Strangest ideas espoused by U.S. libertarians

Having run into a number of these types on forums in the past, I have done a lot of research into the political ideology and I can confirm that these really are libertarian ideas -- they like to downplay them, but they can't completely run from them and if you press them enough, they'll try to justify them.

At the source is the "reasoning" behind these bizarre notions:

1. Parents should be allowed to let their children starve to death.

2. We must deregulate companies like Uber, even when they cheat.

3. We should eliminate Social Security and Medicare.

4. Society doesn't have the right to enforce basic justice in public places of business.

5. Selflessness is vile.

6. Democracy is unacceptable, especially since we began feeding poor people and allowing women to vote.

7. We can replace death with libertarianism.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/The-7-Strangest-Libertaria-by-Richard--RJ-Esko-Ideas_Libertarian_Libertarianism_Political-140829-863.html

I'd say number seven is probably about right.......

  IT SHOULD also be remembered that on the 'political spectrum' Libertarianism is right-of-centre conservative-oriented philosophy...  Even more interesting when you check where they sit on the "political compass" matrix..

They are not a "liberal" or lefty movement by any stretch of the imagination; but instead the "liberalism" in their agenda has more to do with the rights of the individual (and they consider businesses to have the same "rights" as real people..) taking precedence over everything else, and capital is king with those nutjobs..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29

Hence their fringe lunatic ideas as portrayed in the O/P; (the only people who would try and describe them as "left wing" would be the most extreme Tea-baggers and nationalists in the US madlands..).

victorisnotamused wrote:I'd say number seven is probably about right.......

it would be better to replace Libertarianism with Slavery
the Irony would be delicious....

I'm 100% sure these People only believe that rubbish because they think of themselves holding it over others
So I say lets embrace their system as long as they agree to be on the very bottom and of course they loss all the rights because that is the Libertarian way... but since they think it is cool and they will be able to work their way up with 'hard work' they shouldn't have a problem.

When can we start treating these people with the same contempt that we treat ISIS

They think if we enacted their society, the poor would actually do better:

http://www.ruwart.com/poverty.lpn.wpd.html

What's funny is that we have stats on poverty before and after many countries began their welfare programs, and in every country poverty has gone down.



I think they're a lot less about their notions of individual liberty and a lot more of what many writers call them, a cult that worships capitalism.

@ben

I think they are just Idiots plain and simple....

they like some guy on TV cause he says vote for the guy their Grandpappy used to vote for.... then they throw 100% trust behind this and a systematically ripped off but left just enough to be a viable voter. they actually think they are Better off With their 'Freedom' even when that freedom specifically means eating food other nations say is unfit for consumption by dogs!
As much as some of it could be opinion more and more it is not opinion any more. it is just someone that cant count parroting lies that heard on TV. Opinions mean absolutely Nothing in the face of Facts... Something they struggle with... It doesn't matter if you feel "whatever" if  the numbers say you're wrong YOU ARE WRONG.

  "TRUE Believers" do come in many forms and colours, don't they...

CONSIDER anybody who believes wholeheartedly and unquestionably in such "fringe loony" subjects as, for example :
* Libertarianism, Liberalism, the Tea Party, Lyndon Larouche/the Citizens' Electoral Council;
* Stalinist and Maoist communism;
* "Economic Rationalism" (aka "Reagonomics"/"Thatcherisms"), and their disproven "trickle down" theories;
* Homeopathy and naturopathy; faith healing and "all natural" cancer cures;
* Racial superiority, Eugenics, nationalism, KKK;
* Creationism;
* 'Fundamentalism' in any religions;
* Satan, Satanism; "black and white magic";
* Alien abductions, "Area 51"; the coming alien invasion..

ALL 'as mad as Hatters' in their own peculiar ways.

Lone Wolf wrote:   "TRUE Believers" do come in many forms and colours, don't they...

CONSIDER anybody who believes wholeheartedly and unquestionably in such "fringe loony" subjects as, for example :
* Libertarianism, Liberalism, the Tea Party, Lyndon Larouche/the Citizens' Electoral Council;
* Stalinist and Maoist communism;
* "Economic Rationalism" (aka "Reagonomics"/"Thatcherisms"), and their disproven "trickle down" theories;
* Homeopathy and naturopathy; faith healing and "all natural" cancer cures;
* Racial superiority, Eugenics, nationalism, KKK;
* Creationism;
* 'Fundamentalism' in any religions;
* Satan, Satanism; "black and white magic";
* Alien abductions, "Area 51"; the coming alien invasion..

