Skip to main content

Most right-wing fanatics don't engage in anything one could call "logic" even deceptively: They don't care enough about morality and reason to even bother corrupting them - they just do whatever they can get away with, and turn violent if anyone tries to stop them.  But there is still a corrupt intellectual framework the right promotes, and it basically revolves around the Big Lie of the "free market" that falsely proposes that everyone is perfectly free to make economic decisions when they are not coerced by governments.  In this framework, seemingly reasonable statements about the liberty of the individual are isolated from all context and extrapolated until the results are nothing resembling freedom.  Here are some examples.

1.  Slavery

"A person is their own property."  Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?  Sounds like Libertarians and Conservatives (LibCons) are taking a position opposed to slavery, right?  Nope.  See, there's a problem with that statement: Property owners have the legal right to sell what they own to someone else.  What's more, property can be legally seized by creditors.  They're not saying every person is perpetually and intrinsically entitled to fundamental human rights - that's a liberal position, and one they hold in utter contempt.  What they're saying is that if you are in possession of such rights, then they belong to you until you willingly sign them away, have them stripped by creditors, or revoked by courts.  A human being is nothing more than a commodity in this ideological viewpoint, and a free person is merely one who happens to be in their own possession.  

In other words, you don't really have any rights - just an account sheet listing your assets, with two of the items on it being life and liberty.  So, if you wanted to - or if your economic situation were sufficiently dire - you could by this logic sell yourself into slavery.  And I don't mean merely de facto slavery, like signing an abusive contract with draconian terms: I mean LibCon ideology holds that "freedom" entitles people to put themselves into literal slavery, as chattels with no rights whatsoever.  And conversely, this "right" necessarily means that the receiver of the slave has the right to hold that property and exercise total jurisdiction over it.  

That means that if they felt like it, the new owner could sexually assault, torture, maim, or kill their property without violating the moral/legal framework, and by this logic it would be "voluntary" on the part of the victim even if they died screaming for mercy: They "voluntarily" signed away all right to themselves, and thus all events that followed from that decision are also voluntary.  This is how LibCons rationalize wage slavery and enforced poverty, and taken to its ultimate conclusion it's also how they rationalize literal slavery.  It's how even allegedly "moral" Confederates rationalized murdering their fellow Americans on the battlefield to protect an institution they acknowledged to be wrong: Because they thought the "wrong" of taking away the "property" of slave owners more than outweighed the justice of liberating slaves.

But it gets even worse, because if a person can transfer their "property" of themselves to another as part of a deliberate transaction, then that transaction can also be forced on them if they default on loans, can't pay bills, can't pay legal fines for minor offenses due to being in poverty, etc.  They can be enslaved for being poor, unlucky, or just maliciously targeted by someone with greater resources.  And that's quite a big step away from the "freedom" of the individual to make their own decisions, but it actually gets even worse than that.

If you own a tree, you also own the seeds it produces, so if you plant those seeds and they grow into more trees, you own them too.  If you own a cow and the cow gives birth to a calf, you own the calf too.  So if you own a human being, you own what comes from them - their productive output, whether that output is agricultural produce, manufactured products, or more "human capital" in the form of children.  And it doesn't matter how many degrees of separation it goes through: You own their children, their children's children, and their children's children's children.  This is a natural consequence of the idea of humans being anyone's property rather than repositories of intrinsic, indivisible, non-transferable moral and legal value.

And if one of these great-great-grandchildren of the guy who sold himself into slavery wants to be free, well...he should have thought of that before being born a slave.  Or he should seek his Master's permission and work really hard to "earn" that freedom.  If that Master still won't allow it, well, that's his "right."  Just as it would be his right to cut off the insolent slave's head who dared to ask for freedom and mount it on a pike as an example to the other property.  See, this is what freedom looks like to Libertarians and Conservatives.  

Even if there were some slave owner who changed their mind and went on a crusade to buy and liberate slaves, the others in their community would have the "liberty" to pass a law giving them to right to hang that guy for trying to undermine their way of life.  They would also have the "freedom" to wage war on their own country if it tried to end slavery.  In other words, nothing even resembling what any sane human being would call freedom or liberty - just a state where those with all power and privilege are able to act with total impunity against everyone else.  Speaking of which...

