this post was submitted on
216 points (65% like it)
461 up votes 245 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

top 200 commentsshow all 338

[–]TheFlyingBastard 27 points28 points ago

Could someone please explain to me why this is applicable to libertarians? I'm not too well-versed in politics.

[–]TheBoxTalks 35 points36 points ago

Its applicable to a certain caricature of libertarians that says they are selfish people who don't want to help other people; that they are against all government infrastructure projects like roads, firemen, police, etc.; and that they think poor people need to get themselves out of poverty without anyone helping them.

[–]TheFlyingBastard 16 points17 points ago

I understood that, but doesn't libertarianism mean that you're for freedom to do whatever the fuck you want? Legalize everything and such? What I am especially confused about is that last panel. Wasn't it Mitt Romney who said something like that? That if you're poor you're clearly not working hard enough?

[–]TheBoxTalks 25 points26 points ago*

Well, there are libertarians of all stripes, but all think individual liberty should be a guiding principle for society. Only a few extreme libertarians would say we can do "whatever the fuck we want". Most would put limits on human freedom where one's actions tread on the liberty of others.

The last panel plays on the idea that libertarians don't care about poor people. While this may be true in some cases, I would say most libertarians think that state run schemes to help the poor should be minimized. Some would say a small state program is o.k., others would argue for no state involvement. This is not to say that all believe that poor people "just need to work harder", as the last panel suggests. Private organizations that help the poor are perfectly acceptable, and I know several libertarians who contribute to such programs.

Edit: Here's an equally unfair characterization of liberals:

If Housepets were Liberals

Panel 1: Why should I go get the paper? The government should do that for me.

Panel 2: What's the deal with that filter thing? Even though its perfectly sufficient for our tank, I insist that we need a larger, more expensive version and I'm going to force everyone here to pay for it.

Panel 3: Its not fair that there are stray cats going hungry while I have a comfortable house. We need to force every rich family to leave out food for all the stray cats every day. That way they'll have more incentive to find a home of their own.

[–]kjmitch 12 points13 points ago

I'm glad you said 'equally unfair characterization'; as someone who can fit the bill of "liberal" pretty well, I had an emotional reaction to those examples, and after remembering that they were intended to be unfair, I was able to take an actual objective look at my reactions and my ideals.

[–]WoollyMittens -1 points0 points ago

With more than 40 million people living below the poverty line in the USA, it seems to be a little careless to dismiss that problem to private organisations. I don't understand how libertarians expect to address that problem adequately this way.

[–]TheBoxTalks 3 points4 points ago

Yes, it does seem unlikely that private organizations can step up and take care of the problem. However, the government is not really addressing the problem adequately either, because as you say, there are still more than 40 million people living below the poverty line. That being said, it could be that private organizations would play a much greater roll if people didn't assume that the government will take care of the poor. Not only would individuals have more money to give because they'd be taxed less, but they wouldn't be able to place the responsibility on to government.

People would also be able to choose exactly where to place their money so it can be most effective. Organizations that did well at addressing the problem would grow, those that did poorly would fail. State welfare does not have the same flexibility, and can remain ineffective for many years before anything is done about it.

[–]WoollyMittens 2 points3 points ago

I don't think people would donate enough to private organisations to provide healthcare and shelter, but that's just me being pessimistic.

I also don't think taxes would be lowered. I the Netherlands, healthcare was privatised, retirement was privatised, public transport was privatised and taxes were kept at exactly the same level.

[–]TheBoxTalks 2 points3 points ago

Yes, both are possibilities. The thinking is, however, that if libertarians had their way taxes would be lowered and government shrunk. Its hard to say what people would do as far as donations go. You may be right, and people might not do enough to help. The question is then, if people do not give enough should the government force them to give more? A libertarian would say that we should be at liberty to give as much or as little as we choose to others. We have a moral obligation, to be sure—but should we have the liberty to fall short of it, or should we be forced to meet it?

[–]WoollyMittens 1 point2 points ago

I agree that bureaucracies tend to feed on themselves, but so much of libertarianism depends on people playing fair and doing the right thing.

Government is supposed to be there to avoid the "tragedy of the commons". I fear that a lack of regulation would turn the country in a slash and burned, mountain top removed, third world wasteland, with nobody the wiser except a tiny elite.

[–]Iconochasm 0 points1 point ago

but so much of libertarianism depends on people playing fair and doing the right thing.

Game and public choice theory argue that it's the optimal tact to take in life, and it'll only become more optimal as people live longer and longer, and care more and more about the value of a reputation (particularly with how easy it's getting to look anyone up).

[–]CuilRunnings 1 point2 points ago

I don't think people would donate enough to private organisations

I donate 5% of my income, on top of the 25% federal income tax, FICA taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, sales tax, and excise taxes. How much do you donate?

[–]WoollyMittens 0 points1 point ago*

The highest income tax bracket is 60% where I was living up to a year ago, so I was not in a very charitable mood after taxation. Even so, apparently 6.8% of my wages go to subsidise the poverty stricken tenant who lives in my house while I'm abroad.

It's unlikely many people wouldn't be quite as mad as either of us though and my contribution barely pays for the rent of one person.

[–]Pilebsa[S] 10 points11 points ago

From my article on the subject:

Anarcho-Capitalism: Anarcho-capitalists believe that governments monopolize services that would be better left to corporations, and should be abolished entirely in favor of a system in which corporations provide services we associate with the government. The popular sci-fi novel Jennifer Government describes a system that is very close to anarcho-capitalist.

Civil Libertarianism: Civil libertarians believe that the government should not pass laws that restrict, oppress, or selectively fail to protect people in their day-to-day lives. Their position can best be summed up by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' statement that "a man's right to swing his fist ends where my nose begins." In the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union represents the interests of civil libertarians. Civil libertarians may or may not also be fiscal libertarians.

Classical Liberalism: Classical liberals agree with the words of the Declaration of Independence: That all people have basic human rights, and that the sole legitimate function of government is to protect those rights. Most of the Founding Fathers, and most of the European philosophers who influenced them, were classical liberals.

Fiscal Libertarianism: Fiscal libertarians (also referred to as laissez-faire capitalists) believe in free trade, low (or nonexistent) taxes, and minimal (or nonexistent) corporate regulation. Most traditional Republicans are moderate fiscal libertarians.

Geolibertarianism: Geolibertarians (also called "one-taxers") are fiscal libertarians who believe that land can never be owned, but may be rented. They generally propose the abolition of all income and sales taxes in favor of a single land rental tax, with the revenue used to support collective interests (such as military defense) as determined through a democratic process.

Libertarian Socialism: Libertarian socialists agree with anarcho-capitalists that government is a monopoly and should be abolished, but they believe that nations should be ruled instead by work-share cooperatives or labor unions instead of corporations. The philosopher Noam Chomsky is the best known American libertarian socialist.

Minarchism: Like anarcho-capitalists and libertarian socialists, minarchists believe that most functions currently served by the government should be served by smaller, non-government groups--but they believe that a government is still needed to serve a few collective needs, such as military defense.

Neolibertarianism: Neolibertarians are fiscal libertarians who support a strong military, and believe that the U.S. government should use that military to overthrow dangerous and oppressive regimes. It is their emphasis on military intervention that distinguishes them from paleolibertarians (see below), and gives them reason to make common cause with neoconservatives.

Objectivism: The Objectivist movement was founded by the Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982), author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, who incorporated fiscal libertarianism into a broader philosophy emphasizing rugged individualism and what she called "the virtue of selfishness."

Paleolibertarianism: Paleolibertarians differ from neolibertarians (see above) in that they are isolationists who do not believe that the United States should become entangled in international affairs. They also tend to be suspicious of international coalitions such as the United Nations, liberal immigration policies, and other potential threats to cultural stability.

[–]aintso 0 points1 point ago

governments monopolize services that would be better left to corporations, and should be abolished entirely in favor of a system in which corporations provide services we associate with the government

Do you actually mean that government becomes the sole provider of certain services? I'm imagining it could be the case with military intervention and lawmaking. Or do you mean that government becomes the sole controller and distributor of the services, in effect becoming monopsony, that is, the sole buyer of certain services? I'm thinking medicare, road construction and security here.