ALL 'as mad as Hatters' in their own peculiar ways.

And don't forget chiropractors.

Chupacabra is real!

Ben_Reilly wrote:Chupacabra is real!

Pfft :aspffftas:

it is just a shaved Drop-bear

:asboredas:

MY CAT caught some sort of baby possum the other day (either a Ring-tail or some kind of Sugar Glider..), and dropped it's mangled corpse in the hallway to show it off...

Probably could have mounted that corpse, and started a new religion/belief system/philosophy around it..    
::alahoo::

Sorry, should have explained that "chupacabra is real" was a debate I nearly had with a third-grader ... until I realized I was about to get into a debate with a third-grader

What is there to debate??? did they not know it was a shaved Drop Bear?

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Drop-Bear




::troll::


I wish Drop bears Ate MORE Cats... Stupid Possum Murdering Cats.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sorry, should have explained that "chupacabra is real" was a debate I nearly had with a third-grader ... until I realized I was about to get into a debate with a third-grader

I know, I have thought like that. But they don't work unless you provide context. A journalist major, eh? You should know that.

Now, on the other hand, bigfoot...

Bigfoot,  Sasquatch - USA and Canada;
Yeti, (Mah-teh) - "Abominable Snowman" of Tibet and Nepal;
Yowie, Mullum' man - mythical monsters in indigenous Australian legends...

Different places and times, different cultures ~ similar legends..


"Bigfoot" footprints in snow are easily explained, though !   Leave some bootprints one day ~ then check back the next day after they've had a few hours sun on them, and observe how they melt..  

...we have stats on poverty before and after many countries began their welfare programs, and in every country poverty has gone down.

I don’t’ claim loyalty or membership to any political parties or affiliations so, with that being said, I don’t want anyone to mistake my rebuttal as being politically motivated. My response is founded in objectively assessing available information without wanting/seeking an ideological spin to mitigate potentially politically-damaging points.

I would strongly have to disagree with you on your point. Your chart measures Absolute Poverty up to 1991, and relative poverty up to 1997. A lot has occurred in the 23 and 17 respective years since.

Obama is arguably the most left-leaning president the US has ever had. He also uses class warfare as a platform for his campaign. Despite his incessant promises of improving the lives of the less fortunate, he has created more of them.

Despite years of railing about income inequality, the poor are no better off today than they were when President Obama took office in 2008.

About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line and a record 47 million of them — 13 million more than when the president assumed office — receive food stamps, The Washington Times reports (1). The federal government defines the poverty line as a family of four earning $23,550.
…
About 50 million Americans live below the poverty line, which the federal government defined in 2013 as an annual income of $23,550 for a family of four (2).

In 2007, the year before Obama took office, the poverty rate was 12.5 percent.

http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/poverty-line-grows-under/2014/01/08/id/545892/#ixzz3CBNOILSk

Supplemental links from within the article:
1) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/7/obamas-rhetoric-on-fighting-poverty-doesnt-match-h/
2) http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm



Bottom line, poverty rates and welfare recipient rates have soared since Obama expanded these programs. The cause/effect relationship is clear: there is no incentive to be a productive member of society when you have a government that will siphon funds from productive members of society and give them to those that refuse to work, or refuse to become part of the skilled workforce. The government is effectively enabling this mindset and attitude, in addition to disincentivising recipients from entering the workforce. Doubtful? Just take a look at the Dept of Labor's unemployment reports for the past 10 years.

We can look outside of the US for further proof of this. Just look at Venezuela and it's steadily decaying infrastructure and standard of loving.
Not long ago, the EU faced a financial meltdown. This crisis was predicated by the most socialist governments in the union. Greece, Spain, France, et al….
The only nation that wasn’t upside-down in their finances was Germany. Why? Because Germany embraced the capitalist system and their politicians didn’t offer unsustainable “freebies” to those that didn’t feel they should have to get a job. That meltdown should have given proponents of the socialist system a moment to pause and reevaluate their position. History is riddled with failed socio-economic policies that hinge on a socialist (or semi-socialist) government.

