Turn on thread page Beta

"Libertarianism is a dangerous and selfish ideology". What are your views? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I wholly agree with the idea that libertarianism is little more than the pursuit of one's own goals without a care for the needs of others. For instance, a true libertarian wouls consider tax to be theft. A libertarian friend of mine illustrated it with this story.

    Imagine that you are a single parent with health problems and few job skills trying to go to school, raise children, and earn a living at the same time. You are just the sort of person who deserves welfare. Imagine that I am a wealthy benefactor who has sympathy for your situation. I drop in every week with a $200 check to help you to survive and work toward your goals. I ask nothing in return. we become friends. Every week I stay and we talk for a while. This goes on for months. You are genuinely thankful for my assistance and I am genuinely happy to see your progress. All is well. One afternoon while we are talking you ask me what I do for a living. I explain that I am a mugger. I choose my victims at random, grab them from behind, hold a knife to their throats and demand their money. I take about half their money, keep most of it for myself, and give the rest to needy people. I rarely kill anyone because most people don't resist. Does this new information change the way you feel about the $200?
    It took me a while to catch on to the point of the story, but it highlighted a crucial difference between us; that I feel obliged to help others and believe that it is our duty (via taxation) to help those who require the assistance of the state; whereas he thinks that its a matter of choice, and that if he wants to keep his money then it's his choice to do so.

    Anyway, thats just one facet of libertarianism, the story is there just to provoke debate. What are your opinions? Is libertarianism "dangerous and selfish" or are we justified in protecting our own interests in a dog-eat-dog world? Is social liberalism a better alternative? And what place does libertarianism have in a world where the wealth gap is already increasing?

    Cheers for reading my rant. Hopefully it will prove productive. (And I'm glad to be back!)

    EDIT:if anyone wants the transcript of the conversation (it was on MSN) I can PM it; it makes an interesting discussion on our different views.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So the mugger is the government?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Libertarianism is individualism to the extreme. It's a rejection of the idea of positive rights. What differentiates Libertarianism from anarcho-capitalism is that while Libertarians abhor the state, they recognise at a state is necessary for certain things, usually enforcement of private property rights and protection from violent crime.

    What a Libertarian refuses to recognise is that the interdependence of humans is not optional. From the instant you're born you are relying on society. The Libertarian then decides that he owes society nothing, and the dirty government can keep it's filthy hands off his money. "ME ME ME ME ME."

    In Libertopia, there would be NO social security, NO state schools and NO state hospitals. Basically, if you're poor, you're ****ed. Libertarians think that private charity would magically fill the gap. Never mind that during an economic downturn people would start giving less charity just when it's needed the most.

    Quickly, the wealth gap would rapidly widen. Wealth would become even more concentrated right at the top. So much for 'freedom from tyrany', the world would be ruled by a handful of super rich oligarchs. Gun control would be abolished, and speed limits too. Some idiot might kill your brother speeding in his car, but at least you can sue for some sweet £££.

    Not to mention that the government would no longer be able to act as a stabilising force in the economy. Welcome to boom and bust, except much worse.

    The only redeeming quality of Libertarianism is the socially liberal aspect, particularly with regards to drug laws.

    (Original post by Dajo123)
    So the mugger is the government?
    Yes, that's the idea.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    What a Libertarian refuses to recognise is that the interdependence of humans is not optional. From the instant you're born you are relying on society. The Libertarian then decides that he owes society nothing, and the dirty government can keep it's filthy hands off his money. "ME ME ME ME ME."

    In Libertopia, there would be NO social security, NO state schools and NO state hospitals. Basically, if you're poor, you're ****ed. Libertarians think that private charity would magically fill the gap. Never mind that during an economic downturn people would start giving less charity just when it's needed the most.
    Well, Libertarians sound like cu*ts. From what i've heard they must all be living on a totally self-sufficient farm that they never leave, otherwise they would be contradicting their principles. I mean you cant even walk down the street without relying on society (the taxpayer cleans the pavements after all), and the second you get hit by a bus, well you would have to refuse emergency medical treatment, even if you take a sh*t the taxpayer cleans the rivers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Well, Libertarians sound like cu*ts. From what i've heard they must all be living on a totally self-sufficient farm that they never leave, otherwise they would be contradicting their principles. I mean you cant even walk down the street without relying on society (the taxpayer cleans the pavements after all), and the second you get hit by a bus, well you would have to refuse emergency medical treatment, even if you take a sh*t the taxpayer cleans the rivers.
    Libertarians would consider the Conservative party to be a bunch of illiberal socialists. They would say that you should pay tolls for roads, and would be billed for emergency treatment afterwards unless you had insurance. Basically, you pay for everything as you consume it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The dirty govenment can keep there filthy hands off my money!! I know how best to spend it. That doesn't mean I want people to stay poor forever, or that I want state run schools to be shut down, or I don't want tax or regulations.