[–]aidrocsid -1 points0 points ago

It's more about what libertarians argue for than what they state explicitly. Libertarians want the end of cooperative social support, infrastructure maintenance, and environmental protection.

[–]LittleNemo 2 points3 points ago

You seem like a very open-minded individual who has really looked in to what libertarians believe. You are a great candidate to be explaining the basis of this particular belief system.

That was sarcasm.

[–]TheBoxTalks 0 points1 point ago

Your generalizations and simplifications belong in a cartoon.

[–]karacho 0 points1 point ago

[–]WoollyMittens 1 point2 points ago

Conservatives say the same things, only claim it's god's will.

[–]Pilebsa[S] -5 points-4 points ago

The point is, the modern (anarcho capitlist/minarchist) libertarian movement (popularized by Ron Paul and Ayn Rand) is pushed by large companies and successful people exploiting the generic concept of "personal liberty" to free themselves of state regulation. The irony is these people and institutions have exploited the state's socialist system to be in the positions of comfort and power they now enjoy. There are a lot of other people caught in the propaganda, fixated on single issues like "drug legalization" and "no taxes" that don't really understand the full implications of a true free market and how destructive it would actually be to society.

The modern minarchist libertarian movement appeals to many right wing conservatives because its philosophies justify what the rest of us might call a somewhat selfish, reactive agenda, not fully taking into account the long-term implications of dismantling government. Instead using government as a strawman upon which all society's problems are supposedly based.

[–]LRE 13 points14 points ago*

You make a lot of good points throughout the thread, but it seems that you don't have a full grasp of the modern libertarian movement.

For example, you state that it is pushed by large companies. I offer this article for your reading pleasure. From my understanding, imperfect as it may be, the big companies that everyone points to as the cause of most of our problems are actually against free-market legislation precisely because it would lead to increased competition for them. Instead, they lobby for 'deregulation' that includes just enough regulation to keep out new competitors while letting them do whatever they want to their customers or they lobby for regulation that does the same, depending on which political party is in power (Republicans the former, Democrats the latter). That's what I've always understood to be the corporatism everyone always talks about.

That's pretty abhorrent to modern libertarians, who actually want deregulation to open up various sectors of our economy to new companies that earn the customer's trust.

Also, this line:

don't really understand the full implications of a true free market and how destructive it would actually be to society.

was quite sly. While I don't disagree with the leading part of the sentence (that many subscribe to libertarianism because of single issues), that has nothing to do with your very broad, opinionated, and unsubstantiated claim that a true free market is destructive to society. This can be, and has been, a very interesting and nuanced topic of theoretical debate, which in no way has been settled. Definitely not to the point of being decided 'destructive to society.' If you are going to make such haughty remarks, you're going to have to provide either a very detailed analysis of leading papers for and against the free market in which you demonstrate conclusively that it is detrimental to society. Or you should provide a link to a source that has done this extensive analysis of all points of view and uses sound logic, data, etc to back up what you said.

[–]LuctorEtEmergo 4 points5 points ago

Thank you for saying everything I was thinking. OP seems to be a tad biased in answering the question of why his original post was applicable to libertarians and explaining the philosophy of libertarianism. I wish redditors would stay away from the value judgments and ad hominem based rhetoric when answering questions.

[–]schnuffs 0 points1 point ago

Or you should provide a link to a source that has done this extensive analysis of all points of view and uses sound logic, data, etc to back up what you said.

This link gives a number of critiques of Austrian economics by respected economists. A major drawback of Austrian economics is actually its reliance on an axiomatic principle without regard for empirical data, which gets in the way of its desired conclusion. You're asking for something that Austrian economics (i.e. libertarian economics) doesn't even use in the first place. It places too high a value on a priori reasoning for complex systems with many variables. Variables, I might add, that can't be accounted for without data to support them.

Not that I'm against all libertarian points of view, but there's a reason why Austrian economics is largely dismissed and isn't held in high regard in academic circles. Whereas most economists treat economics as a scientific endeavor, Austrian economists treat economics as an ideology/philosophy.

[–]Pilebsa[S] -3 points-2 points ago*

I agree with a lot of libertarian ideals.

However, I dislike modern activist libertarians and their approach - look within this thread for examples - they attack people who disagree with them rather than the actual ideas being critiqued. They have difficulty discussing issues without resorting to strawman arguments. They love to talk about how "oppressive" the "state" is. As if getting rid of the state will suddenly make everything free. There is no definitive, exclusive cause-effect relationship there, and they pretend there is. And when you try to point it out, you are called a "moron" and that you don't understand. I grow tired of that.

For example, I really am against "corporate personhood". That in and of itself is a singularly important and critical issue that needs to be addressed and eradicated. I'd have more respect for the modern libertarian movement if they actually talked about solutions rather than how this-or-that is broken, corrupt, or wrong. Something as seemingly simple as the eradicatin of corporate personhood is a complex issue that warrants elaborate discussion and debate on its own. But good luck getting a libertarian to say anything more than, "abolish corporate personhood dude!" The same thing goes with their hatred of the Federal Reserve - just get rid of it, and move to a gold standard, with no realistic idea how that could take place without throwing the whole economy in chaos. It's impossible to take them seriously. These issues are much more complex, and for anyone who truly wants social change, you have to take a more pragmatic approach. I don't see modern libertarian activists doing that. All they do is produce a laundry list of things they want to destroy and dismantle, with no actual reconstruction plan beyond a nebulous "faith" in the market magically-correcting itself. That's not good enough. It may not matter when you're a college kid and everything you own can fit in the back of your car, but for the other half of society that owns lots of stuff, has lots of responsibilities and obligations and is part of a more complex interconnected relationship within multiple communities, there is much more at stake. I rarely hear those arguments.. and for that reason, I think some critical discussion of the libertarian agenda belongs in /r/Freethought.

[–]Lightfiend 7 points8 points ago*

The point is, the modern (anarcho capitlist/minarchist) libertarian movement (popularized by Ron Paul and Ayn Rand) is pushed by large companies and successful people exploiting the generic concept of "personal liberty" to free themselves of state regulation.

If this were true, wouldn't libertarians be winning more elections? As far as I know, Ron Paul gets the least support from corporations out of almost every other candidate. Most big businesses, in fact, enjoy state regulations due to things like state subsidies and regulatory capture.

[–]TheFlyingBastard -2 points-1 points ago*

There are a lot of other people caught in the propaganda, fixated on single issues like "drug legalization" and "no taxes"

No taxes? Are these people insane? Where will they get the money for roads, law enforcement and other public services?

[–]Bouncl 0 points1 point ago

I'll bite. The idea is that they'll be privatized. I disagree with privatized law enforcement, and other absolutely essential services, but I am not convinced that privatized transportation services are a bad thing.

[–]Pilebsa[S] 0 points1 point ago

I am not convinced that privatized transportation services are a bad thing.

You do realize a true "privatized transportation service" would likely involve different toll roads every x feet? Or private interests controlling large gaps passage and extorting high fees?

Imagine if you will, that the airwaves were not centrally-regulated. That the government could not tell any citizen which frequency they can/cannot use? So you have chaos as different private interests stomp on top of each others spectrum? What happens when there is no "what's in the best interest of the community" and some land owner in a key location refuses to allow anyone or say, "blacks" or "gays" or "christians" to crosse his land?

[–]Bouncl 0 points1 point ago

You do realize a true "privatized transportation service" would likely involve different toll roads every x feet? Or private interests controlling large gaps passage and extorting high fees?

It costs me ~$10 to drive on the toll road to my friend's house. There is no way around this. Were privatized roads to exist, it is possible (not certain, nor entirely impossible) that I would be able to do it for cheaper. I can't say I'm really qualified to argue on this topic in particular, but it is one of the things that I plan on reading up on once I'm less busy.

[–]TheFlyingBastard 1 point2 points ago

What happens when there is no "what's in the best interest of the community" and some land owner in a key location refuses to allow anyone or say, "blacks" or "gays" or "christians" to crosse his land?

