One For Maddog - Here's Why I'm NOT a Libertarian

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5GB5mZb0yM

I have to agree again with the summary by "Rationality Rules". That the basic premise of Libertarianism, is inherantly selfish and not something I could ever support. The 3 main reasons he gives as to why not, are very good.

Lets see what Maddog thinks

I think you are free to believe what you like and I doubt I'll ever change your mind, nor will a YouTube video change mine.  

Maddog wrote:I think you are free to believe what you like and I doubt I'll ever change your mind, nor will a YouTube video change mine.  

I was actually more interested in your thoughts to his objections mate

Okey dokey though

Anywa, I just found it interesting, so catch you later..

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:I think you are free to believe what you like and I doubt I'll ever change your mind, nor will a YouTube video change mine.  

I was actually more interested in your thoughts to his objections mate

Okey dokey though  

I've heard them all before. Most are based on the false premise that libertarians are selfish.  I find that to be completely false.  So if the objection starts off with a false premise, I dont see the point. 

It boils down to people arguing about how virtuous they are and helpful to their fellow man.  

Been there done that 100 times. It's difficult to converse with those that engage in the self righteous fallacy.

thats the biggest pile of horse shit video i have ever watched in my entire life

and ive watch some utter shit let me tell you.

that dude has the biggest martyr / white male priviledge complex ive ever seen, not even ISIS suicide bombers want martyrdom as much as this dude.

although i have to say when he described Libertarianism in the first couple of minutes he convinced me to convert.

Maddog wrote:I've heard them all before. Most are based on the false premise that libertarians are selfish.  I find that to be completely false.  So if the objection starts off with a false premise, I dont see the point.

Libertarians are not selfish?  That's the first I've ever heard that illogical link.

A libertarian, by definition, is supposed to want to be stripped of political/social entanglements, and therefore stripped down to the self.  What else is there but self-interest?  All theories of individualism can only be reduced to selfishness…or, you are not an individualist.

I question whether you are a libertarian then, Maddog.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:I've heard them all before. Most are based on the false premise that libertarians are selfish.  I find that to be completely false.  So if the objection starts off with a false premise, I dont see the point.

Libertarians are not selfish?  That's the first I've ever heard that illogical link.

A libertarian, by definition, is supposed to want to be stripped of political/social entanglements, and therefore stripped down to the self.  What else is there but self-interest?  All theories of individualism can only be reduced to selfishness…or, you are not an individualist.

I question whether you are a libertarian then, Maddog.

One can help their fellow man without force.

In fact, one could question how helpful someone actually is, when they are forced to share.

"Force" is the key word here. How much force against your fellow citizen do you feel is appropriate?

And I'm a small government guy. Like Amash, Massie or Paul.

Not an AnCap like Jeffrey Tucker.

Libertarian is the closest definition to my political a d economic stances.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

I was actually more interested in your thoughts to his objections mate

Okey dokey though  

I've heard them all before. Most are based on the false premise that libertarians are selfish.  I find that to be completely false.  So if the objection starts off with a false premise, I dont see the point. 

It boils down to people arguing about how virtuous they are and helpful to their fellow man.  

Been there done that 100 times. It's difficult to converse with those that engage in the self righteous fallacy.

The first premise is very much a selfish belief system

As at the end of the day, the view in the video is right

We are all simple lucky, born into the time frame we are

So there is no fallacy in my opinio0n and it seems you are attempting to shut down geuine criticism of what is essentially a selfish belief system

You may have your own view point on Libertarianism, but the core main value, is at best, poor to say the least. Its very much self centered. When you would never have the ability or education, if not for the past on wisdom and innovation of previous other unselfish people

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Libertarians are not selfish?  That's the first I've ever heard that illogical link.

A libertarian, by definition, is supposed to want to be stripped of political/social entanglements, and therefore stripped down to the self.  What else is there but self-interest?  All theories of individualism can only be reduced to selfishness…or, you are not an individualist.

