Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: OWS versus Libertarianism

Posted 7 years ago on Dec. 17, 2011, 7:57 a.m. EST by aahpat (1407)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Extremist free market anti regulation libertarian economic philosophy, as practiced by the Republicans and too many Democrats for that past thirty years or more is what caused the financial collapse of the United States and our economy in 2008. Alan Greenspan and the Goldman-Sachs cabal, in successive administrations, goaded and cajoled the Congress into an every greater non-regulated state of banking anarchy leading inevitably to the predatory undermining of the American dream by stealing America's accumulated home equity. At the same time destroying the will of Americans to make their lives better with education by saddling young people with unsustainable private bank school loans in an economy offering ever fewer jobs to pay for the loans.

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act that repealed Glass-Steagall was the high water mark of this frenzy of blood sucking contempt for all human decency. But there were many laws passed that reflect a libertarian self-regulatory religious zealotry that empowered and enabled what amounts to an economic war on the middle-class and poverty oppressed of America.

In typical libertarian deflection and dishonesty Congressman, now U.S. senator, Toxic Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania defended, on the floor of the House in 1999, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the expanded use by banks fo what are now known as toxic derivative:

"The repeal of Glass-Steagall is necessary so that consumers can get the products and services they desire and American financial firms can compete in the global marketplace.

Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight just one small part of this sweeping legislation. I am particularly pleased that this bill includes an important provision regarding certain derivative transactions, especially credit and equity swaps. These somewhat obscure products are actually very important tools used by businesses, including financial service firms, to manage a variety of risks that they face. This bill reaffirms that swap contracts are legitimate bank products that can be executed and booked in banks and are adequately regulated by and will continue to be regulated by banking supervisors."

SEE: The Congress that Crashed America http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/congcrash.html

Libertarian philosophy in Congress first create these lax regulatory systems and and then underfund the regulators making disasters like the 2008 collapse inevitable.

I know that they will come to this thread and denounce with great dishonesty and disingenuous finger pointing at everyone but themselves but under it all it is the libertarian philosophy of crazies like r o n p a u l that is the cause that incited OWS into existence. Libertarianism is antithetical to everything that Occupy Wall Street is fighting for. Responsible government and democratic regulatory enforcement that protects Americans from social, political and financial predators.

Don't be fooled by the smooth talking of libertarian con men and liars. They want only the liberty to prey on Americans without the constraints of government oversight and regulation. The exact same under-regulated conditions that caused the great pillaging of America in 2008. Libertarians are the religious zealots of Wall Street's cult of economic extremism. They do not come to these forums to promote freedom. They come here to destroy freedom.

97 Comments

97 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by MoodDaddy (25) 7 years ago

I always thought they stood for liberty and freedom. The founding fathers were Libertarians who got many of their ideas from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

Delusions. Self affirming delusions.

Libertarian philosophy is the cause of America's problems NOT the solution. Even Ayn Rand's slave Alan Greenspan has admitted that his libertarianism is the cause of America's crash.

GO FUCK YOURSELVES libertarians!

[-] 4 points by Howtodoit (1232) 7 years ago

With all due respect aahpat, you shouldn't use those words to describe a fellow American--that's what makes this Country Great. Step back...Here's what's worth fighting for:

We have the Lawmakers and Financial Lobbyist to deal with, the ones who are against Reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, which was put into place by the Congress in 1933 to not only help Save America from the Great Depression, but also to prevent their "Financial Nightmare" from happening again to Future Generations. So much for that!

And after all, haven't the Wall Street Players made enough money? And, how many Billions have they lost of our money? And how much money did we spend to Bail them out?--I guess that's why they want to remain Unregulated! Here's a link I found that sums it up well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2nZbo8SKbg&NR=1

[-] 3 points by MoodDaddy (25) 7 years ago

So you believe the problem with America is freedom and anyone who does not agree should go FUCK themselves.

That tells me a lot about you.

[-] -1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 7 years ago

Great Post! Btw, Pat is following us on twitter! As you know, what I do, I do for all of us! Cheers OWS!

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

An iconic libertarian fraud. I found this on an Alternet forum post.

"Simple Google search:"Of the welfare state, the conservative philosopher and author Ayn Rand once wrote, "Morally and economically, the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull." As it turns out, however, toward the end of her life, Rand ended up relying quite heavily on its help.