Arkansas, Article 19 [page 63/81]:

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

Maryland, article 36, 37:

That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore,

  • no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights;

  • nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief;

  • provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God.

(Formatting and emphasis mine)

North Caroline, article 6:

The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

...

Anyway, you get the point. People who do not believe in the existence of The Almighty God® are, in some states, forbidden to participate in a major part of society: holding public office, regardless of the public's interest. Hell, in Arkansas, as you can see, they can't even function as a witness in court.

We need a witness to get this murderer behind bars! You can help us take him off the streets. Wait, you're an atheist? Well, that sucks.

[–]Pilebsa[S] 0 points1 point ago

Except that those laws have been proven to be unconstitutional and cannot be legally enforced.

However, according to Ron Paul, they should be legal. He believes the states should be able to override the Constitution.

[–]TheFlyingBastard 1 point2 points ago

Sure, I agree they are unconstitutional, and in court they would get overturned. But isn't it disturbing this is in the constitutions of those states? I'm just pointing out the mindset people have.

It is in support of your reply above: Due to this mindset we'll have people being discriminated for the most ridiculous and inane reasons if a larger governmental body doesn't step up to the plate.

[–]Pilebsa[S] -1 points0 points ago*

But isn't it disturbing this is in the constitutions of those states? I'm just pointing out the mindset people have.

Yes it is disturbing. You talk as if "government" created those oppressive passages. PEOPLE created them. The same people that you seem to have much more faith in behaving properly if government didn't regulate them as much. There's absolutely no evidence that would happen. People inherently pursue their own self-interests, often at the expense of others if they can get away with it. That's human nature. Once a society gets beyond a certain size, where when you piss in your backyard, it can disappear into someone else's and you don't care, the anarcho-capitalist libertarian model breaks down. In Ron Paul's world, theists who want to discriminate against atheists have one less step in the process without government in the way.. they'll still do it, but then nobody can say it's unconstitutional.

The fatal flaw in the free-market libertarian model is the cognitive dissonance that libertarians employ by separating themselves from government. They see themselves as individuals and government as some entirely separate entity that opposes their interests. That's not what government is. Government is a composition and creation of the people. If you choose to not participate and help government become better, then you are just as much responsible for the evil government perpetrates, and suggesting government simply needs to be neutered is not a solution. It's a shallow, reactive, response that creates more problems than it solves.

[–]TheFlyingBastard 0 points1 point ago

The same people that you seem to have much more faith in behaving properly if government didn't regulate them as much.

Dude, I trust people as far as I can throw them. I totally agree with you.

[–]TheFlyingBastard 0 points1 point ago

Our train system is privatized. It's not so bad. There's a lot of bitching that our trains are often late by over five minutes or that the trains are full on busy lines during peak hours, but if that's all you can complain about on the busiest train system in Europe, I don't really see a reason to bitch about privatization.

However, privatized law enforcement is just a bad idea every step of the way. I think the US is a great example of this with its privatized jails. They're chock full - not because crime is rampant, but because jails need to stay filled, otherwise they'll go out of business. Caught with some pot? Jailtime for you.

Here our jails are still government controlled. They're practically empty. We need to close jails and take in people from other countries so their upkeep isn't a complete waste. Money makes the world go round, but it doesn't need to make it spin out of control.

A privatized society is just an all-round bad idea which seems to me (and I could very well be wrong) to be born out of the fear of having to separate with a bit of money.

[–]Bouncl 0 points1 point ago

It's widely accepted that privatization usually makes things more efficient. There are upsides and downsides to that. Privatized jails become better at keeping people in jail, as it makes them money. I find transportation is a bit iffy in my head, because with "commodities" like that, it's difficult for the consumer to have real choice, defeating the purpose of privatization in the first place.

[–]JW_00000 63 points64 points ago

Does this really belong in /r/Freethought?

[–]seregygolovogo 21 points22 points ago

No.

[–]respeckKnuckles 2 points3 points ago

I recommend reporting. Moderators surely must see that (1) this is against the "rational, logical" discussion this forum is supposed to be about, and (2) the type of discussion this post provokes is barely worthy of /r/politics.

[–]adenbley 2 points3 points ago

mod is submitter

[–]respeckKnuckles 2 points3 points ago

haha! Well, that sucks.

[–]adenbley 1 point2 points ago

nothing we haven't seen in /r/politics

[–]crackduck 1 point2 points ago

And intensely anti-libertarian. Has been for ages.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]respeckKnuckles 1 point2 points ago

meh. I'm just gonna unsubscribe now before he has the chance. Looking back at the sub and what kind of posts make it to the top, it's clearly not what it claims to be.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]hmmd 10 points11 points ago

There can't be any rational debate while there are a lot of people here who a priori suppose libertarianism is bad and downvote anyone who disagrees.

[–]bananasncornbread 4 points5 points ago

Or to be balanced, those that think it is a saving grace. Downvotes for disagreement, while democratic in a sense, fail to further conversation. If it adds to the discourse it gets upvoted no matter how much it galls me.

[–]snakeseare 1 point2 points ago

You follow Reddiquette, therefore the mob turns its torches on you.

[–]Botzu 2 points3 points ago

I don't know how much rational debate you are going to get out of this. I think stuff like this is just going to get people to get defensive. I am not even a libertarian and stuff like this makes me defensive in the same way as when I hear christians talk negatively about homosexuals. Like a "hey I have friends who are gay and they don't act like that" kind of thing.

[–]LuctorEtEmergo 2 points3 points ago

Seriously though, mocking belief systems that you disagree with doesn't seem like the best way to approach the subject in a calm and respectful manner. I unsubed from /r/politics and /r/atheism to avoid this kind of stuff because it generally descends into a huge circlejerk. As a mod of this sub you should know better.

[–]winfred -2 points-1 points ago

Not on reddit it can't. :(

[–]lego-banana 71 points72 points ago*

Mocking schools of thought you disagree with through oversimplified caricatures doesn't really generally encourage constructive free thought.

Edit: Reworded for clarification. I'm not taking an absolutist stance here, sometimes satire is good. For a topic on which much of the audience is uninformed though, it tends to lead to circlejerking, especially when there are widespread preformed (mis)conceptions about what libertarianism really entails. The comic isn't necessarily bad or wrong (which is a separate matter), but this isn't the place for it.

[–]wittyrandomusername 7 points8 points ago

I was going to say a dumber version of what you said.

[–]drankenstein 0 points1 point ago

Yes, political cartoons have no place in polite society and have never stimulated discussion. Ever. Nope.

(that is called sarcasm by the way. you'll find the context, ummm, above, below, and in reply to your own pointless pedant, which has ironically stimulated some great replies.)

[–]Pilebsa[S] -1 points0 points ago*

I disagree. Humor, mockery and shame has always been a very powerful force for influencing people.

What's interesting here is... these "evangelical libertarians" act a lot like evangelical religious people. Imagine if you posted some kind of cartoon mocking atheists in /r/Atheism. Would they be offended or would they be amused? Would they immediately bitch and moan that they were mischaracterized, or would they instead elaborate on the finer points of why the charicature is inaccurate? My guess is they'd do the latter more than the former. But religious people and libertarians and other people who seem to have more an allegiance to ideology than knowledge and wisdom, seem to react in a different way. I find that interesting.

EDIT: as noted by the fact that I've been down-voted to -3 without any comments.

[–]snakeseare 3 points4 points ago

Ever since Reddit became a fucking kindergarten, downvotes are the desirable votes.

[–]Pilebsa[S] -4 points-3 points ago

I wish sometimes, a person's age could be listed next to their name.. then we'd have a lot more perspective.

[–]nightzirk 7 points8 points ago

Surely, you can't be serious. No opinion is more valid for being that of an older person.

[–]drankenstein 0 points1 point ago

Sure they are. Example: I'm going to take the opinion of a 50 year old over a 2 year old on how to make the best martini.

So somewhere between 2 and 50 there's probably some gray area on where that opinion becomes valid, but I'm pretty sure it's a ways past 2.

