Libertarianism is a morally bankrupt political philosophy.

Put this on Facebook, but I' putting it here too.

Libertarianism is a morally bankrupt political philosophy.

It's consistently disappointing to me when I discover that certain circles I run in have people who think libertarian ideas are credible, who think it's okay to let people starve in the street, die from curable medical problems or die from exposure because they don't have anywhere to live, who think, in short, that's it's okay for people to die because they are poor. Because when you say the government shouldn't take care of people who are too poor to take care of themselves, that is what you're saying.

And when I realize that I can't get this through to people, that they won't listen, I get sick to my stomach. It makes me physically ill. And I don't know what to do about it.

Comments

symmetry

> And when I realize that I can't get this through to people, that they won't listen, I get sick to my stomach.

So you argue with them, and they don't change, and they argue with you, and you don't change...and the problem is 100% on their side?

Hmmm. Interesting.

You're acting like the

You're acting like the arguments are equal, and they're not.

But then, you're not actually addressing the content of what I wrote at all. Just being like a Creationist telling people to 'teach the controversy' as if both sides were equally valid.

you have two options, the

you have two options, the first to cuss these people out for being ignorant fucking assholes like I do and you complain about me doing, but fuck dude sometimes its the only rational response.

your second option is to rock this shit:
http://youtu.be/3y0Yo3yZrPA

These are not mutually exclusive courses of action.

Who the Fuck Cares!

Your political mindset doesn't fucking matter: Liberal, conservative, Libertarian, Communism, Socialism, Capitalism are all primitive ideologies! All of these ideologies are based on scarcity and market economies, which are morally bankrupt. It's like talking about what religion is better, it doesn't fucking matter.

How about we move towards a RESOURCE based economy that has abundance for everyone. It's based off technology, there's no money, no politics, no corporations and small councils instead of big murdering governments. This is the next phase of humanity: www.zeitgeistmovie.com

The Zeitgeist movement is a

The Zeitgeist movement is a morass of unworkable utopianism. I would love it if someone could get a Zeitgeist type society to work, but I think the most likely result of an attempt would be like most attempts at radical utopian change: a bloody revolution and a failed state full of poverty and death.

you're an idiot. communism is

you're an idiot. communism is specifically opposed to markets. the notion of a resource based economy is incoherent because it fails to understand the relationship between production and consumption of commodities. and if i was going to join a cult, it would be the raelians because at least they've got hot strippers who believe in free love as a major part of their contingency.

Your arguments are not always

Your arguments are not always valid, I would say that most libertarians are in favor of independent or private organizations helping those in need, but I don't know most libertarians. The ones I do personally know, myself included, are in favor of private organizations (i.e. churches, community activist groups) helping the needy. The problem, at least in America, arises when the federal government gets involved in something like that because they have no enumerated right to do so, If each individual state did it, no big deal, to each their own, but the United States Federal Government doesn't have that right because it's not enumerated in The Constitution and 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights says that any power not specifically granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, is reserved to the state or the individual. Outside the United States I cannot speak for the situations there, but again the basic premise of libertarianism isn't to let people die, it's less government involvement. If there was less government involvement in things like monetary food assistance programs, let's say for instance that the federal government didn't have an office that dictated policy on this program, that would mean more money in the federal budget (because we would have less federal employees to pay salaries, less paper to buy for forms etc), or less taxes that need to be collected. This frees up either 1) more money that the state or local government entities could collect from it's constituents and dole out to the needy or 2) more disposable income that each person would have to possibly donate to community action organizations or churches who are there to help the needy.

The problem with private

The problem with private organizations being responsible for feeding the poor, is what happens if the private organization runs out of money? Then the poor are up shit creek.

The problem with only states feeding the poor is what is the state decides not to do so? Then the poor are up shit creek.

Whether or not the government has the "enumerated right" to feed the poor is a matter for the Supreme Court. But as far as I know, the Supreme Court hasn't yet said that the government doesn't have that right.

how bout you leave the

how bout you leave the constitutional stuff to me...