2.  Dictatorship & Serfdom

Another heinous consequence of "sovereign citizen" horseshit is the notion that private property gives its owners dictatorial powers within its boundaries - in other words, that all laws other than the whim of the owner cease to exist once you enter private property.  To this way of thinking, the United States of America doesn't exist on private property - it's just a bitterly resented grouting between lawless private tyrannies like medieval dukedoms.  According to this viewpoint, if you step off the street into a person's home, you're stepping out of 21st century America into 10th century Wallachia, with all the attendant differences in rights and morals.  

This is the origin of "Stand Your Ground" laws, and conservative resentment of Child Protection services and enforcement of domestic violence laws: To hold that anyone other than the person whose name is on the deed to the property has any rights whatsoever is a violation, in their view.  They believe the phrase "King of the Castle" is supposed to be literally true: A King being someone who has the right to have people executed, beaten, tortured, arrested, doesn't matter - completely at their discretion.  

But wait, it gets worse.  What if you economically have no choice but to live on someone else's property - do owners have the right to have private security forces arrest, beat, or summarily execute renters?  They do if LibCons have their way.  According to them, unless you own the property on which you live, you have to leave your own home and walk out into the public square to have any rights at all.  Except, uh oh, the corporation that owns your apartment complex bought the public square too.  They own the parks and retail centers, and the city leases the land from them on which its municipal government buildings are located, so you can't protest there - because Freedom.  Maybe you could protest in an empty, undeveloped field...except no, because real estate speculators own it all.

Maybe on the little neglected, graffiti-strewn islands in the crooks of freeway onramps the United States of America still exists in such a state of affairs.  Maybe those little 20-foot patches of dead grass are the "free speech zones" where someone who doesn't own land still has rights, unless of course they were built as part of some public-private partnership where a corporation can tell you to go away.  So that too is the LibCon idea of "freedom" - one where you have the freedom to choose between being homeless or being a serf contractually obligated to fall to the floor in the presence of your wealthy betters.  Which brings up an interesting hypothetical scenario...

3.  Robbery

Suppose a rich conservative buys up all the land surrounding your property - and I do mean all of it: A solid ring.  According to LibCon principles, they now have the right to set up a tollbooth between your house and the outside world and charge you $5,000 to leave and come back.  Moreover, they have the right to man that tollbooth with armed Blackwater guards with heavy machine guns, and swiss-cheese you if you try to cross their property without paying what they demand.  Now, most places have laws guaranteeing right-of-way under such conditions, but LibCon logic holds that to be "Big Gubmint interference" in the "free market," and a violation of the rights of property owners to absolute sovereign dictatorship over their territory.  

After all, you voluntarily chose to live there, and you were negligent in not realizing they were encircling you before they did.  If you had been more diligent, you would have seen it coming and either fled or preempted them by buying the land before they could.  Or if you couldn't possibly afford that, well, you should have thought of that too - you should have anticipated that you would be victimized and gotten rich to avoid it, or else not been so insolent as to live near someone with more money than you.

This scenario is a perfect metaphor for just about everything that happens in the private sector: We have almost zero power to negotiate our own compensation as employees or the prices of what we buy, because so much of the economy is under the total control of small and shrinking oligopolies intimately tied to political conservatism and its "Libertarian" handmaidens.  You don't agree to pay what you pay for healthcare - they demand it and you have no practical choice.  Same with rent, same with transportation, same with most things.  So from the laudable, liberal principle that people should be secure in their property, conservatives and Libertarians create a dark, twisted ideology where they call it "freedom" to be robbed at every turn, to be denied alternatives by people who own the ground beneath your feet and set up tollbooths between the citizenry and critical needs.  The LibCon ideal of the "entrepreneur" has more in common with a highway robber than a creator of productive enterprise.

4.  Lynching / Private imprisonment

LibCon ideology holds that everything is better when handled privately than by the government, and criminal justice is no different.  The "first line of defense" in this framework is the Dictator Landowner described before, who would to this way of thinking be within their rights to have private mercenary thugs hang someone from a tree for setting foot on their property without permission; or for stealing an apple while on the job picking them; or for having a skin tone the owner doesn't like and an attitude they find insolent (or "uppity"); or really any reason they see fit.  But if they're a slightly more merciful tyrant, maybe they don't have the offender killed - maybe they just lock them in a dungeon for a year or two, then dump them disheveled, emaciated, and half-crazy out into the street.  LibCons think this would be perfectly within a property owner's rights.