According to the new book An Oral History of Ayn Rand, faced with lung cancer after a life spent smoking, and without the wealth needed to combat that cancer...,

Rand adopted an assumed name to seek government funds for her treatment.An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).

**--> As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... she didn't feel that an individual should take help..."

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/153454/how_ayn_rand_seduced_generations_of_young_men_and_helped_make_the_u.s._into_a_selfish%2C_greedy_nation/comments/

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

A column at Alternet:

How Ayn Rand Seduced Generations of Young Men and Helped Make the U.S. Into a Selfish, Greedy Nation

Thanks in part to Rand, the United States is one of the most uncaring nations in the industrialized world.

December 15, 2011 |

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/153454/how_ayn_rand_seduced_generations_of_young_men_and_helped_make_the_u.s._into_a_selfish%2C_greedy_nation/

"Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society....To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil. — Gore Vidal, 1961"

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 7 years ago

She's also following me... http://www.atlassociety.org/

love it, let's get all the facts out on the table for all to see....

[-] -1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

If libertarian respected the democratic rights of others they would not be infesting these forums with their disruptions and hate. Undermining the discussion flow with their hate based filibustering. Or running private networks to gang up on their own threads to make them appear unnaturally popular while coordinating ignore campaigns to force OWS and social justice topical threads out of the top of the forum index.

Libertarians are under-handed corrupt anti democracy hate mongers who have no civilized values or desire for human civility.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Wow that's a dick comment based on outrageous speculation. Hate mongers that want to end wars and think muslims shouldn't be the target of hatred because all Americans deserve to be treated with respect. Obama and the Repubs are hell bent on pissing on the bill of rights and fueling indefinite wars. Obama has bombed more countries than Bush and extended the Bush tax cuts and told congress to pass the bailouts to bailout the banking system that is stealing people's homes.

We might not agree on everything and I actually do not agree with everything libertarians stand for either. But this pushing for separation is what the ELITE want. When we can't band together to fight the same enemy, we end up fighting each other. That is a waste of time.

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

Libertarians ARE the enemy.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 7 years ago

Wow. Simple minds have simple ideas.

[-] -1 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 7 years ago

If follow some of anyonomous's early work you'll find a Alex Jones conspiracy libertarian leaning ideal.

I think this movement is more Anti-Curruption then anything else.

[-] -1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

Greenspan Associates, LLC

Dr. Alan Greenspan President

1133 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 United States

Phone: 202-457-8250

The ultimate libertarian traitor to America.

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Libertarianism is all about freedom and liberty. If you look at the platform it is hard to disagree with most of it.

http://www.lp.org/platform

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Jeffrey Friedman has criticized libertarians for often relying on the unproven assumption that economic growth and affluence automatically result in happiness.~wiki

I have looked at the platform and it is hard to agree with any of it. It is largely based on unproven concepts, but the platform adopts them religiously as absolute truths. You can't even have an intelligent conversation with someone who absolutely believes in something based on assumptions and will not address what can be proven.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

So you do have a problem with this part?

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

OR THIS?

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

OR THIS?

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

OR THIS?

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

OR THIS?

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

OR THIS?

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

OR THIS?

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 7 years ago

The ideals that you state there are not in and of themselves wrong or offensive, in fact any fool can see that most of them are the exact opposite. In fact, these ideals are held by people who want nothing more than to see the back of the Libertarian Party and want nothing to do with your actual policies. What I want to know then, is about the specific policies that libertarians would push for if given power.

However, these ideals do not in fact translate into positive or productive policies. More often than not libertarians openly espouse throwing the old and the poor in the street, gutting those parts of the public sector that are in fact necessary to a functioning and productive society, and giving private industries free reign to pollute the earth, stiff their employees, and turn our markets upside down.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

It appears that you believe the rhetoric about libertarians espoused by their opponents.

I will use the example of education. Because many libertarians believe we do not need the Department of Education, it may appear they are against education. The truth is that we spend hundreds of millions on that department and not one penny goes to the classroom.

Because many libertarians promote a voucher system some say they want to take public money and give it to private schools. The truth is we want to take tax revenue and give it to the parents. The parents in turn can use it a a school of their choice as long as that school conforms to state standards. Currently only rich kids can afford to go to private schools which out perform public schools and they do it for less. In NJ the average spending per student in public school is $13,238 and in private schools it is $4,700.