I question whether you are a libertarian then, Maddog.

One can help their fellow man without force.

In fact, one could question how helpful someone actually is, when they are forced to share.  

"Force" is the key word here. How much force against your fellow citizen do you feel is appropriate?

Would you feel more comfortable with the word 'cheater'.

Yes, "force" is the key word in your perception. It is the key misunderstanding of the libertarian in everyone else's. Democratic cooperation is not normally thought of, nor even felt as force.

When you play a game of cards, and follow the rules, do you perceive of it as "force"? The alternative is called 'cheating'. Rather, most people think of it as cooperation and compliance with agreed-upon...well, rules.

It's quite simple: if you don't like following the rules, get out of the game.

I consider myself a libertarian in many senses -- don't regulate the bedroom; don't ban the majority of drugs; make it easier for individuals to go into business.

But then my softy side says that not everyone can fend for themselves; particularly the children of bad parents.

I don't have a huge shit-ton of sympathy for bad parents, but their children didn't get to choose them and can do very little about their circumstances.

So I'm not willing to say that a poor child's parents should be relegated to begging for charity, which is not a stable source of support, or be expected to find a job that pays a living wage when there aren't enough of those to go around.

Just because someone doesn't think the government should do something, doesn't mean they don't think it should be done.

The disadvantaged should be taken care of. We all have a moral obligation to help each other.

Unfortunately, it appears that many people on this thread can't be counted on to do the right thing, without the threat of punishment.

No doubt, people have been conditioned to believe that help can only come in the form of government assistance.

"It protects those arbitrarily dealt good cards, and leaves those arbitrarily dealt bad cards to die."

This sums up what I've always thought about Libertarianism. It sounds lovely on the surface, but not surprising its most vocal supporters are the rich or well off.

It is the "I'm alright, Jack" ethos taken to the extreme.

Eilzel wrote:"It protects those arbitrarily dealt good cards, and leaves those arbitrarily dealt bad cards to die."

This sums up what I've always thought about Libertarianism. It sounds lovely on the surface, but not surprising its most vocal supporters are the rich or well off.

It is the "I'm alright, Jack" ethos taken to the extreme.

Funny. You would think the libertarian party would be more popular amongst the wealthy.

But it's not.

Do you know why that is?

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:"It protects those arbitrarily dealt good cards, and leaves those arbitrarily dealt bad cards to die."

This sums up what I've always thought about Libertarianism. It sounds lovely on the surface, but not surprising its most vocal supporters are the rich or well off.

It is the "I'm alright, Jack" ethos taken to the extreme.

Funny. You would think the libertarian party would be more popular amongst the wealthy.

But it's not.  

Do you know why that is?

The party itself is, like any small party, always going to be dwarfed by the big 2.

But I get the feeling you wanted to give a big reveal; so go ahead, why is it not more popular among the wealthy?

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Funny. You would think the libertarian party would be more popular amongst the wealthy.

But it's not.  

Do you know why that is?

The party itself is, like any small party, always going to be dwarfed by the big 2.

But I get the feeling you wanted to give a big reveal; so go ahead, why is it not more popular among the wealthy?

The wealthy prosper by using their money to manipulate the government. When the government is extremely large and powerful, it's important to have a great deal of influence in the government.

When the government is very small, it's of no use trying to manipulate it. That's why the folks that created our country put so many checks and balances in, and decentralized it. They had seen what the concentration of power in national capitols had done to Europe.

As for being dwarfed, we have had other parties come and go. There is no reason the libertarian party couldn't replace one of the other two, if libertarianism actually benefitted the wealthy. But that mischaracterization is patently false, so we wont see a party of rich libertarians any time soon.

Eilzel wrote:"It protects those arbitrarily dealt good cards, and leaves those arbitrarily dealt bad cards to die."