[–]AxeAQuestion 4 points5 points ago

I disagree. Humor, mockery and shame has always been a very powerful force for influencing people.

Then take it to the mockery and shame sub reddit. The mission statement for this place is about rational and logical examination of things. What does this submission contribute to that at all?

There are great specific examples of libertarians being caught up in their ideology. Climate change denial is a big one.

[–]Bouncl 3 points4 points ago

Would they be offended or would they be amused? Would they immediately bitch and moan that they were mischaracterized, or would they instead elaborate on the finer points of why the charicature is inaccurate?

I imagine that while there would be a few comments that would 'elaborate.' The vast majority of people who saw it would bitch and moan. Atheists are not some sort of super-intelligent master race who are able to take everything in stride, and react calmly. If this were the case, I find it unlikely that /r/atheism would exist in it's current form, as a safe place for atheists to go and vent about their life. That at least, is why I downvoted you.

EDIT: To clarify further- If you had discussed in a little more depth on why you think mockery is important to this discussion about Libertarians, I would be more sympathetic, but instead you chose to launch into a spiel about (from my perspective) the superiority of atheists.

[–]Pilebsa[S] -3 points-2 points ago

I think atheists are much more amenable to arguing the legitimacy of their beliefs in detail, even the douchey ones. I don't believe the same can be said of more ideological groups. I contend that a significant portion of the libertarian movement is mostly ideological. As an atheist, if you have evidence god is real, I want to see or hear it. If I talk to a libertarian and produce evidence that their philosophy doesn't work, they call me a fascist, moron, freedom-hater and downmod me.

[–]Bouncl 2 points3 points ago

I suppose my point was that while there may be truth to your argument, I find it both mildly irritating in that I think for all the good things there are about the atheist movement, it also has many faults, and also in that you did not really expand on your point about humor, but rather chose to hold up atheists as a golden example. I do think that there is a subset of atheists that is similar, if not the same as what you are describing that are intelligent and level-headed. However, I am not convinced that this "core" is proportionally larger than the "core" of any other group in general. (Although it is certainly larger than some in particular.)

[–]respeckKnuckles 3 points4 points ago

Humor, mockery and shame has always been a very powerful force for influencing people.

and yet you complain about this in another post:

[Libertarians] attack people who disagree with them rather than the actual ideas being critiqued. They have difficulty discussing issues without resorting to strawman arguments. They love to talk about how "oppressive" the "state" is. As if getting rid of the state will suddenly make everything free. There is no definitive, exclusive cause-effect relationship there, and they pretend there is. And when you try to point it out, you are called a "moron" and that you don't understand. I grow tired of that.

[–]pilebsaisatyrant3 2 points3 points ago

EDIT: as noted by the fact that I've been down-voted to -3 without any comments.

You ban people without comment or counterargument for simply disagreeing with you. How is that better?

[–]MuncherOfSpleens 1 point2 points ago*

Thank you. I disagree with libertarian ideals and feel that capitalism is to blame for a lot of social problems worldwide, but beating up a straw man doesn’t accomplish anything.

[–]AtlasFarted -1 points0 points ago

This is spot on. You just don't have the sense of humor or objectivity to see it.

[–]shiv52 10 points11 points ago

From the side bar

More than atheism: dedicated to rational, logical and scientific examination of culture, politics, religion, science, business and more!

This comic is a straw man attack on extremely complicated mater.

It is like if i took all of hegel,marx and lenin in 3 frames of the worst stereotype and say "herp derp" this is why communism sucks. that would not be a rational,logical or scientific examination of anything.

[–]ucecatcher 2 points3 points ago

If your dog were the flimsy strawman of an ignorant "Liberal".

Fixed it for you.

[–]Randolpho 13 points14 points ago

s/libertarian/objectivist/g

This sounds more like objectivist thinking than libertarian thinking. And although the two often hold hands, cuddle, spoon, and occasionally do unspeakable things with each other, they are two different schools of thought.

[–]kjmitch 2 points3 points ago

I could see that being the case. I think, however, that the point stands: whoever this group is that says this type of things, this cartoon is an accurate if exaggerated view of them and what they say, and the irony most people feel toward this is presented entertainingly well.

[–]aidrocsid 4 points5 points ago

Not really. The dog represents general hostility to taxes, the fish represents the desire to deregulate environmental protection, and the cat represents the entitled attitudes of the richest who don't think they should have to give anything back. This isn't objectivist, it's libertarian. Even an objectivist who wasn't otherwise ignorant would know the inherent value in protecting his own assets, such as the environment that makes it possible for him to live. Only a libertarian is so single-minded in his rejection of "interference" of any kind that he'd have the air filter ripped out of his own tank.

[–]Randolpho 0 points1 point ago*

But those are all objectivist stereotypes, not libertarian stereotypes. Libertarians are about anti-authoritarianism, primarily with respect to personal freedoms. Objectivists are the ones who are anarcho-capitalists. There's a tendency to overlap, as I mentioned, but they're two different things.

Edit I rather like @Pilebsa's groupings, so I'll withdraw what I said. I was claiming libertarians were (as he labels them) Civil Libertarians, while you're claiming libertarians are Fiscal Libertarians, and your stereotypes definitely fit that label.

[–]aidrocsid 0 points1 point ago

I was mostly just going on Ron Paul's platform. He's doing all of these things and tends to be the person I hear Libertarians backing.

[–]Randolpho 0 points1 point ago

No worries. :)

[–]tritium6 0 points1 point ago

I think what aidrocsid meant was

But only libertarians are so purely evil that they would fit the purely evil stereotypes depicted in the cartoon.

[–]come2gether 8 points9 points ago

i am sorry, but its fun to poke fun at libertarians, but this just isnt an accurate portrayal of libertarian ideology.

[–]geodebug 6 points7 points ago

You haven't met my brother. Oy, love the guy but he's that dog, fish, and cat rolled into one.

[–]come2gether 0 points1 point ago

i dont think its fair to say that since your brother is libertarian, and he agrees with the comic, therefore that is what libertarianism is about.

libertarianism is about individual liberty+freedom.

[–]geodebug 6 points7 points ago

Another common theme I've run into is that libertarians don't have a sense of humor.

[–]come2gether 1 point2 points ago

i know, most libertarians are too serious when it comes to their party id. but still you can put yourself in their shoes and understand why they want to express how they feel about something they identify with when its being mischaracterized, while still laughing about it.

[–]geodebug 1 point2 points ago

Sure, I've also got some minority beliefs and can get worked up every once in awhile. Hard to be the underdog and all.

[–]sping 1 point2 points ago

libertarianism is about individual liberty+freedom

If only there were some agreed definition of what exactly those two words meant, and how best to achieve them, that statement might be discriptive.

[–]come2gether 0 points1 point ago

i dont think it is as difficult as your implying. it is not subjective. the agreed upon definition can be found in a dictionary.

[–]sping 1 point2 points ago

Well, the difficulty is how the dictionary definition manifests itself in meaningful ways in our lives. It's very hard to agree upon that. In some cases it's hard to even find common ground between peoples' perceptions of the concept.

For example, to some people taxing wealth is an affront to liberty, while to others it is an essential requirement for maintaining liberty. I would argue this is not only a difference in perception of how to achieve liberty - it's a divergence in the concept itself.

Hence, I find any talk of being for liberty or freedom to be absent any descriptive power.

[–]come2gether -1 points0 points ago

i would refute that argument. i think maximizing individual freedom and liberty have meaning. the commonly understood premise in defending liberty is in relation to aggression from others.

you could argue that Not letting yourself be raped, is stopping someone from having freedom to rape you. if i want to have sex with someone. that doesnt mean that if that person doesnt want me i should be free to rape them. i think the crucial difference is the concept of freedom that does not involve aggressing against others.

in order to maximize individual liberty+freedom you cannot allow for one person to aggress against another. because by protecting someones freedom to aggress against you, you are limiting the freedom of the person from being aggressed. the only reasonable way to maximize freedom for everyone is to protect individuals from being aggressed against by others. and libertarian minarchists would argue that this is the only legitimate role of government.

part of the unstated premise embedded within individual liberty+freedom in libertarianism is that your rights stop at the other persons face. protection of liberty and individual freedom doesnt mean the government protects your freedom to aggress against others.

while to others it is an essential requirement for maintaining liberty

this is what i mean by the dictionary definition. up is not down and down is not up. if someone thinks that freedom for them is the freedom to legally steal from others without impunity, then that is objectively not a freedom that can be protected while maximizing everyones freedom. that is theft. by protecting the right of someone to steal. you diminishing the right of someone to not be stolen from. and in doing so you cannot maximize freedom and individual liberty.