As for throwing the poor and elderly in the street, nothing could be farther from the truth. Social Security and Medicare are 42% of the budget. We need to make changes or they will run out of money. It was Republicans and Democrats not Libertarians that stole from the SS Trust Fund.

[-] -2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

I am not going to go point by point and agree or disagree on your laundry list. Read this full article and you'll understand my problems with Libertarianism. Even if you only read the first two paragraphs I've copied here, you should get the sense of what is wrong with the Libertarian program that only favors individualistic ideals, and ignores collective needs.

First, Richard Layard, author of Happiness and a prominent economist, calls for an end to 'selfish capitalism', urging us to create society where we stop worshiping wealth and start appreciating people. Second, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the President of Brazil, says that while nobody dares to predict today what will be the future of capitalism, he is more interested in the sort of society that will emerge from the crisis. His vision? A system that will reward production, not speculation, a controlled financial sector, no protectionism.... a new and dynamic system of global governance, new energy policies, reform of systems of production and consumption, a world free of dogmas presented as absolute truths, a more just and democratic society. 'Lula's' account of his own journey from an impoverished childhood to political and social reformer is inspirational in itself.

Both authors call for a more humane society, based on collective rather than individualistic values. Far from being idealistic views, they are being echoed widely among business and political leaders, economists and academics. In the gathering of world leaders at Davos in January, Bill Gates called for a more 'creative capitalism' while Britain's opposition leader, David Cameron, set out the case for 'capitalism with a conscience.'

http://blogs.hbr.org/corkindale/2009/03/what_does_the_future_of_capita.html

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 7 years ago

It's up to the people to create the society not governmental policies. The problem is that I have my ideas how you create a society that stops worshiping wealth and starts appreciating people but I'm Catholic and in my opinion my religious ideas should not interfere with governmental policies, because there are a lot of people out there who aren't Catholic.

More power sent to any institution just creates more lawlessness whether it be the government or a large corporation or even Penn State.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Can you not separate the practical reasons from the religious belief and express your ideas? What are some practical reasons to stop worshiping wealth?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 7 years ago

I think it is human nature - the seven deadly sins - to worship goods and I think the religion is the only parameter that will counter it. Brazil, of all places, with its Carnival, is not really a good example.

I don't advocate government trying to stop it. Accept human nature and allow the markets to work.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

But there are practical consequences for chasing wealth, for example, studies have shown that after a certain amount of money has been reached, it really no longer has any real effect on one's happiness.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Can tyrants exist in a free society? Yes.

Can tyrants exist in a big government society like communism, socialism, or fascism? Absolutely!

[-] -1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

You've made no points to further your to advance your argument. This is a discussion about the absolute views held by Libertarians and why I do not agree with the platform it stands upon, and through your own choice of wording which you've punctuated your flimsy reply, you've actually helped me further my point that you Libertarians only see things in absolutes.

Do you see what I am getting at? It took you no time to respond to my post, which means you are either a superhumanly fast reader or you didn't even bother reading my argument. Now, I seriously doubt your superhuman reading abilities, so based on logic, I'll take is a fact that you did not read much, if any, of what I posted.

Which leads right back to my first point, it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone who deals only in absolutes.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I am not sure where you get the idea I deal in absolutes when nothing I wrote would indicate that.

Actually I read your article and it was about Capitalism not the Libertarian Party. I have had this argument many times and I know about Richard Layard and Ds Silva and their ideas.

People have the impression that Libertarians want No Government when that is far from the case.

[-] -1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Your words. Can tyrants exist in a big government society like communism, socialism, or fascism? Absolutely!

So, I'll ask one simple question to determine if you truly deal in absolutes or not. Does society play any role in creating poverty, or is poverty absolutely a result of personal individual choice?

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Oh I see because I used the word absolutely... LOL ;-) That is funny.

I did not say they absolutely must exist I said absolutely they CAN.

Poverty is the result of a combination of factors and society and individual choice are both components. Our society provides opportunities to succeed through free education, training programs, and free access to knowledge. Some people take advantage of them and others do not by choice. Not taking advantage of these opportunities is a mistake that may not be understood until later in life. Some people may have a better opportunity because they live in a zip code that has a better school system but I believe that charter schools are beginning to address that.