You act like you've studied

You act like you've studied constitutional law in a formal setting or something...

yeah i know, me and my big

yeah i know, me and my big head and my absurd collection of meaningless sheepskin. fucking college educated intellectuals.

Tim, if you think the last 80

Tim, if you think the last 80 years of American history was socialism, then you have no idea what the word socialism means.

Consider this: http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/

Again, if you think socialism

Again, if you think socialism and fascism are the same thing then you don't know what either of those words mean. Everything your saying here is from some kind of confused ideology that doesn't have anything to do with reality.

Look, you want to go back to when we didn't have things like progressive income tax, government regulation and welfare? Is that what you're calling socialism? (That isn't, by itself, socialism btw, but I can't be sure what YOU think is socialism because you're not naming specifics.) Well, you can go back to the late 19th century when you had constant boom-and-bust economic cycles, 16-hour workdays for the poor, child labor and all the other things the progressive era existed to eliminate. You can say whatever you want about "human nature", the fact is that progressive politics have made the country a much better place and I for one am grateful for it.

"Also, are you saying that

"Also, are you saying that socialist are purely responsible for ending 16 hour workdays, child labor and so on?"

No, I'm saying progressives did those things and that's what we have in this country, progressivism, not socialism. We don't have socialism in this country. You're not actually reading what I'm saying and I don't know what I'm bothering with saying it for.

You want to know what books I

You want to know what books I read as a libertarian? Wouldn't it be better to get the books that convinced me NOT to be a libertarian. Read the Conscience of a Liberal by Paul Krugman.

Yes, there were progressive Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. And they were much better leaders than the Republicans we have now, who have been poisoned by Reagan's toxic chalice into believing that it's okay if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

everything you hsay here is

everything you hsay here is just factually incorrect. at some point you need to stop just spinniing your own theories and ideas based on the bits and pieces you pick up on the internet and whatnot and actually read a book, because seriously, the fact that this stuff is all just shash that you're making up to try to win a fight is painfully obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the history of fascism and socialism in europe. your whole theory is predicated on the notion that the fat cats are actually worht something and are responsible for creating their own wealth. They are not. That's a myth. They are exploiters and they can only exploit what they are allowed to exploit when they are successful at convincing yahoos like you that they actually serve some socially useful function and are not just taking up space.

The reason that violent revolution is so appealing is because frankly they've got you mooks so bamboozled that it would be so much easier to just kill the lot of them and probably the lot of you, their devoted catamites, into the bargain. Of course, that never has worked yet and there are good and obvious reasons why it cant' and why violent revolution, and revolution in general, have to be rejected as transformative goals. But the fact of the matter remains taht if the blight that is the bourgeoisie was wiped off the planet tomorrow, we wouldn't have loseta goddamn thing of real value.

see, this is why what you're

see, this is why what you're saying is ignorant, tim, you equate socialism with nationalization and nationalism, and while it is certainly true that one proposed method of enacting a socialist economy is through a planned economy, it's not the case that a planned economy is socialist. Saying that hitler and mussolini were socialists because the plans of Naziism and Fascism required strong central nationalist leadership and the central planning of a great deal of industry (although not all, plenty of private companies were allowed to grow and thrive in the third reich) just betrays the fact that ultimately you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

"Just to make a point here,

"Just to make a point here, what if the government runs out of money? where are the poor then?"

Explain to me how a government that can incur near limitless debt is capable of running out of money.

Also explain to me how the government is more prone to run out of money than private corporations who would be responsible for the poor if the government wasn't doing it, and who have repeatedly needed bailouts from the government.

god youre not just a

god youre not just a misinfomred troll, you're also an idiot. The left was up in arms about it. It was all over the place in the left. The left has been pissed off about drone warfare for YEARS now, and the right has only just discovered it because Rand Paul decided to use it as a way to grandstand.