[–]sping 0 points1 point ago

I have no idea why you went off on tangents about raping and stealing.

You obviously have a fairly extreme opinion on what liberty means and how it should be achieved. This is not universally shared.

Hence back to my original assertion. Saying "libertarianism is about individual liberty+freedom" has zero descriptive value.

I believe in liberty and freedom yet I am not a "Libertarian" in the sense that it is used in the modern US; I do not accept that minimizing government to protecting our right to freedom from aggression is in any way sufficient for liberty and freedom. Quite the reverse, I believe that limiting government to that role would guarantee the loss of liberty and freedom.

I have no intention of arguing the political point - merely to reinforce the original point. Big-L Libertarians in the US in no way have the monopoly on the understanding or meaning of liberty and freedom, and various people have such contradictory views of what that means that to try to describe a political ideology using those words is meaningless. Indeed, just about every political slant in the US describes themselves using those words.

[–]come2gether 0 points1 point ago*

just about every political slant in the US describes themselves using those words.

I am sorry but I respectfully disagree with your assertion. I think that it isnt fair to say that all political ideologies place individual freedom and liberty as centrally important, and if they claim to I dont think it is an accurate description. They can claim anything they want, but i dont think it would be true in any real sense.

My analogy to theft and rape was to associate the idea that in order to maximize f+l the governments role should be limited to protecting people from being agressed against.

My point is that everything the government does in the traditional sense that is "meant to increase the freedom of individuals" such as having a monopoly on providing certain services such as fireman, forcing people to pay for schools, giving people free healthcare, making people wear seatbelts, or go to jail for having a plant in their pocket, is tantamount to my analogy of raping people who do not want to be raped. Because in order to fund these programs, they "aggress against peacful individuals"

In other words, in order to pay for these services that are "redistributions of wealth" aimed towards good intentions of making people more free. The government must fund these programs by stealing from other individuals. So by helping one group of people be more free, it is at the same time holding a gun to another group of peoples head, and saying if you dont pay for these services so we can help other people be more free, then we are going to throw you in jail. That in my view is the same as raping people in order to allow other people to be free to do the raping. Because in essense it involves aggressing against peacful individuals, limiting their liberty, in order to increase the liberty of someone else. So what makes libertarianism unique and centrally about individual liberty and freedom. Is that aggresing against peaceful individuals and making them less free in order to help other people be more free, is basically not equvalent nor congruent with maximizing individual liberty and freedom.

So when you argue that for example "socialist or communists, or democratic, anything collective ideology" is just as important for maximizing individual freedom and liberty as libertarianism. That is a absolutly false statement in my view. Because these idelogies cut down individual freedoms, by aggressing against peacful individuals, in order to achieve the freedom for someone else. But it is dishonest to say that our society is free, because we allow people free healthcare, free education, all these government benefits. Because in order for the government to give these services to people, it must aggress against peacful individuals, and use force against them. And limit their freedom. Everything government gives to people it must steal from someone else. So the more things it gives, the less freedom the people have who are being taken from.

So while collective ideologies may appear free, and full of individual liberties, the very core of the principle is using aggression to carry out the "good intentions" that are deemed worthy by the government. Even if it means removing other peoples liberty in the process.

[–]attilad 4 points5 points ago

Just like anything, probably 20% of libertarians know and understand what it means to be a libertarian, and 80% think it just means they shouldn't have to do anything they don't want to.

Also, 98% of these statistics are arbitrary.

[–]bananasncornbread 1 point2 points ago

Upvote for citing the source of your statistics!

[–]aidrocsid 0 points1 point ago

What part of it isn't? They reject paying back into the society that helps them survive, they reject the protection of the environment that allows them to survive at all, and they reject the notion that those who have should give back to those who have not. It's exactly libertarian ideology.

[–]come2gether 0 points1 point ago*

for me, libertariansim is about individual liberty. you cant say we have this great goal for society but in order to do it, we are going to take away peoples freedoms. one example of how this is manifested is in peoples ability to keep the fruits of their labor, by forcing them to pay for services they do not use. or we are going to legislate morality. and pass a law saying that people should be forced to wear a seatbelt, or be thrown in jail for having a plant in your pocket.

They reject paying back into the society that helps them survive

i assume this is referring to the sentence about the filter analogy? not sure how "helps them survive" justifies forcing people to use services they do not use without giving them the choice. i would support being able to opt out of paying for firemen, and then not have to pay for it or use their services. and then hire a private company because they could do a better job at a cheaper price. its based on the false assumption that without the government providing the service then it wont be taken care of in other non-coercive ways.

they reject the protection of the environment that allows them to survive at all.

they would argue that property rights are enough to protect the environment. so if you create government regulations it will create perverse incentives that would make it worse. whereas property rights would produce better safety standards.

they reject the notion that those who have should give back to those who have not

i assume this is about the cat example? i dont think libertarians would argue that they shouldnt pay for those who have not because they didnt work hard enough. i think they would say it is wrong for government to take from me, in order to give it to other people. because that is called theft. and theft is wrong. regardless if your stealing to help someone else. and regardless if the theft is carried out by government or your neighbor.

[–]SoThatHappened 1 point2 points ago

And then they all move to New Hampshire, where effigies of Bob Barker are burned fortnightly!

[–]neurosnap 7 points8 points ago

What a superficial stereotype. The last one is the most egregious. The point of libertarianism is unity through volunteerism and nonaggression. To suggest if we didn't have a centrally planned safety-net infrastructure then we wouldn't have a social safety-net at all paints humanity in such a horrible picture. A great example is this fucking website. Look at all the philanthropy that happens on this website without being forced to contribute. It depresses me how pessimistic people are that we HAVE to have a nanny-state to be a prosperous and functioning society. Which would you feel more proud about: being forced to pay for safety-net programs through the government, or voluntarily donating money to your local community to promote the well being of everyone?

What if everyone contributed to the well being of society without being forced to do so? The definition of altruism. Isn't that a society we all want to strive for?

[–]LonestarRanger 3 points4 points ago

To suggest if we didn't have a centrally planned safety-net infrastructure then we wouldn't have a social safety-net at all paints humanity in such a horrible picture.

Unfortunately, it's a true picture. Could you name some other places where they have a social safety net like Western Europe, but is voluntary to contribute to? Charities are great and all, but they mostly act as a bandaid on a headwound, providing small numbers of people with scant services. I know you would like to believe that everything would be fine if we just didn't plan out how to provide for the needy and just wished that kind people would find them on the street and take care of them. However, that seems pretty naive to me.

Libertarian philosophy actually increases competition for resources and goods by staunchly defending capitalism and private property, and then asks people to be generous and care for others out of the goodness of their hearts. It seems like you want the world to be a certain way, then try to build a system that would put up every possible barrier to that world.

Which would you feel more proud about: being forced to pay for safety-net programs through the government, or voluntarily donating money to your local community to promote the well being of everyone?

Of course the later, but it's not about what makes me feel good or how righteous of a person I think that I am, it is about the consequences of my actions. Will a planned system that provides services for the most disadvantaged and requires all to help pay for that system be a good thing or a bad thing?

What if everyone contributed to the well being of society without being forced to do so? The definition of altruism. Isn't that a society we all want to strive for?

Personally I think that would be awesome. It's what Marx wrote about the higher stage of communism. Unfortunately, I don't think you get to an altruistic society by destroying any system which provides for the common good if it requires that all of society chip in.