Now after an individual does not make the right choices they will have a difficult time finding work for a decent wage. At that point society helps them with programs provided by private citizens including shelters, food pantries, meals on wheels, Habitat for Humanity, etc. and government programs including welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, career development assistance, child support, energy assistance, housing assistance…

So I believe there are several forces at work that keep people in poverty. There are some cases where the assistance is just enough to make it not seem worth it to look for a job because you will lose your assistance. This is a cycle of dependency which is difficult to break because we cannot just eliminate these programs. Perhaps if training programs were part of a requirement to getting assistance it would help lift people up and break the cycle.

[-] -2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Well, then I determine that you are not a true libertarian at heart and do not believe in the natural laws ideology that permeates the party's views and stances. Many have answered my question flat out with a yes that poverty is absolutely a result of personal individual choice, arguing that societal choices are not vital in any shape or form.

So on those grounds, I implore you to disassociate from this party -- run, run, run, run, run away as fast as you can, call yourself Independent or whatever else you like, but the Libertarian ideology is an absolute one, and engages in the hypocrisy of forcing their collected absolute view on others, while espousing collective force is immoral in the same breath.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I would argue that those who answered you are actually right wing Republicans and do not understand Libertarianism. Every ideology can be absolute and every idoelogy can be flexible. The some holds true for philosophy and religion. It is all a matter of interpritation.

No Libertarian would "force there collected absolute view on others". In fact that is the heart of the Libertarian philosphy we should all be free in our persons, our property, our beliefs, and our ideas.

The guiding principle of libertarianism is that individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

The philosophy of non interventionism, of never forcing collected views on others, is a fallacy. Let me explain, if enough like minded people who agreed with this philosophy of never forcing collected views on others got together and set the rules for the rest of us to live by, let's use a free market society as an example, it would be forcing that philosophy on everyone else who might disagree. That is coercion. The philosophy of non interventionism is a hypocrisy. You simply can not live in a society and not interfere with others through your actions.

Here's another fallacy,

Jeffrey Friedman argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent:

if...the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights (62), the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should... also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism... The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's 'right to do wrong.~wiki

consider the following view,

“We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe"~Jonathan Wallace

If I suggested to you we should tax the rich more, which of Wallace's list would your response fit in.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I would argue that I worked hard for the property that I own and that I do not own it at the expense of others. That is the flaw in Friedman's argument. Nobody has as "equal right" to the fruits of my labor. No one has a right to take it from me and give it to someone else. I have no problem giving my time and money to people in need on my own however no one has a right to it.

As for taxing the rich and Wallace, I believe it is not practical because government is inefficient at providing for the common good. I do not agree that giving them more money will solve our problems is wrong. We already spend trillions blowing people up all over the planet which "harms someone". We have numerous departments that do not add value which is "not practical". For every dollar we send to Washington I believe 85 cents is either wasted or spent inappropriately which violates many rules. When we give "foreign aid" we take money from people in this country and it goes to rich people in other countries violates the constitution. We spent years sending millions to Mubarak and then we spent hundreds of millions taking his government out. We did the same with Saddam Hussein. These are but a few examples there are plenty more.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

No, we are back to the basic problem. You are dealing in absolutes again. Nobody has "equal right" to the fruits of my labor is an assumption, not a fact. It is not a practical argument, because it is based on the 'natural laws' philosophy and that is the area of murky concepts of nature.

As for the government vs private entity argument, it is easily arguable that private enterprise does a poor job of providing for the common good, pun intended. As for some of the other points, it's meaningless to go through a laundry list. We both know the real argument is over government vs private entities. I would discuss it in a practical way, but not in any absolute way. The government is not supposed to run like a business for profit, it has a different function.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

I will concede that libertarians do deal close to an absolute position on some issues.

For example libertarians believe individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose. That is not entirely an absolute perspective because it would not give me the right to shine a 10,000 watt light on my neighbor’s house however it is closer to absolute than most. Conservatives believe the government should “stay out of our lives” UNLESS it is a issue they are against like gay marriage, abortion, smoking pot, being gay in the military… So on some issue libertarians are closer to absolute than most others which can make it appear to some that they deal entirely in absolutes.