This sums up what I've always thought about Libertarianism. It sounds lovely on the surface, but not surprising its most vocal supporters are the rich or well off.

It is the "I'm alright, Jack" ethos taken to the extreme.

So, you would support a form of government, where only those born to poverty, or have some handicap are given benefits?

I'm OK with that. Like I said, I've never been a pure anarchist. I don't mind a safety net for those in need.

But the rest of us, can go about leading our lives, taxed a small amount for the poor, and a few basic services.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:"It protects those arbitrarily dealt good cards, and leaves those arbitrarily dealt bad cards to die."

This sums up what I've always thought about Libertarianism. It sounds lovely on the surface, but not surprising its most vocal supporters are the rich or well off.

It is the "I'm alright, Jack" ethos taken to the extreme.

So, you would support a form of government, where only those born to poverty, or have some handicap are given benefits?

I'm OK with that. Like I said, I've never been a pure anarchist. I don't mind a safety net for those in need.

But the rest of us, can go about leading our lives, taxed a small amount for the poor, and a few basic services.

I believe in a system which provides affordable or free healthcare for all, regardless of income. I believe in a system which provides for the elderly, regardless of how much they earned throughout their lives. And a system which maintain a decent infrastructure and quality levels of education.

Tax should basically amount to enough to cover these things (plus, military, police etc.). Whether that is a 'small' amount or not is debatable.

It is a safety net, but it's also a provision for ALL people. That's a system I believe in.

I'd prefer to pay for health care and education than police ...

By the time we all get a choice it's not as simple as Libertarian make it sound. if gov't represent everyone equally then you got to get rid of police and militarily if your going to get rid of the more important things like Health and education.

veya_victaous wrote:I'd prefer to pay for health care and education than police ...

By the time we all get a choice it's not as simple as Libertarian make it sound. if gov't represent everyone equally then you got to get rid of police and militarily if your going to get rid of the more important things like Health and education.

Do they have to be exclusive?

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So, you would support a form of government, where only those born to poverty, or have some handicap are given benefits?

I'm OK with that. Like I said, I've never been a pure anarchist. I don't mind a safety net for those in need.

But the rest of us, can go about leading our lives, taxed a small amount for the poor, and a few basic services.

I believe in a system which provides affordable or free healthcare for all, regardless of income. I believe in a system which provides for the elderly, regardless of how much they earned throughout their lives. And a system which maintain a decent infrastructure and quality levels of education.

Tax should basically amount to enough to cover these things (plus, military, police etc.). Whether that is a 'small' amount or not is debatable.

It is a safety net, but it's also a provision for ALL people. That's a system I believe in.

Ok, then you want to support even those not born to some disadvantage. Not just those that were dealt a bad hand.  

You're no longer allowed to be a citizen of my small, freedom loving country, when I start it.

Maddog wrote:You're no longer allowed to be a citizen of my small, freedom loving country, when I start it.

We don't need another banana republic.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:You're no longer allowed to be a citizen of my small, freedom loving country, when I start it.

  We don't need another banana republic.

Banana Republics are always authoritarian.

That's not my gig.

Maddog wrote:Just because someone doesn't think the government should do something, doesn't mean they don't think it should be done.

The disadvantaged should be taken care of. We all have a moral obligation to help each other.

Unfortunately, it appears that many people on this thread can't be counted on to do the right thing, without the threat of punishment.

No doubt, people have been conditioned to believe that help can only come in the form of government assistance.      

I've seen figures of how many Americans were poor before welfare vs. after, and welfare helped better than charity did. I go by the facts.

If there were something that worked better than welfare, I'd want to drop welfare and go to the new thing. I just want poor people helped, I really don't care whether the government is doing it or not, so long as it's effective.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:

Maddog wrote:Just because someone doesn't think the government should do something, doesn't mean they don't think it should be done.

The disadvantaged should be taken care of. We all have a moral obligation to help each other.