[–]aidrocsid 3 points4 points ago*

This website is a concentrated area of activity which strongly encourages giving. I've been homeless, I've lived off the charity of others. A small minority of people are kind enough to give anything, most of them are more likely to scowl at you. Even in a town full of tourists and adding a bit of theatrics, it wouldn't be enough to pay rent if you were out in the street all day. Some of those that did manage to pay for apartments through panhandling and busking only managed to do so because they were in government subsidized housing. Sure there were a handful of churches that would give you food a night or two a week, but not enough to live on. I got more from stuff that was going out of date at 7/11. Sure, I managed to sleep on a lot of couches and floors, but that's no life. It took years before I managed to start recovering from some of my emotional problems and put an actual life together for myself, but it probably would have gone a bit more quickly if I'd gotten a social worker or at least food stamps or something, but I was too fucked up.

Look, it's not that people don't care, it's that they have shit to do. They have to pay for their own lives, and it's not profitable to go around feeding the hungry and housing the homeless. Are people caring enough to come together and create infrastructure to support the needs of the less fortunate? Yes, and they do it through social institutions that we've established funding for through a resource-pooling process known as taxation. Is it a little messy? Sure, because humans are involved, but it helps a lot of people. There's room for improvement, which is a good reason to try to improve it, but it would be a colossal waste of time to completely dismantle all of our social infrastructures and hope someone rebuilds them out of the kindness of their hearts with absolutely no direction. To ask society to do such a thing demonstrates tremendous immaturity, intellectual laziness, and arrogance.

I might want a society where everybody's nice and smart enough that we don't need to pay any administrative fees for anything and yet it all works out smoothly anyway, but I more want a society where as few people as possible are starving and freezing. I want a society where I can expect to have roads to drive on and fire engines to put my house out. I want a society where I can call the police if someone tries to steal my house, and where nobody's dumping toxic chemicals into my drinking water. I don't want deer or dolphins or tuna to go extinct. I don't want my mountains fracked or strip-mined.

While I don't expect the social contract between us to be perfect, I do expect it to get a thing or two done.

[–]WellHeresMyFourthAcc 0 points1 point ago

If you want to examine voluntary contributions further (without the incentive of public recognition through upvotes), try looking at America under the Articles of Confederation.

[–]Pilebsa[S] 5 points6 points ago

I know the libertarians are going to downvote this but I think it's fairly accurate. Consider what Christopher Hitchens had to say about the movement:

"There wasn't a movement in the early days of the industrial revolution. You don't really get libertarian movements until there's a certain amount of peace, democracy and prosperity, where the hard task of creating a state and building a nation has been done." - Christopher Hitchens

[–]samizdat39 9 points10 points ago

Isn't that quote common sense though? There's no reason for an anti-statist libertarian movement to exist BEFORE a state/nation has been created/built.

Libertarians idolize the founding fathers and the early years of the United States for that reason. Everyone in a position of power or influence was libertarian in a way, so a movement wasn't necessary.

[–]DublinBen 0 points1 point ago

If I were a libertarian, the founders of our modern state would be the biggest villains in our nation's history.

I think that libertarians (rightly) idolize the pioneers who settled the frontier. Libertarianism is very much a frontier philosophy.

[–]samizdat39 0 points1 point ago

Not really. The frontier didn't really have much in the way of local governments and was largely controlled by the federal government because of that. By the time they actually formed local governments out west the federal government had already become more powerful than the individual states.

[–]DublinBen 0 points1 point ago

I don't think the federal government interfered with the daily lives of western settlers as much as any level does today. There were few laws, and little public enforcement of those that did exist.

[–]bearzooka 11 points12 points ago

We aren't in a time of peace, a time of prosperity or a time of 'democracy'.

All of those things have been swindled out from under our noses. The better part of the 20th century saw large amounts of prosperity and democracy, but no longer. We have massive, wide-spread election fraud. We have a political system with only 2 electable parties - which are nothing more than 2 heads of the same beast, and we certainly do not have peace. We've managed to push the fighting we do outside of our boarders but that doesn't make us 'peaceful' by any means.

[–]Pilebsa[S] -2 points-1 points ago*

We aren't in a time of peace, a time of prosperity or a time of 'democracy'. All of those things have been swindled out from under our noses.

And you epitomize the problem with people today. You have a very narrow view of the world and its history. If you think things are bad right now, you simply know nothing of what our country, our society, our cultures and humanity has had to endure. In the big picture, we all enjoy tremendous prosperity. Is it idyllic? No and it never will be. Are there problems? Absolutely. Is there still suffering and oppression? Of course, but relatively speaking, if you think America is really that bad off, you need to get out more, and start by heading to the library and reading a few history books.

We have massive, wide-spread election fraud. We have a political system with only 2 electable parties - which are nothing more than 2 heads of the same beast

What we have is an apathetic, uneducated populace that is overly reactive. It's not about how many parties we have. We could have 18 viable political parties and if the people are still pointing fingers everywhere else but at themselves for voting for those charlatains, nothing will get better.

Again, you epitomize what's wrong with the country: it's always their fault, someone else is to blame. Usually the big bad "government/Fed/two-party-system" strawman argument. You seem to think all you have to do is press a button in a booth and your civic duty is done, then if skittles don't fall from the sky in your favorite flavor, "the system is broken." That's not how it works. It doesn't matter how many parties you have or how fucked up the voting machines are. As long as people don't do anything except complain and say it's someone else's fault, nothing will change. And anyone who thinks a certain party or president is going to fundamentally change things is naive. We are all to blame, and the first step is educating ourselves and becoming continually politically-active, fixating on issues and not candidates and parties.

Look at what we accomplish when we focus on issues? We knocked down SOPA. This is the way things get done. We don't vote for people we hope will preserve our interests. We fucking directly preserve our interests and anybody that gets in the way is ousted from power.

[–]hmmd 3 points4 points ago

As long as people don't do anything except complain and say it's someone else's fault, nothing will change.

Kind of like government always blames it's failures on the free market?

[–]organic 3 points4 points ago

Kind of like how the libertarians always blame market failures on government regulation.

[–]bearzooka 1 point2 points ago*

If you think things are bad right now, you simply know nothing of what our country, our society, our cultures and humanity has had to endure.

I wasn't implying that we are the worst there's been, we're probably one of the best there's been as far as peace within our boarders...but that doesn't mean we are "peaceful" or "in a time of peace". We are simply less savage than we've been in the past.

You seem to think all you have to do is press a button in a booth and your civic duty is done

This is absolutely and 100% not true about me at all. Stop trying to throw blanket statements onto a person you've never met or had a conversation with in your life. Voting is a but a small portion of what my "civic duty" entails.

You seem to think you know me very well. You don't. I think that a president has some effect on a nation and it's direction. A good leader and promoter of liberty and freedom can inspire a lot of people. Just look at what the Ron Paul campaign has done this election cycle and the last. He's inspired the younger generation to think seriously about what true freedom is - which is a very difficult task to manage. I don't think Ron Paul is an end-all-be-all fix to our country...far from it. But he's the type of person that can inspire people to get off their couches, get off their computers and go out and do something. That's a good start.

Like you said - education is key to. I'd prefer to get rid of the government mandated "education" system so that people can once again realize what's going on around them, and not hold the idea that taking the national presidential survey is the way to fix everything wrong with our country. We've come a long way and we have a long way to go if we want to fix what they created and we allowed.

[–]Pilebsa[S] -1 points0 points ago

You seem to think you know me very well. You don't. I think that a president has some effect on a nation and it's direction. A good leader and promoter of liberty and freedom can inspire a lot of people.

The president is just a figurehead. The real change comes in congress. The fact that you put most of your effort into this symbolic figurehead, who makes promises that are impossible, much less plausible without wholesale support from Congress justifies my contention that you have a detached view of how to effect social and political change. Besides, I wasn't speaking specifically of you, but people like you who spend more time defibrillating the libertarian platform than examining it for signs of life in the first place.

Like you said - education is key to. I'd prefer to get rid of the government mandated "education" system so that people can once again realize what's going on around them

This makes no sense to me. I guess that's because I wasn't home-schooled?