A good example of government vs private is Medicare. I work with folks with physical disabilities helping them function in difficult environments. Because the government pays for power wheelchairs that cost $3,000 and not scooters that cost $1,200, more than 80% of the folks get the power wheelchair even though it is actually less efficient in enabling them to get around and do things in their environment. Now folks with private insurance are encouraged to purchase the less expensive more efficient scooter. The same holds true for drugs, those on Medicare will get the $200/bottle name brand drug while those on private insurance will be encouraged to get the $20 generic drug. You don’t like laundry lists (I call them facts) so I will leave it at that.

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

Please stop feeding the libertarian troll.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Why do you call Libertarians trolls? Because they have an opinion that differs from yours you call them a troll?

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

No. I call you trolls because libertarians never go anywhere on the internet that they don't totally disrupt, obstruct and co-opt the discussion with their ideological filibustering. Libertarianism is the ONLY opinion permitted once libertarians infest any forum. All others are driven out one way or another.

You are a bunch of obsessive compulsive bullies.

Besides, since you cannot read for comprehension I will point this out again, libertarian philosophy is the root cause of the financial collapse of America. I want you all dead not infesting America with your fanatical self-centered garbage.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

Well now you would be wrong in this case calling me a troll. A troll is defined as someone who posts off topic remarks that are often inflammatory to illicit an emotional response.

This thread is about libertarians, in fact the word is in the title so my comments are on topic. I guess you feel you should be able to bash libertarians without interference. Nothing I said was inflammatory, off topic, or a personal attack. Have honest debate requires being able to have discussion with people who do not agree with you.

I also do not understand how you think it is possible for libertarians to suppress other opinions. Because the like to express their opinion and explain their ideas does not mean the want to suppress yours. Again debate requires two sides.

It is interesting that you believe that libertarian philosophy is the cause of the problem when there is not a single Libertarian in congress, has never been one in the White House, and are none on the supreme court.

I would argue that government interference is the root cause of the financial collapse. The Community Reinvestment Act and government involvement with Fannie and Freddie had more to do with it than the free market system did. That is an entirely different topic however, I guess to you that would make me a troll

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

I know I should, but I have this hero-complex you see, and I fantasize I might once in a great while turn a troll into a human being. Lol.

[-] -1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

You have to be either intentionally disingenuous or flagrantly dishonest to make such a claim.

Libertarianism is a predatory cult masquerading as a political party.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

It is about liberty and freedom people can create tyranny in any system.

In reality it does not matter if a person or group is Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, left wing or right wing, liberal or conservative, Christian or Muslim, capitalist, socialist, or communist… one thing holds true.

Power corrupts and the best way to keep a group in check is to ensure its power is limited.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

First of all Libertarian is a party not a system. The party promotes liberty and freedom.

Can tyrants exist in a free society? Yes.

Can tyrants exist in a big government society like communism, socialism, or fascism? Absolutely!

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

Libertarianism is a system promoted and advocated by the Libertarian Party. Libertarianism is based on giving most of the power away to people who are not democratically elected - TYRANNY

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 7 years ago

To understand Libertarianism you need to read John Locke the father of the ideology.

Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be “left-wing”. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, extra-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unowned natural resources (land, air, water, minerals, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution.

Although libertarianism could be advocated as a full theory of moral permissibility, it is almost always advocated as a theory of justice in one of two senses. In one sense, justice is concerned with the moral duties that we owe others. It does not address impersonal duties (duties owed to no one) or duties owed to self. In a second sense, justice is concerned with the morally enforceable duties that we have. It does not address duties for which it is impermissible to use force to ensure compliance or to rectify (e.g., punish) non-compliance (e.g. a duty to see your mother on her birthday).

[-] -3 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

i dont think so, as I understand it about devolving democracy to the local level.

in the broadest sense, it advocates strict limits to government activity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.

[-] -1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Your assertions reveal how ignorant you are of even free market capitalism. The US hasn't had such, for sure, since 1912, if not earlier.

Clown.

[-] -1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 7 years ago

Get a life. Stop whining about how external forces have ruined your dream. Start focusing on what choices YOU can make and what actions YOU can take, to achieve that dream.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

choices and achievments depend on access to resourses.

What we should do is to build democracy and a society that is in accordance with human nature.

struggleforfreedom

[-] 0 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Get a death.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Libertarianism is a form of coercion, wrapped in the pretty paper of liberty and freedom.

[-] 2 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

Precisely!

The tyranny of aggressive predators under the pretense of freedom. Unchecked by democratic regulation of their wanton avarice.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

They don't like the simple truth.