Unfortunately, it appears that many people on this thread can't be counted on to do the right thing, without the threat of punishment.

No doubt, people have been conditioned to believe that help can only come in the form of government assistance.      

I've seen figures of how many Americans were poor before welfare vs. after, and welfare helped better than charity did. I go by the facts.

If there were something that worked better than welfare, I'd want to drop welfare and go to the new thing. I just want poor people helped, I really don't care whether the government is doing it or not, so long as it's effective.

Poverty was dropping throughout the US prior to the "Great Society". It continued to drop for a few more years.

It's remained largely unchanged for decades, even after Clinton helped change welfare laws and kicked folks off the rolls.

And, I support you in you wanting to help the poor. Fell free to do whatever you like to help them better themselves and their lot in life.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So, you would support a form of government, where only those born to poverty, or have some handicap are given benefits?

I'm OK with that. Like I said, I've never been a pure anarchist. I don't mind a safety net for those in need.

But the rest of us, can go about leading our lives, taxed a small amount for the poor, and a few basic services.

I believe in a system which provides affordable or free healthcare for all, regardless of income. I believe in a system which provides for the elderly, regardless of how much they earned throughout their lives. And a system which maintain a decent infrastructure and quality levels of education.

Tax should basically amount to enough to cover these things (plus, military, police etc.). Whether that is a 'small' amount or not is debatable.

It is a safety net, but it's also a provision for ALL people. That's a system I believe in.

Ok, then you want to support even those not born to some disadvantage. Not just those that were dealt a bad hand.  

You're no longer allowed to be a citizen of my small, freedom loving country, when I start it.

I don't think I'd much like your country tbf

I prefer everyone is treated the same; not throwing scraps to the poor to make the well off feel they are doing something

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Ok, then you want to support even those not born to some disadvantage. Not just those that were dealt a bad hand.  

You're no longer allowed to be a citizen of my small, freedom loving country, when I start it.

I don't think I'd much like your country tbf

I prefer everyone is treated the same; not throwing scraps to the poor to make the well off feel they are doing something

Nah, you prefer forced sharing at the end of a gun.

It's OK. Some folks need the strong hand of government to make them be compassionate towards others.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I don't think I'd much like your country tbf

I prefer everyone is treated the same; not throwing scraps to the poor to make the well off feel they are doing something

Nah, you prefer forced sharing at the end of a gun.

It's OK. Some folks need the strong hand of government to make them be compassionate towards others.  

How are people being forced?

The reason you say that is you have never been brought up in the Uk, with a free health service and a proper social welfare system

Its like the video points out

Place yourself into a situation, without the many things you take for granted. As this is the point where you failed to use empathic intelligence. You cannot actually do this, because if you did, you would see the sense in a free health service and social welfare benefits

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Nah, you prefer forced sharing at the end of a gun.

It's OK. Some folks need the strong hand of government to make them be compassionate towards others.  

How are people being forced?

The reason you say that is you have never been brought up in the Uk, with a free health service and a proper social welfare system

Its like the video points out

Place yourself into a situation, without the many things you take for granted. As this is the point where you failed to use empathic intelligence. You cannot actually do this, because if you did, you would see the sense in a free health service and social welfare benefits

Can you opt out of paying into health care and a social welfare system?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

How are people being forced?

The reason you say that is you have never been brought up in the Uk, with a free health service and a proper social welfare system

Its like the video points out

Place yourself into a situation, without the many things you take for granted. As this is the point where you failed to use empathic intelligence. You cannot actually do this, because if you did, you would see the sense in a free health service and social welfare benefits

Can you opt out of paying into health care and a social welfare system?

No, as the system is there for all citizens through paying tax and national insurance

Why would you want to opt out?

Anyway I am going to bed

Night maddog

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Can you opt out of paying into health care and a social welfare system?

No, as the system is there for all citizens through paying tax and national insurance

Why would you want to opt out?

So it's forced.

Maybe you think you could be more helpful outside of the system?