But they don't limit it to actually being on someone else's property: They extend the Dictator-Owner principle to entire communities, so if you do something the powerful citizens of the community find offensive (like being black and looking at a white lady), well they may just decide to settle things privately with a lynch mob.  Why "waste" taxpayer money on an explicit legal process that at least pretends the accused has rights when you can do away with all pretense and cut to the chase?  If you want to stop them, you should have thought of that before failing to be powerful.  If the police aren't part of the mob, they'll still defer to it if it has the blessing of money - at least in a LibCon society where police are paid so little (if anything) that they have to depend on private security work to survive.

Which brings us to things actually going on in our society: The sale of courts, elections, and police forces to the highest bidder, who then build private prisons and turn the entire system of criminal justice into a for-profit diabolical farce where human suffering is the only product.  Of course, since LibCons think it's all right for courts to put people into slavery via forced prison labor, it makes sense they would also support the kinds of corrupt "political enterpreneurship" that arises from it - like that juvenile court judge in Pennsylvania who took money to send thousands of kids to jail.  

5.  Child prostitution

Going back to the Slavery part, remember how LibCons said everyone is their own property?  Well, see, they also tend to believe that children are the property of their parents, partly because of the whole "people are property" idea in general, and also because of the "King of the Castle" horseshit.  But even if they try to hedge by conceding that parents are guardians of rights held in trust, one of those rights is the right to sell yourself into slavery - so if you can do it to yourself, then someone who holds that right for you would also have the same right in your place.  If the parent/guardian/owner decides (or at least claims) that what's best for their child is to be pimped out to financially contribute to household income, well, that's their "right" as a parent/guardian/owner.  Laws that prevent such a decision are "Big Gubmint interference" in "family."

The child might not want to be a prostitute, but hey, they don't want to go to school either - which fortunately their "enterprising" parents have the absolute right to keep them out of, choosing instead to form a charter school where the curriculum consists of prostitution and drug muling crystal meth across the Mexican border.  Whether the charter school teaches math and reading, fatuous religious dogma, or the proper procedure for weighing out bricks of cocaine, who is Big Gubmint to interfere in the decisions of a family (i.e., the absolute decisions of Head of the Family)?  They're teaching their kid a trade, and the value of money, so who could be against that?  What are ya, a Communist?


Libertarians and Conservatives will never admit this is what they favor, but their actions are clear: They oppose all measures that would prevent it.  Which in Sane People Land means this is what they support.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  We're all headed toward indentured servitude (7+ / 0-)

    if we don't govern capitalism.

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

    by Bob Love on Sun May 26, 2013 at 07:59:51 PM PDT

    •  I Don't Think So. I'm Not Nearly That Optimistic. (13+ / 0-)

      It's true that they want us as servants but only when they want us at all.

      There are 6 billion workers cheaper than us and there are already millions of robots cheaper than them.

      As a starting point for brainstorming back of envelope calculations, we should prudently assume that ownership can get along without 90% of humanity. And that means we should assume an ownership stance toward 90% of humanity commensurate with the burdens the 90% might impose on ownership.

      Kindova read between the lines thing.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun May 26, 2013 at 08:47:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the logical conclusion (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour, Bob Love

        is that anyone who survives is destined for indentured servitude.

        190 milliseconds....

        by Kingsmeg on Mon May 27, 2013 at 06:03:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  human servants will become status symbols (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean, splashy, Troubadour

        Like owning horses: they have to be fed, sheltered, given medical care, etc. and everyone knows they're less efficient than their mechanical competitors.

        Having human servants and human employees will become a badge of great wealth; who else but the wealthy could afford to keep a human?

        This is the future of the middle class: those humans whose position is secured by proximity and usefulness to the owners.  They will be slaves of course, but they'll be treated as well as they need to be treated in order to meet their owners' expectations.  We can't have diseased and physically and mentally stunted peasants uglying up our estate and screwing up their duties.

        The lower class will be all those people who simply cannot be profitably replaced by machines.  Think fruit pickers, which makes sense: the vast majority of human beings throughout history have been agricultural laborers.

        Everyone else will be dead or living in sewers and subway tunnels and not worth the trouble of a campaign of extermination.