[–]bearzooka -1 points0 points ago

Okay I'm going to have to respectfully bow out of the this 'debate'. Once again you're trying to throw blanket statements on me, when you have no idea who I am besides the several comments I've made here. Have a good one

[–]aleahey 1 point2 points ago

Sort of reverse argument from antiquity though, isn't it? If we are to infer that he meant since libertarianism didn't exist during the industrial revolution, it shouldn't exist/is wrong now?

[–]hmmd 6 points7 points ago*

There wasn't a movement in the early days of human history. You don't really get atheist movements until there's a certain amount of peace, democracy and prosperity, where the hard task of creating a society has been done.

So as you see, the same goes for atheism. Would you use that as an argument against atheism?

Some say theism built societies, and helped us survive in the early stages of human society (group selection hypothesis in evolutionary psychology of religion debate). Even if that was true, it would not mean atheism is wrong, or atheist society can't exist.

Also, from wikipedia on Hitch's political views:

But by 2001, Hitchens had disavowed socialism, declaring "capitalism is the only revolutionary system". In the same year he flirted with libertarianism, telling Rhys Southan of Reason magazine that he could no longer say "I am a socialist". Socialists, he claimed, had ceased to offer a positive alternative to the capitalist system. Capitalism had become the more revolutionary economic system, and he welcomed globalization as "innovative and internationalist". He suggested that he had returned to his early, pre-socialist libertarianism, having come to attach great value to the freedom of the individual from the state and moral authoritarians.

So, as we see, Hitchens was a libertarian.

[–]sonnuvabitch 3 points4 points ago

Atheism isn't a political movement...

[–]aidrocsid 0 points1 point ago

capitalist != libertarian

[–]hmmd 1 point2 points ago

Where did I say "capitalist" is "libertarian"?

[–]hauntedchippy -2 points-1 points ago

There wasn't an internet in the early days of human history. You don't really get the internet until there's a certain amount of peace, democracy and prosperity, where the hard task of creating a society has been done.

See how stupid that looks?

It's also worth pointing out (but I really shouldn't have to) that atheism is pretty old. Like ancient greek old.

[–]hmmd 1 point2 points ago

So you would say that becouse a libertarian society hansn't existed before, it can't exist?

[–]kjmitch 2 points3 points ago

The idea is that that statement is backward. If such a society can't exist, then that's reason enough that it hasn't existed before. And won't in the future.

[–]hmmd 0 points1 point ago

And people here are trying to imply that, somehow, the late occurance of the libertarian movement proves that libertarianism is wrong.

[–]kjmitch 0 points1 point ago

Once again (because this will be time number three that I've said it to you, bro), no one is saying that the late appearance of the movement proves the incorrectness of that movement, but rather the other way around. That because the movement is not correct is why it shows up after the hard work is done.

I get that you don't agree with that, that much is obvious. So in this post I am not saying anything one way or another about libertarianism; I'm only trying to illustrate to you in a clear manner what is being said by those you're replying to.

If you don't understand that, I can try to say it again, after saying that libertarianism is the bee's knees to avoid that unrelated argument, because it's important that we understand each others' semantics before we start talking about the actual argument.

[–]hmmd 0 points1 point ago

no one is saying that the late appearance of the movement proves the incorrectness of that movement

Then we agree. What is the problem then? Why am I being downvoted like mad here?

By the way, is this an anti-libertarian subreddit? There are some rules against being libertarian here? In that case, I apologize.

[–]kjmitch 0 points1 point ago

Ha, yes, we seem to understand each other now. I'll check my votes and make sure I didn't downvote you anywhere where you're actually contributing to discussion, as per reddiquette.

So far as being libertarian being against the rules, of course it's not, but this post isn't the best one to argue the alternate point. It is a cartoon post, after all; I'm surprised at the amount of actual discussion myself.

Protip: I've learned that if you have a contrary point to make on reddit, you're better off doing it so well that it's obvious the only downvotes are from the butthurt who refuse to or simply do not understand.

[–]hmmd 0 points1 point ago

There are two reasons for leftists to be butthurt about:

1) I compared libertarianism to atheism

2) I pointed out Hitchens was a libertarian, which is a fact

And so I unsubscribe from this facts-averse subreddit.

[–]kjmitch -4 points-3 points ago

You can't really, at all, just drop words into sentences in place of other words and expect to be taken seriously. Let alone have that new sentence you constructed be correct in any way.

[–]hmmd -1 points0 points ago

The fact the movement appeared late does not render the movement's objectives wrong.

[–]Hypersapien 0 points1 point ago

Nice. Where did he say that?

[–]ChaosMotor -2 points-1 points ago

Good thing it's stupid and not actually accurate.

where the hard task of creating a state and building a nation has been done

You mean imposing violence upon people and forcing them with threats of further violence to do what you say?

[–]sakodak 8 points9 points ago

Settle down, Ayn.

[–]ChaosMotor -2 points-1 points ago

Ayn Rand is an idiot, thanks for your retarded assumption that all libertarians worship Ayn Rand. When you find someone who preaches Ayn you've found a moron. When you find someone who assumes all libertarians preach Rand, you've found a moron of a different sort, but a moron still.

[–]sakodak 3 points4 points ago

You've heard the line about quacking like a duck, right? You're a Randuck.

[–]Pilebsa[S] 1 point2 points ago

It depends upon what type of libertarian you are. There are several dozen types. I personally am a civil libertarian. However, most "Randians" are minarchist and anarcho-capitalist libertarians. The ones raving over the "superiority" of a total free market (which has never proven to work in the sum-total of human history).

[–]sakodak 6 points7 points ago

And they say things like "ENFORCED AT THE POINT OF A GUN!!!1" when people talk about silly things like laws.

[–]kjmitch 1 point2 points ago

I like you, you seem to know what you're talking about. Unlike the guy you responded to; I imagine he had a point, but I couldn't find it amongst the name calling.

[–]ChaosMotor -1 points0 points ago

You mean, that governments have always interfered in markets, means that free markets can't work?

[–]aidrocsid -2 points-1 points ago

Um, what does what he said have to do with Ayn Rand?

[–]sakodak 3 points4 points ago

Because "the state is threatening me with violence" is a typical Ovjectivist mating call. Also, ChaosMotor can't take a joke.

[–]Pilebsa[S] 1 point2 points ago

You mean imposing violence upon people and forcing them with threats of further violence to do what you say?

Ahh, yes, that's it. When i wake up in the morning, before I am allowed to use any electricity, I am beaten severely by jack-booted thugs from the Dept of Energy and Public Service Utilities Commission, then when I merge onto the Interstate, I am promptly tased by a armed member of the Dept of Transportation... of course, I am not allowed to use the Internet until DARPA comes over and attaches wires to my testicles until I swear allegiance to them.

[–]aidrocsid -1 points0 points ago

Yes, that. It made us a global power.

[–]ChaosMotor -1 points0 points ago

Oh wow, violence means people do what you say so as to avoid violence? That's a great way to structure your society, with fear and threats. There's certainly no internal problems or sustainability issues there, such as constant threats of revolt and retribution. That couldn't possibly be why empires go broke with multi-faceted wars, would it?

[–]aidrocsid -1 points0 points ago

There most certainly are internal problems and sustainability issues.

[–]ChaosMotor 0 points1 point ago

So why continue to advocate for the system of violence that creates them? What benefit do you receive other than fulfilling man's base desire to wield power over others?

[–]aidrocsid 0 points1 point ago

Where did I say I was advocating anything?

[–]gatorbuck 3 points4 points ago

So the extent of our self-determination should be the same as a pet's?

[–]djrocksteady 4 points5 points ago*

If your Dog was a Communist:

Yes, there is shit all over your yard - now go find a low-ranking member of the collective to clean it up. If he refuses, shoot him.

Also, about the first panel - Feeding and housing the dog seems like a fair trade for some paper fetching. If the dog doesn't like it, he is free to leave the house.

[–]djrocksteady 1 point2 points ago

This parable came to mind when I was coming up with the above reply

A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to meet a House-dog who was passing by.

"Ah, Cousin," said the Dog. "I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food regularly given to you?"