[-] 0 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

why not make a point backed up by something?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Because I won't allow you to coerce me.

The party itself was co-founded by David Koch. That in itself is very telling.

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

what party, libertarianism isnt a party its a philosophy Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating strict limits to government activity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.[1] Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[2] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[3]

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

The libertarian test. Are both society & individual personal choice responsible in creating poverty, or is poverty absolutely a result of personal individual choice?

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

I understand poverty to be the result of socio economic condition. If every one had the same upbringing, access to education and opportunity it would be the result of individual choice.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Do you absolutely believe poverty to be a result of individual choice, and society plays no role, simple yes or no please?

[-] 1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 7 years ago

Well YES, I do. I very much believe it to be the result of individual choice. Yes society plays a role too. But I see it every day, people doing NOTHING to escape "poverty". they just call themselves victims and pop out more kids than they can afford, then cry that they can't feed them. I watch young kids laugh school off like it is comedy central and their parents do NOTHING to motivate them either. When the teachers, coaches, clergy, club leaders, etc are preaching hard work and straight "A"s as so important to having a good quality of life, they really MEAN IT.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

'I see' and 'I watch' - those are personal observations and amount to little more than a social opinion. For every instance you describe, I can say I've seen the opposite, so what? It would be my social opinion against yours. In other words, what empirical studies, evidence, statistics, facts, etc., do you base this social opinion on?

We cannot have a meaningful discussion on poverty based on beliefs. Here is some statistical evidence contrary to your social opinion.


Researchers around the world tested the culture of poverty concept empirically (see Billings, 1974; Carmon, 1985; Jones & Luo, 1999). Others analyzed the overall body of evidence regarding the culture of poverty paradigm (see Abell & Lyon, 1979; Ortiz & Briggs, 2003; Rodman, 1977).

These studies raise a variety of questions and come to a variety of conclusions about poverty. But on this they all agree:

There is no such thing as a culture of poverty.

In actuality, the culture of poverty concept is constructed from a collection of smaller stereotypes which, however false, seem to have crept into mainstream thinking as unquestioned fact. Let's look at some examples.

MYTH: Poor people are unmotivated and have weak work ethics.

The Reality: Poor people do not have weaker work ethics or lower levels of motivation than wealthier people (Iversen & Farber, 1996; Wilson, 1997). Although poor people are often stereotyped as lazy, 83 percent of children from low-income families have at least one employed parent; close to 60 percent have at least one parent who works full-time and year-round (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2004). In fact, the severe shortage of living-wage jobs means that many poor adults must work two, three, or four jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute (2002), poor working adults spend more hours working each week than their wealthier counterparts.

MYTH: Poor parents are uninvolved in their children's learning, largely because they do not value education.

The Reality: Low-income parents hold the same attitudes about education that wealthy parents do (Compton-Lilly, 2003; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Leichter, 1978). Low-income parents are less likely to attend school functions or volunteer in their children's classrooms (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005)—not because they care less about education, but because they have less access to school involvement than their wealthier peers. They are more likely to work multiple jobs, to work evenings, to have jobs without paid leave, and to be unable to afford child care and public transportation. It might be said more accurately that schools that fail to take these considerations into account do not value the involvement of poor families as much as they value the involvement of other families.

MYTH: Poor people are linguistically deficient.

The Reality: All people, regardless of the languages and language varieties they speak, use a full continuum of language registers (Bomer, Dworin, May, & Semingson, 2008). What's more, linguists have known for decades that all language varieties are highly structured with complex grammatical rules (Gee, 2004; Hess, 1974; Miller, Cho, & Bracey, 2005). What often are assumed to be deficient varieties of English—Appalachian varieties, perhaps, or what some refer to as Black English Vernacular—are no less sophisticated than so-called "standard English."

MYTH: Poor people tend to abuse drugs and alcohol.

The Reality: Poor people are no more likely than their wealthier counterparts to abuse alcohol or drugs. Although drug sales are more visible in poor neighborhoods, drug use is equally distributed across poor, middle class, and wealthy communities (Saxe, Kadushin, Tighe, Rindskopf, & Beveridge, 2001). Chen, Sheth, Krejci, and Wallace (2003) found that alcohol consumption is significantly higher among upper middle class white high school students than among poor black high school students. Their finding supports a history of research showing that alcohol abuse is far more prevalent among wealthy people than among poor people (Diala, Muntaner, & Walrath, 2004; Galea, Ahern, Tracy, & Vlahov, 2007). In other words, considering alcohol and illicit drugs together, wealthy people are more likely than poor people to be substance abusers.