  •  Good points, but they don't really (20+ / 0-)

    get to more substantial problems in libertarian ideology.  A libertarian (I used to be a committed one, A LONG, LONG time ago), would argue that those are all extreme circumstances that good people would prevent, probably through some Rube Goldberg fancy free market solution that prevents all those things from happening.  I've been there and listened to it before.

    There is one huge theoretical hole in libertarianism, though, and that's the entire concept of communal property just makes no sense to them.  Either you own it, or own a finite determinable share in it, or you don't.  If it's nobody's, then it belongs to whomever takes it first.

    For instance, if some asshole decides he wants to blow up his own oil wells (a key scene in Atlas Shrugged, for example), well, it's his oil well, isn't it?  How can we possibly infringe on his right to blow up his oil wells, Gulf War I style, since nobody really owns the environment that it damages?  

    Likewise, there's the problem of public roads, and libertarian/free market fanatics spin their wheels on this to a degree you can't imagine, trying to work out how this isn't a problem.  You need roads for society to work.  But governments tax people (i. e., use coercion to steal from the individual for a collectivist purpose) to do this.  There fantasies really go off the wall on this on how roads could and should be built only by private enterprise.  The bullshit gets really heavy on this.  They don't just make up looney tune suggestions for how society could function without roads and mail and phone franchises.  They also decry the existing system as being inadequate in all respects compared to this imaginary way of doing things.

    It shouldn't surprise people that a lot of the people that stick around at that level of libertarianism are scifi con people, like I was.  I keep threatening to write a diary about those days; it'll come eventually.  What I didn't meet was wall street brokers.  I met a lot of strange but intelligent people who hated the status quo.

    •  Libertarianism and Communism are alike (15+ / 0-)

      Both ONLY work if all humanity, without exception, is noble, selfless, and good.

      Too bad it has to deal with humans instead.

      We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

      by ScrewySquirrel on Sun May 26, 2013 at 08:26:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please write the diary! ASAP! n/t (11+ / 0-)

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sun May 26, 2013 at 08:54:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Libertarianism Is Based on Massive Time Paradox. (6+ / 0-)

      The libertarian mantra is that you can swing your fist freely so long as you don't hit my nose.

      But 8 seconds' reflection on the history of technology will reveal that at any arbitrary state of advancement, from the earliest seconds of agriculture, the ability of society to detect nose-hitting from fist-swinging has always demanded that any ethical libertarian would have demanded that society be massively more regulated than any democratic liberals ever did.

      Libertarianism is a charade that always demanded freedom for pursuit of happiness to benefit from the most advanced cutting edge knowledge and technology, while demanding that protective regulation be confined to the most antiquated knowledge and technology for measuring nose-hitting resulting from that liberated fist-swinging.

      An honest libertarian from the Moby Dick era when we had long known we were depleting the global [whale] oil source would've demanded a regulatory scheme that would be a dream come true for the most far-left radicals of today.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun May 26, 2013 at 09:07:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The oil well is his only by settled agreements (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DBunn, Troubadour, Rogneid, VeggiElaine

      about how one owns them and to what extent that ownership is accepted by the ALL. All property that is unused starts out as the property of ALLl. To prevent people from constantly attacking owners who may develop property for the benefit of the ALL, rules are made on for owners as well as the ALL. If the owner wants to make a deadly poison and  situate himself in his self contained castle whilst it blows down the valley killing all before it then the ALL has  the right to supercede ownership claims and kick his ass. If you want to destroy the civilization that provides aid to you then you will be destroying yourself. Geesh serial killers are the ultimate libertarians... They kill for their own pleasure without regard to the ALL.

      I love sci fi but some of it is over the top childish fantasies.

      Fear is the Mind Killer...

      by boophus on Sun May 26, 2013 at 09:12:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What they're not comprehending (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rogneid, teabaggerssuckbalz

      is that some forms of ownership are non-transferable, and non-terminable.  You don't have a right to let someone use a life-saving medical machine you own and then turn it off just because you feel like it, causing their death.

      Process defines product.

      by Troubadour on Sun May 26, 2013 at 09:35:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A successful libertarian world (5+ / 0-)

      would require that everyone be omniscient. They'd need to know not only what decisions would net the best outcomes, but they'd need to be aware of problems and opportunities to respond to.

      The most obvious flaw of libertarianism is that no one has the amount of time necessary to keep up with all things relevant to their personal safety and development - much less those of anyone else.