The point it, opting out is not an option, therefore there is nothing noble about doing what the fuck you're told.

You don't get an attaboy for paying your taxes.

Only for doing things not required of you.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

No, as the system is there for all citizens through paying tax and national insurance

Why would you want to opt out?

So it's forced.

Maybe you think you could be more helpful outside of the system?

The point it, opting out is not an option, therefore there is nothing noble about doing what the fuck you're told.

You don't get an attaboy for paying your taxes.

Only for doing things not required of you.    

Its something the people voted for democratically in this country to do with the NHS

Systems do not pay for themselves. hence people pay contributions fairly to the system, based off what they earn.

Which is the major point here. How can people not earn or start buisnesses, without outside money and help themselves?

You see your whole argument is one born from sheer ignorance

You would not be educated, if not for a paid system or had inovative people before past on their knowledge.

Societies have more progressed with collective wealth placed into innovations and new ideas.

Your close grouped societies are the ones that end up stagnating and hardly ever advance. Which has been replicted throughout history

The worst part of your argument, is you are then forcing your own small system of Governement on to children in that society who have no chocie but to live under basically Communist communities

I mean that is what Libertarian really is, its simple a form of marxism

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So it's forced.

Maybe you think you could be more helpful outside of the system?

The point it, opting out is not an option, therefore there is nothing noble about doing what the fuck you're told.

You don't get an attaboy for paying your taxes.

Only for doing things not required of you.    

Its something the people voted for democratically in this country to do with the NHS

Systems do not pay for themselves. hence people pay contributions fairly to the system, based off what they earn.

Which is the major point here. How can people not earn or start buisnesses, without outside money and help themselves?

You see your whole argument is one born from sheer ignorance

You would not be educated, if not for a paid system or had inovative people before past on their knowledge.

Societies have more progressed with collective wealth placed into innovations and new ideas.

Your close grouped societies are the ones that end up stagnating and hardly ever advance. Which has been replicted throughout history

The worst part of your argument, is you are then  forcing your own small system of Governement on to children in that society who have no chocie but to live under basically Communist communities

I mean that is what Libertarian really is, its simple a form of marxism

So I have to do what the majority want me to do, or I go to jail, even though I have harmed no one.

Are you saying people won't give money to things they deem valuable?

Why do people send their kids to private schools?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

Its something the people voted for democratically in this country to do with the NHS

Systems do not pay for themselves. hence people pay contributions fairly to the system, based off what they earn.

Which is the major point here. How can people not earn or start buisnesses, without outside money and help themselves?

You see your whole argument is one born from sheer ignorance

You would not be educated, if not for a paid system or had inovative people before past on their knowledge.

Societies have more progressed with collective wealth placed into innovations and new ideas.

Your close grouped societies are the ones that end up stagnating and hardly ever advance. Which has been replicted throughout history

The worst part of your argument, is you are then  forcing your own small system of Governement on to children in that society who have no chocie but to live under basically Communist communities

I mean that is what Libertarian really is, its simple a form of marxism

So I have to do what the majority want me to do, or I go to jail, even though I have harmed no one.

Are you saying people won't give money to things they deem valuable?  

Why do people send their kids to private schools?  

You dont have to do anything. There is many white supremacy gun nuts that lead lone life out in the outback of the US

You even have the Amish

People who do not work, do not pay tax or nationali insurance

So you clearly do have options

Where did I claim people do not give money to things they deem valuable?

Depends what they believe is valuable

Why do people send their kids to private schools? They have an elitist ethos.

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So I have to do what the majority want me to do, or I go to jail, even though I have harmed no one.

Are you saying people won't give money to things they deem valuable?  

Why do people send their kids to private schools?  

You dont have to do anything. There is many white supremacy gun nuts that lead lone life out in the outback of the US

You even have the Amish

People who do not work, do not pay tax or nationali insurance

So you clearly do have options

Where did I claim people do not give money to things they deem valuable?