The Culture of Classism

The most destructive tool of the culture of classism is deficit theory. In education, we often talk about the deficit perspective—defining students by their weaknesses rather than their strengths. Deficit theory takes this attitude a step further, suggesting that poor people are poor because of their own moral and intellectual deficiencies (Collins, 1988). Deficit theorists use two strategies for propagating this world view: (1) drawing on well-established stereotypes, and (2) ignoring systemic conditions, such as inequitable access to high-quality schooling, that support the cycle of poverty.

The implications of deficit theory reach far beyond individual bias. If we convince ourselves that poverty results not from gross inequities (in which we might be complicit) but from poor people's own deficiencies, we are much less likely to support authentic antipoverty policy and programs. Further, if we believe, however wrongly, that poor people don't value education, then we dodge any responsibility to redress the gross education inequities with which they contend. This application of deficit theory establishes the idea of what Gans (1995) calls the undeserving poor—a segment of our society that simply does not deserve a fair shake.

If the goal of deficit theory is to justify a system that privileges economically advantaged students at the expense of working-class and poor students, then it appears to be working marvelously. In our determination to "fix" the mythical culture of poor students, we ignore the ways in which our society cheats them out of opportunities that their wealthier peers take for granted. We ignore the fact that poor people suffer disproportionately the effects of nearly every major social ill.

They lack access to health care, living-wage jobs, safe and affordable housing, clean air and water, and so on (Books, 2004)—conditions that limit their abilities to achieve to their full potential.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx


Are you so certain that your social opinions are correct? Or could they possibly be based upon stereotypes.

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

no I do not believe poverty is the result of individual choice

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Then why are libertarians always telling everybody this is the case? How can you support a party who says such things?

[-] 1 points by MoodDaddy (25) 7 years ago

You are really confused about Libertarians if this is what you believe.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

No, I have it exactly right. The confusion lies in the libertarian philosophy itself.

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

I dont support a party, but I like the philosophy of small government - non interventionism. Conversely I don't agree with authoritarian big corrupt fascist government who are in the pockets of multi-national corporations.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

The philosophy of non interventionism is why people are accusing you of coercion. There is no such thing as non interventionism. Let me explain, if enough like minded people who agreed with your philosophy got together and set the rules for the rest of us to live by, let's use a free market society as an example, wouldn't you be forcing your philosophy on everyone else who might disagree. Isn't that coercion? The philosophy of non interventionism is a hypocrisy. You simply can not live in a society and not interfere with others through your actions. Its a fallacy.

No one agrees with authoritarian big corrupt fascist government who are in the pockets of multi-national corporations.

Do you believe in democracy?

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

i mean non interventionism in other peoples countries. Using your idea that means ANY system has coercion because you will never get everyone to agree. some people (the people who benefit) agree with an authoritarian big corrupt fascist government who are in the pockets of multi-national corporations. YesI agree in democracy

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

The same fallacy applies to the global system and interference is inevitable, more so in in a global economy. So you agree with democracy, by default that makes you more democratic than republican. Yet you identify with republican values. How well do you know your political self?

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

lol obviously you think not well enough!

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

I have lived in Texas my whole life, for 42 years, and it is very republic, so I had a hard time sorting out my own political views from the rhetoric I grew up listening to. American values lean toward conservative philosophies making it difficult to challenge established thinking, but if you truly care about democracy (and I'm not talking about the Democratic Party) you owe it to yourself to question anything that either party says that doesn't ring true to you and follow your own inner guide. Inside, we all know the way.

[-] 1 points by WarmItUp (301) 7 years ago

Uh you mean like how the libertarian party is actually a registered party http://www.lp.org/ with all the same trappings of every other political party. There are dozens of registered parties just because they don't talk about them on the republican run fox news dosen't mean they aren't just as organized as other parties

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

I didn't say there wasn't a "party" I was saying its actually a philosophy and doesn't involve coercion.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

A response filled with doublespeak, if ever there was one.

Pretty paper though.

[-] 2 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

lol a response filled with personal opinion and no counter...

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

It's been countered for over 2 months now.