    •  they support privatizing oceans and air too (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dumbo, Troubadour

      Hard-core libertarians believe in selling off the world's oceans to the highest bidder.  "Logically" the people whose incomes depend on a large and reliable supply of fish will steward their property rather than pillaging resources that belong to nobody.  Same with all the world's forests: clear-cutting either won't happen since you can't just cut down trees somewhere else since someone else owns that land, or it'll happen but they'll plant new trees since they want to keep making money, so there will always be plenty of healthy forest even if there isn't any right here.  Even better, some entrepreneur will inevitably find a way to raise trees and fish where none grew before, so privatization means more nature, not less.

      It's not a stretch to think that they believe in expanding the Manhattan concept of "air rights" so that you can sue somebody if they dirty up your property with their pollution.  In theory, anybody downwind (or downstream) of a coal power plant, toxic waste dump, paper mill, pig farm, etc. could sue the operator for "illegal dumping".  Thus there won't be any air or water pollution since no sane businessman would want to be constantly fighting off class action suits that he could never win since it's self-evident that he's responsible.

      There is quite literally nothing that these people do not reduce to a commodity and argue can be both better protected and better exploited by being turned into property.

      I think they can take these superficially "freedom" positions since at the end of the day, whoever has the most money can do whatever they want, since they do not fear either lawyers or guns because they have more and better ones.

    •  Thanks so much for this! (0+ / 0-)

      This is the most cogent reasoning I have ever read explaining how the Internet is impossible.  Thanks again!

  •  The best tratment of the subject that I've ever (6+ / 0-)

    seen. Hopefully not nearly the best one possible, but certainly bringing the discussion much further from the darkness of the human intellectual past. From here, it seems to me, things only keep getting better.

    Thank you.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Sun May 26, 2013 at 08:59:56 PM PDT

  •  Your number 1 (8+ / 0-)

    reminds me of a conversation I had with my libertarian cousin.

    We were discussing business regulations, which, as a libertarian, he was, of course, against.

    So I asked, well, what about child labor laws?  Surely those are reasonable regulations?

    The response shocked me: the basic gist was "if children want to work at a young age, why shouldn't they be able to?"

    The problem, of course, is this doesn't take into account the fact that parents might force their children into jobs at young ages, or, for that matter, that the free market can be very coercive when it comes to employment issues (i.e., neither the parents or the kids WANT them to go work long hours in that factory, but if they don't the family won't have enough money to survive).

    My main issue with libertarians is that they deny what I would argue is a fundamental part of human society: we're all in this together.  One of the functions of community, of society, is cooperation.  I don't consider this a liberal or conservative ideal, I simply consider it a fundamental truth: things we do affect other people.

    Libertarians, as far as I can tell, seem to act as though we all exist in these bubbles, where our actions don't have any effect on others unless we want them to.

    The gun debate is a perfect example of this.  Yes, you have the right to own guns to protect yourself.  However, in a society, everyone else has the right to expect that they won't have to worry about some nutjob with a gun shooting them or their loved ones for no reason.  Now, obviously, the majority of gun owners won't end up shooting someone else out of self-defense.  But the problem is, by advocating for little to no regulations on gun ownership, you are essentially allowing it to be easier for those who WOULD do such things to deprive everyone of their right to not be shot.

  •  This is, of course... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shamash, coffeetalk


    But post it if you feel better about it.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Mon May 27, 2013 at 12:09:00 AM PDT

  •  This would be more interesting (0+ / 0-)

    If it was not in the form of "here are a bunch of accusations against half the population of the United States which the accused denies and which I can't be bothered to substantiate even once". If that's what I wanted to read I could get that 24/7 over at InfoWars.

    If you are going to toss out something that is the semantic equivalent of "Jews sacrifice Christian children in horrible Qabbalic ceremonies", the least you could do is actually provide some proof. Or you could do some more unsupported ranting. Go with whichever one you think is the best way to promote liberal values.

    In this case, since the accusation is leveled not at an extreme or a minority or just legislators, but against all conservatives and all libertarians across the entire spectrum,

    Libertarians and Conservatives will never admit this is what they favor
    you need to show that these five points are the norm from moderate Republicans all the way out to the Westboro types.

    For instance, for almost everyone reading this, your grandparents are by your standards, “conservative”. Do your grandparents believe in dictatorship in the US and child prostitution? If not, then hopefully you did not toss anything in the tip jar.

