who want to do whatever they want to do, have an inflated view of their self worth and give no credit to others for helping them, and just want to keep as much of their money as possible. It's one of those dealbreakers where I hear someone say they're a libertarian and I know they're instantly not someone worth associating with. Thankfully you don't run into many of these schmucks in academia. :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Libertarianism is an entirely self interest based view point. Just a bunch of selfish pricks who want to do whatever they want to do, have an inflated view of their self worth and give no credit to others for helping them, and just want to keep as much of their money as possible. It's one of those dealbreakers where I hear someone say they're a libertarian and I know they're instantly not someone worth associating with. Thankfully you don't run into many of these schmucks in academia. :D[/QUOTE]

I think ignorance plays a large part too. If someone lives an entitled life then it's very easy to slide into libertarianism.

Our life experiences shape our viewpoints, I'm guessing Temporaryscars has had everything in his life handed to him on a silver platter. Watch - he's going to respond that he worked hard for his grades, ignoring the fact that even getting his dumbass into hs/college required the dedication of his parents and federal workers (or private school teachers...)
 
He already said his family was poor. But yes, he has downplayed the role of public schools (and his family wasn't poor if they sent him to private school), teachers that helped him, having two presumably supportive parents etc. by saying he did it all on his own.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']He already said his family was poor. But yes, he has downplayed the role of public schools (and his family wasn't poor if they sent him to private school), teachers that helped him, having two presumably supportive parents etc. by saying he did it all on his own.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I'd also like to know what he considers "poor" to be. I didn't grow up poor, but I knew some kids in hs and college that claimed to be poor yet always had a car, nice clothes, and more pocket change then me. Funny how that works...
 
What dmaul is saying, in a nutshell is that Libertarians, at their core, deny being members of society.

Yet another reason their ideology is fraudulent.
 
That is definitely it in a nutshell.

Everyone benefits from (or is harmed by) society. No one succeed or fails entirely on their own. Be it active support (or lack there of) like access to public schools, subsidized student loans or grants etc., or the more passive "lucky to be born into it" help of having two supportive parents, being born into a middle class or above who live in a nice area instead of poor in a crime ridden neighborhood etc.

Humans are social animals and the society we're exposed to has a huge influence on who we are and our odds of succeeding or failing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What dmaul is saying, in a nutshell is that Libertarians, at their core, deny being members of society.[/QUOTE]

This sounds like something Ayn Rand would go for.
 
She couldn't deny reliance on others.

There's no way she could have written thousands of pages of drivel over the course of her life if she had to roll 200 cigarettes a day for herself, y'know.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well that's true. We, the people, should hold our govt accountable by voting out the asshole Republicans who allowed this reckless drilling to occur in the first place (by foreign companies taking advantage of our natural resources)[/QUOTE]

Voting them out? That would be equal to or worse than the, admittedly less than stellar punishment that BP got? Last I thought, they were still looking at possible criminal manslaughter charges against folks at BP.

Voting someone out isn't a very harsh punishment.
 
I've not read much of her work, just the Fountainhead back in college for a class. So I'm no expert on her views. But from what I see I think a lot of modern libs take the "I did it myself" viewpoint further than Rand. From what I got of her work she was very against big government, social support etc.

But I don't think she denied the influence of other people on her (or others) lives. I think her views were more that people can help each other out of their own free will without government assistance. But like I said, I'm no expert on her work so maybe she is totally every person for themselves rather than just anti-government.

So I guess TC is kind of on the same lines. Just that naive assumption that people are good natured and will take care of each other rather than most only looking out for their own self interest. Human nature just doesn't work that way--millions of years of survival of the fittest hasn't been wiped out by a couple thousand years of modern civilizations.
 
Rand's whole deal was basically that you should look out only for number 1, and the second you stopped doing that, you were thus aiding another's endeavor, at which point Hitler.

And that would be funny as a joke, if it were not indeed 100% true.
 
[quote name='Clak']It's been shown that Rand actually depended on government assistance later in life, so yeah.[/QUOTE]

Haha, I never knew that before. I LOVE it and can't wait till another libertarian even hints at Ayn Rand in my presence.
 
Yeah, Rand was ok with using other people, but like most conservatives, most lolbertarians of the Randian stripe haven't read the source material either. I'd say it's more akin to being sociopathic rather than man-is-an-islandism.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Yeah, Rand was ok with using other people, but like most conservatives, most lolbertarians of the Randian stripe haven't read the source material either. I'd say it's more akin to being sociopathic rather than man-is-an-islandism.[/QUOTE]

Having read most of her works I would say the take home message is that Humanity should strive to be "creators" (people who through their power of will and intelligence better humanity ie Titans of indistry) rather than "leeches" (regulators, politicians, or folks who create nothing and just leech off the system). She looks at government as being a stifling force to human innovation. Essentially she's preaching personal responsibility (which is fine) but then neglects an entire sector of our society (the poor, the young and the elderly). There is more to her philosophy of objectivism but that's what google is for.
 
So tired of talking about Ayn Rand. She was such a hypocritical talentless douche.

How about Heinlein. At least he wrote entertaining books.

Also I find it interesting that "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" which libertarians always proudly hold above their heads is mostly about a commune successfully fighting back and eventually overthrowing a fascist govt. Hmmm.

Yes the book adroitly refers to the commune as a marriage between a group of people. But if you didn't see the huge ;) there, then you're a huge moron (and probably a libertarian...)
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Haha, I never knew that before. I LOVE it and can't wait till another libertarian even hints at Ayn Rand in my presence.[/QUOTE]
Social security and medicare, because she had cancer and couldn't pay. The ironic thing is that if the world was as she envisioned, we'd have kicked her ass to the curb.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Haha, I never knew that before. I LOVE it and can't wait till another libertarian even hints at Ayn Rand in my presence.[/QUOTE]

You think that matters? Libertarians are master cherry-pickers, defending their political philosophy demands it.
 
[quote name='Clak']Social security and medicare, because she had cancer and couldn't pay. The ironic thing is that if the world was as she envisioned, we'd have kicked her ass to the curb.[/QUOTE]

You got it.
 
[quote name='camoor']So tired of talking about Ayn Rand. She was such a hypocritical talentless douche.

How about Heinlein. At least he wrote entertaining books.

Also I find it interesting that "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" which libertarians always proudly hold above their heads is mostly about a commune successfully fighting back and eventually overthrowing a fascist govt. Hmmm.

Yes the book adroitly refers to the commune as a marriage between a group of people. But if you didn't see the huge ;) there, then you're a huge moron (and probably a libertarian...)[/QUOTE]

I remember reading somewhere that Heinlein worked for Upton Sinclair when he ran for office. I guess he had an epiphany or folks are attributing political affiliations to him and his works.
 
I don't know. Hearing about Heinlein it sounded like he was a real blend of both Social and Conservative values.
As far as Rand goes lets not forget she cribbed a lot of her shit off of Nietzsche. Although at the end of the book it seems as if Nietzsche is joking around going so far as to mention Dionysus and bringing praise to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top