Depends what they believe is valuable

Why do people send their kids to private schools? They have an elitist ethos.

The Amish pay taxes.

Everyone does. Even if you're a white gun nut.

It's not an option.

So the poor mothers who take their kids out of sub par public schools and send them to private schools are elitist?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

You dont have to do anything. There is many white supremacy gun nuts that lead lone life out in the outback of the US

You even have the Amish

People who do not work, do not pay tax or nationali insurance

So you clearly do have options

Where did I claim people do not give money to things they deem valuable?

Depends what they believe is valuable

Why do people send their kids to private schools? They have an elitist ethos.

The Amish pay taxes.

Everyone does. Even if you're a white gun nut.

It's not an option.

So the poor mothers who take their kids out of sub par public schools and send them to private schools are elitist?  

They dont pay social security taxs and gun nuts that live off the land, pay no tax, as they do not work

So it is an option

Yes they are elitist, as what is wrong with the education in the other schools?

I mean those kids getting a scholarship to said school, had what to do with that private school?

Was it based on them doing well in that, what do you call it, sub-par school?

Was it because the child was excellent academically?

This is one of the problems I see with the education system?

Why does that kid, need to go to that school?

Because the US system, and the UK, is based upon an elitist school hierarchy. When it should never be that way

People should get into schools and Universities based on abilities and taught on their ability levels. To help them improve, not wealth being the factor

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Ok, then you want to support even those not born to some disadvantage. Not just those that were dealt a bad hand.  

You're no longer allowed to be a citizen of my small, freedom loving country, when I start it.

I don't think I'd much like your country tbf

I prefer everyone is treated the same; not throwing scraps to the poor to make the well off feel they are doing something

Nah, you prefer forced sharing at the end of a gun.

It's OK. Some folks need the strong hand of government to make them be compassionate towards others.  

A typical libertarian hyperbolic statement.

I understand the point however.

But yes, many well off and rich people wouldn't think to fund health services or a universal pension system for the less fortunate out of their own pocket. If you could ask the Victorian and early 20th century poor and working class this, they'd tell you as much themselves.

So a system is needed to make it happen.

See, the libertarian right see taxes and national insurance as the state brutally forcing people to hand over cash for the 'underdeserving poor', people who either a) are lazy, b) aren't good enough or c) want something for nothing. And in all cases should be happy with whatever rich individuals feel like giving.

Whereas social liberals see taxes and NI as a way of pulling together as a society, doing what we can for the good of our fellow citizens. We understand not everyone has had the opportunities we have and needs support. We understand wealth shouldn't determine whether you get good health care or not. And we understand that in the worst case scenario, we might end up needing that support ourselves.

We also understand that, as was the case in pre-welfare society, the rich do NOT willingly support the poor in sufficient numbers required to maintain these services.

I watched most of video, and whilst I find that chap quite pleasant, I do think he's stating the obvious a bit.

I'm not bothered whether libertarianism is selfish or not, the point is that those who do not want to pay taxes don't take into account that taxes are also benefitting themselves.

Sure, a lot of people, including myself, complain about taxes - after all, we'd all be better off superficially if we didn't pay them, and we probably all know someone who gets something for nothing in the way of benefits or whatever. Those without children may well resent having to pay for schooling for children, but those children will one day be paying for those people to have State pensions. Some might resent paying NI for others to have benefits or a lot of free health treatment, but one day those people may well need a lot of treatment themselves.

Rubbish doesn't collect itself, roads don't mend themselves, and hospitals don't run on thin air. All these things have to be paid for, and those who pay taxes also benefit from them.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

  We don't need another banana republic.

Banana Republics are always authoritarian.

That's not my gig.

So is Libertarianism. All individual ethics devolve into authoritarianism, just as all capitalism devolves into monopoly.

The true state of freedom is unstable. All spinning tops lose their stability.