Not that there was a good reason for all the new drone panic, though, because obviously there are limited circumstances where a military action on American soil would be legal, and in those circumstances it would not matter whether the person causing the military threat was a citizen or not. The porblem wth drones, the only problem with drones, is that a bunch of them are being operated in a military capacity by the CIA without congressional oversight. That's unconstitutional bullshit. But as for the rest of it, I really doubt that brown kids in Somalia or Yemen or Pakistan care one way or another if the pilot of the airplane blowing them up is riding inside the airplane or not.

this is a rambling incoherent

this is a rambling incoherent bit of nonsense that is apparently strung together out of constitutional law jargon words that you've picked up from reading wikipedia articles but don't really understand. The constitution doesn't give the government "enumerated rights." The enumerated rights are those rights that are specifically listed in the constitution. Free speech, keep and bear arms, surety against unlawful searches and seizures, those are enumerated rights. They are contrasted to unenumerated rights which are rights that we have but which are protected by the constitution anyway through it's guarantees of things like "liberty" and "equal protection" and variously defined "privileges and/or immunities."

What you are talking about is the "enumerated powers" of the federal government, which is a totally different issue. But not surprisingly you're completely wrong about that too, because it absolutely is within the enumerated powers of the federal government to provide domestic aid for poverty. It's the same power that allows disaster relief funds, the construction of major federal infrastructure projects, and all manner of other things, because congress found it is important for "domestic security" or that it was "necessary and proper" to do so in order to carry out their duty to uphold the constitution including the mandate of "securing the blessings of liberty"and "providing for common defense" among other things The arguments range pretty widely.

but that's neither here nor there, really, because it's clear that your interest in this is not that you have some deep and abiding respect for constitutional governance. if you had you'd probably have at least bothered to read the thing and know what the powers of the federal government are. No, you just don't like paying taxes and think that you deserve to keep all the money you make, and you have no responsibility to other people that should be forced on you. Which, frankly, is precisely the reason you dicks need to be made to pay your share, because otherwise you wouldn't.

It is possible to work

It is possible to work towards a more equitable society and we should do so because it's better for everyone.

you're not just wrong, you're

you're not just wrong, you're also obnoxious.

only when dealing with trolls

only when dealing with trolls like you, Tim.

Just because a government

Just because a government says its socialist or communist or democractic, that doesn't mean it is any of those things. This is pretty basic dude. The PRC has never been communist and has only ever managed to function because it adopted a form of state capitalism similar to stalinism.

Yes, Richard Nixon was such a

Yes, Richard Nixon was such a socialist.

Tim, I doubt you actually give a damn, but when you just talk out of your ass like this, you make yourself look stupider than you really are. The civil war wasn't about states rights, it was about slavery. America has bits and pieces of socialist programs, but a socialist economy requires worker control of the means of production. We have no such thing in the united states and the growing wealth inequality is a direct result of the failure to control for the excesses of capitalism in any other way either. there is a difference between "protection from the government" and your idiotic red herring of the nanny state and a simple recognition that people can act in concert to achieve a better social order than the one we have. That's "THE GOVERNMENT" and yr lame ass reagan era cold war binary world where the american ideal is realized anarcho-capitalism in the minimal control of enlightened leaders who know just enough not to do anything is tired and boring and I'm sick of hearing about it.

don't put words in my mouth

don't put words in my mouth you insufferable piece of shit.

i have not now nor have i

i have not now nor have i ever advocated communism, enlightened or otherwise. communism could never work in practice and is best understood as an thought experiment postulated to show a moral principle about the nature of economic equality. I'm an advocate of democratic market socialism wherein the workers control the means of production and public goods are managed democratically by the government in trust for everyone equally. It might as well be classical liberalism, what I believe in is so goddamn close to liberte egalite fraternite. The flaw in libertarianism is that it forgets about the other two values central to american style civic republicanism, which is very much a workable system that can function perfectly well if everyone is an informed participant in it.

Government just might not be the answer

I think the fallacy of your argument is in assuming that government is the or the only answer to the world's ills. I think many libertarians believe in charity but they don't accept the idea that government should be the entity that is in charge of it. Thus, you don't have to be morally bankrupt to be a libertarian, you just have to get past the idea that government is supreme.