You start it with, there is no party and end it with a description of it's advocacy.

Doublespeak.

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

how about dont make comments with no basis in truth I didn't say there was no party, my point is that it is a philosophy not just a political party and that it does not advocate coercion, rather freedom. I dont know how that is double speak.

[-] 1 points by MoodDaddy (25) 7 years ago

Libertarian is a party.

Libertarianism is a political ideology based on Classical Liberalism.

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

That's the point. it's all doublespeak.

Few can defend it without copy and paste.

At it's heart is Austrian economics, and neoliberalism.

A philosophy, based on a novel.

Pure coercion.

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

i dont get the coercion part, please explain, Its easy to attack something without proffering an alternative or explaining the basis of the attack - infact its meaningless.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

The alternative, is to clean up the system we have.

I'm sorry you don't understand the meaning of coercion.

Think of it as the purest form of marketing.

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

I know what coercion is but I dont see how it relates to Libertarianism. Libertarians are against coercion.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Libertarianism, IS coercion.

[-] 1 points by AndyJ0hn (129) 7 years ago

All systems of governance are coercion and your point is?

[-] -2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 7 years ago

Great post. "Libertarianism" is tyranny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ

What we should strive for is *democracy: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

Feel free to visit my blog: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/

[-] -2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

In his essay "From Liberty to Welfare", philosopher James P. Sterba argues that a morally consistent application of libertarian premises, including that of negative liberty, requires that a libertarian must endorse “the equality in the distribution of goods and resources required by a socialist state.” Sterba presents the example of a typical conflict situation between the rich and poor “in order to see why libertarians are mistaken about what their ideal requires.” He argues that such a situation is correctly seen as a conflict of negative liberties: the right of the rich not to be interfered with in the satisfaction of their luxury needs is morally trumped by the right of the poor “not to be interfered with in taking from the surplus possessions of the rich what is necessary to satisfy their basic needs.”

According to Sterba, the liberty of the poor should be morally prioritized in light of the fundamental moral principle ‘ “Ought” implies “Can” ’ from which it follows that it would be unreasonable to ask the poor to relinquish their liberty not be interfered with, noting that “in the extreme case it would involve asking or requiring the poor to sit back and starve to death” and that “by contrast it would not be unreasonable to ask and require the rich to sacrifice their liberty to meet some of their needs so that the poor can have the liberty to meet their basic needs.” Having argued that ‘ ”Ought” implies “Can” ’ establishes the reasonability of asking the rich to sacrifice their luxuries for the basic needs of the poor, Sterba invokes a second fundamental principle, “The Conflict Resolution Principle” to argue that it is reasonable to make it a moral requirement. He concludes by arguing that the application of these principles to the international context makes a compelling case for socialist distribution on a world scale.

Jeffrey Friedman argues that natural law libertarianism's justification for the primacy of property is incoherent: if...the liberty of a human being to own another should be trumped by equal human rights (62), the liberty to own large amounts of property [at the expense of others] should... also be trumped by equal human rights. This alone would seem definitively to lay to rest the philosophical case for libertarianism... The very idea of ownership contains the relativistic seeds of arbitrary authority: the arbitrary authority of the individual's 'right to do wrong.~wiki

“We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe"~Jonathan Wallace

[-] -1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

Libertarian bill of rights:

The liberty of the libertarian is to prey on others with impunity and without the constraints of democratically promulgated regulation or government constraint of any sort shall not be infringed.

Libertarian free markets are a market freedom to pick pockets and steal from those less corrupt.

Caveat emptor shall be the whole of the law.

Corporations, with armies of lawyers and buildings filled with MBA's all single-mindedly dedicated to taking advantage of the less advantaged individual are equal in society to the individual.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Yes, and each and every stance they take to defend their bill of rights is incoherent, self-contradicting, and full of is-ought problems.

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

Mostly their defense of their predatory economic anarchy is self-serving.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Everything they do is self-serving, it's the club motto.

[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

Ain't that the truth....

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

..and nothing but the truth :-)

[-] 0 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 7 years ago

Simple minded twit, you have no clue how all these scary things would be no problem with The Rule of Law reinstated and common law courts to make short work of those who harm others, no attorneys required.

[+] -4 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 7 years ago

interesting- you think the GOP is practicing "free market libertarianism" hahaha! Thats what the libertarians are mad about. The GOP is too far to the left!