Socialism doesn’t work. By all means, we should give the needy and disabled a helping hand. But we shouldn’t form a society that is dependent on the government for things we should be doing for ourselves.

@ "IndependentThoughts"

YOU don't half spout a load of self-righteous right-wing bullshit !!!

Call yourself "IndependentThought", and yet all you posted above is yet more Tea party inspired crappola.. AND not an ounce of any empirical evidence to back any of your corporate-fascist claims..

I seriously doubt that you're even capable of thinking clearly for yourself, after looking at that rubbish you posted !!!

GREECE a "socialist" state ? You really don't have a clue !

Lone Wolf,
You’re apparently a very passionate activist/supporter of socialist style governments. So, why not discuss your opinions from a rational and factual standpoint, instead of lowering the quality of discourse with immature name calling and angry rants that would lead one to believe you forgot to take your meds? I’m sure we can have a mutual and beneficial discussion without the 3rd grade nonsense you’ve put on display.

If I’ve asserted anything that was not factual or, at the very least, based on fact, then please feel free to show me where I’ve done so. I think we can all learn from a discussion that addresses the merits of others’ posts. A bitterly emotional and anger-laced rant, such as the one you submitted, does nothing to foster an honest intellectual discussion and only paints you as someone that is only “open-minded” to other views so long as they’re congruent with your own. The one thing I’ve always found to be curiously distasteful of political-wing fanatics is how they demonize and slander anyone and everyone that don’t share their same point of view. This is very sad, indeed, and displays their inability to think outside of their ideological playbook.

How about we try to be more respectful to others? Sound good to you?

GREECE a "socialist" state ? You really don't have a clue !

I can assure you I have clues… as well as links to help you find them, too. I don’t mind sharing. I think being informed is much better than being misinformed or under-informed, of which I believe you fall into the latter two.

Published Oct. 7, 2009
Greece's new Socialist government was formally sworn in Wednesday, and now most get to grips with pledges to revive a rapidly cooling economy compromised by excess state spending and a soaring public debt.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/greek-socialist-government-sworn-in/


Here is a 12-minute clip that does a tremendous job explaining the European Debt Crisis. Please note how the points I’ve laid out in my previous succinct post are perfectly echoed in this short but well-explained mini-documentary.
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/the-european-debt-crisis-visualized-iPA3~AbsSGG89LOGkkd~RA.html

Note the significant role that Greece’s deficit spending to cover enormous and unsustainable entitlement programs led to its collapse. Facts are our friends.

IT, going into debt in order to pay for so-called "unsustainable" social programs is obviously not part and parcel of the system under which the needy are supported by tax money. It's actually an outgrowth of two things that cannot be sustained at the same time -- low taxes coupled with social spending. Governments are obviously pulled in two directions by the right and left so they often end up with spending programs without sufficient taxation to balance the budget.

As far as what's happened since the '90s, why don't you supply some figures? They're all readily available. If welfare failed in its mission since '91 or '97 then you should be able to show that poverty is now higher than it was before welfare was implemented in any or all of the countries listed.

Ah, but you'd rather talk about whether welfare has created some sort of unsustainable debt problem than whether it has accomplished what it was designed to do? Fine -- but first you have to prove the axiomatic premise that debt is always a problem (it's not, especially for countries that are otherwise relatively stable).

A few other points:

* Obama is not anywhere close to being the furthest-left president the U.S. has had, not by a long shot! FDR was far, far more to the left than Obama, and you can make a pretty good case that so was LBJ, Kennedy and even Eisenhower, along with a good dozen or so others. Obama is only far left to those who've been indoctrinated into thinking that way -- say, by the good folks at NewsMax (really? NewsMax?).

* You can't just trot out a country like Venezuela, rife with corruption, and claim it as an example of socialism not working. No system works with rampant corruption. Sweden has next to no corruption and a fully functional system of justice, so their system of socialism works.

* Welfare is not about choosing dependency upon government over gainful employment:

A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

Welfare programs do what they're designed to do -- they keep people out of poverty, to the tune of millions here in the U.S.:



We need it because capitalism has failed to provide security for all -- pure and simple.