    I'd bet a rigorous scientific test of their ability to empathize would find them pathologically deficient.
    I think this diary is a good data point towards the hypothesis that this problem extends into the liberal part of the political spectrum as well. But at least the diarist didn't take reasonable statements, isolate them from all context and extrapolate them until the results bear no resemblance to reality...
    •  It doesn't matter what my grandparents believe (3+ / 0-)

      Market forces have neither heart nor soul.  If a transaction is not forbidden, and someone can profit by it, then a market will be created. If people are allowed to sell themselves or ther children into slavery, and someone can profit by it, then it will happen.

      Moreover, if a class of people arises whose livelihood depends on such a trade, then that class will have an incentive to promote it by lobbying for laws that encourage its growth.

      There is no "freedom" in human society; there are only fulcrums (fulcra?) where my rights and the rights of my neighbors balance. These fulcrums are artificial and established by community consensus, i.e. by law; otherwise, the strongest and least scrupulous individual would trample all others underfoot. That is how libertarianism leads to tyranny.

      Spock was a socialist; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

      •  Take the shortcut (0+ / 0-)

        "the needs [?] of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is surely the most dogmatic and insane justification for larceny, rape & murder ever ..
        i presume you claim cannibalism is a good idea then?
        such is the conservative, regressive & religious mind of the "progressive"  
        So your idea is to just go straight to tyranny, bypassing liberty?
        A ligula magis ineptias   .. from stupidity, more such

    •  If you disagree with my points, then disagree. (5+ / 0-)

      But playing denial games ("Prove humans cause global warming!") is something everyone here has seen play out too many times to be deceived by it.  The things I'm saying jibe with people's experiences - the things you're saying, don't.

      In this case, since the accusation is leveled not at an extreme or a minority or just legislators, but against all conservatives and all libertarians across the entire spectrum, need to show that these five points are the norm from moderate Republicans all the way out to the Westboro types.
      On the contrary, when dozens of people look up at the sky and see it blue and someone says "The sky is blue," it's kind of up to the person who denies it to argue why other people's eyes deceive them.  Please explain to me how the corrupt, nihilistic propertarian ideology we see all around us is not what we see, and is in fact a whole ecosystem of sincere thought that merely by coincidence consistently ends up promoting identical criminal policies.

      Process defines product.

      by Troubadour on Mon May 27, 2013 at 06:29:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ice Ages (0+ / 0-)

        funny how 45 million centuries of the planet's warming & cooling without human causation is the best proof against the religious dogma known as anthropogenic global warming .. Yet climate change history deniers are still clueless

  •  Meth Charter Schools? I missed that one, citation? (0+ / 0-)

    "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

    by Kvetchnrelease on Mon May 27, 2013 at 05:20:50 AM PDT

  •  Good points about Kochertarianism. n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Logic of Empire (0+ / 0-)

    More conservative, illiberal & illogical drivel ..
    such is the modern Amerikan "progressive"  who thinks the State is the solution to everything, even his misogynist tantrums.

    Were one to reject the violence and control freak ideology of such circumlocution, one has the essence of hate

  •  My favorite part ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... is how the author begins by claiming his opponents "don't engage in anything one could call logic even deceptively", and then proceeds to build a fantasy world of straw men without bothering to make a single decent logical argument of his own.   At the same time he completely ignores the basic principles of libertarian philosophy, such as the Non-Aggression Principle, that could easily be used to debunk his paranoid delusions.  Brilliant!

    I also love how he lumps Conservatives and Libertarians in together, which is hilarious.  Most Libertarians I know have far more in common with Liberals than Conservatives: pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization, anti-war - the list goes on and on.  But, hey, no need to "engage in anything one could call logic".

  •  Two libertarians have responded. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Here are the responses of two libertarians (I'm one of them) explaining that self-ownership/determination is inalienable and that being on someone else's property does not give the owner the right to harm you or prevent you from leaving. They only have the right to do what is necessary to force you to leave (unless you have a lease guaranteeing you the conditional right to the leased property for the lease's duration).

    •  I'll try to get around to posting a rebuttal (0+ / 0-)

      to those, since I respect people who are willing to argue rather than just dismiss.

      Freedom isn't free: You have to pay taxes for it.

      by Troubadour on Wed Jun 05, 2013 at 09:10:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site