"I would have no objection," said the Wolf, "if I could only get a place."

"I will easily arrange that for you," said the Dog; "come with me to my master and you shall share my work."

So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On the way there the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of the Dog's neck was very much worn away, so he asked him how that had come about.

"Oh, it is nothing," said the Dog. "That is only the place where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to it."

"Is that all?" said the Wolf. "Then good-bye to you, Master Dog."

http://www.aesops-fables.org.uk/aesop-fable-the-dog-and-the-wolf.htm

[–]Jman5 2 points3 points ago

I know this is just a comic, but I think there is more going on for people supporting libertarian candidates like Ron Paul.

For a lot of people there is a concern that our civil liberties are being eroded and the other two parties are unconcerned. Then, there is the huge economic burden of maintaining constant aggression oversea. Finally there is legitimate concern about whether power has centralized too far in the executive branch.

In short, a lot of people don't support libertarianism in it's entirety, but have no where else to turn when it comes to the above concerns.

[–]aidrocsid -2 points-1 points ago

Destroying the country isn't an alternative to it being not quite how you want it.

[–]Jman5 2 points3 points ago

Just because some libertarians take extreme views toward things like social programs and government spending, does not mean that everyone does.

I believe the three points I brought up were quite reasonable and incredibly important when you look at our recent history.

  • Sacrificing liberty for security has become the knee-jerk reaction of every politician for the last 10 years.

  • The amount of money we have spent in Iraq and Afghanistan alone has devastated our country's finances.

  • Finally, the unprecedented powers the executive branch has gained needs to be re-adjusted.

I take issue with the fact that you are dismissing these points as trivial which you seem to be implying by "not quite how you want it."

These are the greatest threats to our country in my eyes. The fact of the matter is even if Ron Paul was elected, the country would not turn into some wild west of deregulation and anarchy. From what I've read, his proposal is to freeze current spending instead of just immediately axing it. Either way, regulatory agencies like the EPA would still be funded whether the president likes it or not. It would take an act of congress to get rid of the agency.

You want to know my honest opinion? I think we need a strong and independent EPA. We need a robust plan to move us away from fossil fuel and start investing in renewable energy. I also think that there are many crucial social programs that keep people afloat through hard times.

But I believe these programs can weather the storm for a couple years while we get our house in order. It's getting ridiculous right now, and someone needs to right the ship before it's too late.

[–]aidrocsid 0 points1 point ago*

If this is all true then why do libertarians support Ron Paul? If security at the cost of liberty means the drug war or the war on terror, I certainly oppose that, but if it means roads that don't suck and homes for starving children, I don't really care what kind of rhetoric you use, opposing that makes you a dick.

I think feeding and educating people is more important than the stuff Ron Paul supporters bring up. It doesn't have to be an either or situation, but with Libertarians it is.

[–]Jman5 0 points1 point ago

I don't expect you or anyone else to agree 100% on the things Ron Paul stands for. I certainly don't.

Like you, I think it's important to have a strong educational, social, and environmental institutions at the federal level.

However, when you look around at the other candidates and see who else is pushing on civil liberty issues, real financial reform, and foreign policy reform, there aren't a whole lot of options.

  • The democrats seem to only give token gestures about civil liberties when they effect minorities.

  • Republicans only seem to care about cutting "liberal government programs" without making any real financial reform.

  • And no one seems to want to do anything about our ruinous foreign policy.

The only other critical issue for me is climate change. However, the republicans deny it's even happening and the democrats refuse to spend political capital on this. So the only choice I can see is to put it on the back burner to address my other concerns.

[–]aidrocsid 0 points1 point ago

Really? That's the only other critical issue? I don't mean to be insulting, but out of interest, can I ask your age?

To me the most important things are roads that aren't falling apart, social support systems that keep struggling people going, and a bit a of a push against the lobbyists who are bending our government to the will of corporations. I'd love to end the war on terror and the war on drugs, but I don't want that at the expense of everything else that's important. I also don't want some states to decide they don't mind pollution so much and allow companies to increase their emissions to save a buck, and I don't want racist states to be able to bring back segregated bars and schools. I think there's something valuable in the federal government that might need tweaking but shouldn't be thrown out the window.

Do we have foreign policy problems? Yes. That doesn't mean you ignore domestic policy.

[–]Jman5 0 points1 point ago*

Perhaps I should have said: The only critical problems that are being brought up for debate in this election.

I personally do not believe that our infrastructure would fall apart with any of these candidates. I think the public schools will stay open and the roads will be paved regardless of who is in the Whitehouse. So even though infrastructure is "critical" I don't think it's in jeopardy.

As far as lobbyists controlling our government. I think real campaign finance reform is a big problem and I almost added it right before I hit submit. However, I couldn't find the right wording, so I left it out (hoping you wouldn't bring it up!). However, like climate change none of the candidates on either side are saying they will do anything about it.

The fact is, we never get everything we want out of a candidate. You have to weigh what issues are most important to you against what the candidates are saying. Then, if you think they will stand by their promises, you vote for them. Even if they propose a few things you don't like.

I'm going to pass on the personal slight about my age. Just know that I'm not some angsty teenager and I'm well out of college.

[–]aidrocsid 1 point2 points ago

You can think whatever you want, but you're wrong. You can't have roads without public funding.

[–]Liberty165 0 points1 point ago

If security at the cost of liberty means the drug war or the war on terror, I certainly oppose that,

Could you elaborate on your opposition to the drug war? More specifically, what exactly would you do to end the war on drugs?

[–]aidrocsid 0 points1 point ago

It's inefficient and cruel and doesn't address the root causes of addiction and addiction-related crime. Something more like Portugal's model would be ideal.

[–]vgarrett 0 points1 point ago

I own a dog and a cat like this.

Killed my fish with M&M's - age 2.

[–]weaselword 1 point2 points ago

For a second there I was wondering how that typifies librarians.

[–]itsnotlupus -1 points0 points ago

Can we maybe call the folks this cartoon refers to as "Fundamentalist Libertarians", or "Fundies" for short?

Otherwise, this is a little bit like an "If your goldfish was a Christian" comic featuring a fish protesting with signs that read "God hates the aquarium" and "Thank God for dead fishes."

[–]aintso 1 point2 points ago

I'd appreciate any pointers to enlightening expositions OR criticisms of libertarian philosophy. My present knowledge is rather limited and biased, so I can't contribute to discussion really.

[–]georgedonnelly 0 points1 point ago

Actually I think a libertarian dog might (1) unionize with other dogs to get more walks or better food (2) simple leave and go off and do his own thing or perhaps even (3) negotiate some kind of contract with his own owner.

A libertarian fish might ask to go back to the ocean.

Etc/whatever.

[–]crackduck 0 points1 point ago

LOL, this subreddit is ironically named.

[–]lenojames 0 points1 point ago

"This is not an accurate portrayal of libertarianism!"

Yeah. I think that's because, if you look a little more closely at it, you will see that it's a political cartoon.

[–]kjmitch -3 points-2 points ago

The problem with this post is the same as the problem with apparent Libertarianism/Objectivism: the act of making fun at their expense which is supposed to take them down a notch (which we all need now and then) is exactly the thing that sets them off.

The people this cartoon very accurately depicts are precisely the ones incapable of taking an objective view at themselves and understanding the obviously less exaggerated characteristics they exhibit that are being parodied.

[–]zzing 0 points1 point ago

It seems to fit the stereotypes that I can come to associate libertarianism with.

And it is a nice bail of straw — with clothes!

[–]stringerbell -1 points0 points ago

Actually, not just libertarian - Republican too!

[–]WellHeresMyFourthAcc 0 points1 point ago

It's more about "libertarian" idiots than actual libertarians (not using a "No True Scotsman" here- many who self-identify with the term don't meet the initial definition).

[–]VirSaturnA 1 point2 points ago

This cartoon suggests that tyranny is somehow equivalent to life-sustaining systems in artificial environments. Stupid fish would remove the air filtration that makes their existence possible just as stupid citizens would remove tyranny which they surely could not live without. I don't see this as an expression of free thought but as an expression of establishment rhetoric.