@IT
Greece's problem is not the socialist gov't but the lack of tax and simply put laziness...
UK and the rest of Europe has similar issues but to a lesser extent. Not enough entrepreneurial Spirit and Globalisation has opened you up to completion for the much more Entrepreneurial Americans (and to a lesser extent Austral-pacificans ) and the much harder working for lower pay Asians and Indians. Most of Europe has been resting on its laurels of the past centuries and letting the rest of the world not only catch up but start to move past it.
Honestly what economic factor does Greece have to Stop it being a 3rd world nation?

Ben Reilly wrote: Obama is not anywhere close to being the furthest-left president the U.S. has had, not by a long shot! FDR was far, far more to the left than Obama, and you can make a pretty good case that so was LBJ, Kennedy and even Eisenhower, along with a good dozen or so others. Obama is only far left to those who've been indoctrinated into thinking that way -- say, by the good folks at NewsMax (really? NewsMax?).

I was going to say...FDR is the first that comes to mind.  You have addressed the point Ben, so I won't belabor the matter.

These kind of tablet conclusions pay no attention to the dynamics, or what is going on at the time.  It 's like reading a slice of bread, rather than looking down the loaf.  The McConnell-Boehner doctrine has prevented the administration from doing anything in the way of working the economy, the infrastructure or even foreign relations.  If 9/11 happened again today, Congress couldn't/wouldn't even pass a war bill.  It sees its role as working only to make sure the US fails domestically and globally while an African Democrat is in the Presidency.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote: Obama is not anywhere close to being the furthest-left president the U.S. has had, not by a long shot! FDR was far, far more to the left than Obama, and you can make a pretty good case that so was LBJ, Kennedy and even Eisenhower, along with a good dozen or so others. Obama is only far left to those who've been indoctrinated into thinking that way -- say, by the good folks at NewsMax (really? NewsMax?).

I was going to say...FDR is the first that comes to mind.  You have addressed the point Ben, so I won't belabor the matter.

These kind of tablet conclusions pay no attention to the dynamics, or what is going on at the time.  It 's like reading a slice of bread, rather than looking down the loaf.  The McConnell-Boehner doctrine has prevented the administration from doing anything in the way of working the economy, the infrastructure or even foreign relations.  If 9/11 happened again today, Congress couldn't/wouldn't even pass a war bill.  It sees its role as working only to make sure the US fails domestically and globally while an African Democrat is in the Presidency.

Well said. The only thing that I'd add is that it was dumb enough to announce this policy in the media, and still most people don't see it.

  I/T challenged me to point out the "non-fatual" points in yesterdays diatribe ?

HERE goes :

IndependentThoughts wrote:
* ...My response is founded in objectively assessing available information without wanting/seeking an ideological spin to mitigate potentially politically-damaging points.

* Obama is arguably the most left-leaning president the US has ever had......
Despite his incessant promises of improving the lives of the less fortunate, he has created more of them.  

* ...Bottom line, poverty rates and welfare recipient rates have soared since Obama expanded these programs.

* The cause/effect relationship is clear:  there is no incentive to be a productive member of society when you have a government that will siphon funds from productive members of society.....

* ....Not long ago, the EU faced a financial meltdown.  This crisis was predicated by the most socialist governments in the union.  Greece, Spain, France, et al….

* The only nation that wasn’t upside-down in their finances was Germany........

* History is riddled with failed socio-economic policies that hinge on a socialist (or semi-socialist) government.

* Socialism doesn’t work. By all means, we should give the needy and disabled a helping hand.  But we shouldn’t form a society that is dependent on the government for things we should be doing for ourselves.

  ALL of the above are either lies, misrepresentations or outright twisting of reality.

Further to this, I/T either hasn't bothered adding any real world evidence to back his opinions of why things are so; or else, sometimes he deliberately misuses and even misunderstands some stat's that he has presented here ~ such as the false concept of unemployment of Bush's era being lower, when the real "fact" is that the Bush regimes were good at attempting to hide the real and genuine (un)employment and poverty levels..

AND then there's his warped and self-serving ideas of how Europe got itself into the current financial doldrums...