    "Government spending and regulations should be reduced insofar as they replace voluntary private spending with involuntary public spending, and replace private morality with public coercion." From the definition of Libertarianism from wikipedia (im not saying I totally agree with this by the)

    It's all just a spectrum of ideas anyway, you can't class people as crazy because they have a bit or libertarian thinking in them. Don't get so worked up about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Libertarians would consider the Conservative party to be a bunch of illiberal socialists. They would say that you should pay tolls for roads, and would be billed for emergency treatment afterwards unless you had insurance. Basically, you pay for everything as you consume it.
    Would they hold true to this even if their emergency room bill came to £500,000? i think not. This would render them poor, and in their world this means fuc*ed. Libertarians sound like ideologists, all mouth no action.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hattori)
    The dirty govenment can keep there filthy hands off my money!! I know how best to spend it. That doesn't mean I want people to stay poor forever, or that I want state run schools to be shut down, or I don't want tax or regulations.

    "Government spending and regulations should be reduced insofar as they replace voluntary private spending with involuntary public spending, and replace private morality with public coercion." From the definition of Libertarianism from wikipedia (im not saying I totally agree with this by the)

    It's all just a spectrum of ideas anyway, you can't class people as crazy because they have a bit or libertarian thinking in them. Don't get so worked up about it.
    So, if you plan to have state schools, but no tax, how are these schools to be funded?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    So, if you plan to have state schools, but no tax, how are these schools to be funded?
    Who said anything about no tax, like i said all these political ideologies don't exist as strict set of rules its just a way of classing the ways if thinking that are largely similar. So saying you're a libertarian doesn't mean that you stick to a strict set of rules.

    As an example, as a libertarian you could say that you need a way of educating people if there is no proper way of educating people without using the state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hattori)
    Who said anything about no tax, like i said all these political ideologies don't exist as strict set of rules its just a way of classing the ways if thinking that are largely similar. So saying you're a libertarian doesn't mean that you stick to a strict set of rules.

    As an example, as a libertarian you could say that you need a way of educating people if there is no proper way of educating people without using the state.
    Then you're not really a Libertarian. That'd be like a social democrat claiming he's a communist. There is some room for difference of opinion, such as whether to freeze the money supply or not, but for most things there are set positions, and if you deviate from them then you're no longer a Libertarian.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Then you're not really a Libertarian. That'd be like a social democrat claiming he's a communist. There is some room for difference of opinion, such as whether to freeze the money supply or not, but for most things there are set positions, and if you deviate from them then you're no longer a Libertarian.
    Well maybe im just a pussy libertarian. I still don't think its dangerous or selfish.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hattori)
    Well maybe im just a pussy libertarian. I still don't think its dangerous or selfish.
    If you still advocate things like state funded education, then you're just a fiscal conservative. It's a long way from Libertarianism.

    Do you support the full legalisation of all drugs and abolition of gun controls?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The ideal is a libertarian attitude to your own life while accepting and contributing to the more socialist state system for the benefit of others.

    (Original post by carldaman)
    I wholly agree with the idea that libertarianism is little more than the pursuit of one's own goals without a care for the needs of others. For instance, a true libertarian wouls consider tax to be theft. A libertarian friend of mine illustrated it with this story.



    It took me a while to catch on to the point of the story, but it highlighted a crucial difference between us; that I feel obliged to help others and believe that it is our duty (via taxation) to help those who require the assistance of the state; whereas he thinks that its a matter of choice, and that if he wants to keep his money then it's his choice to do so.

    Anyway, thats just one facet of libertarianism, the story is there just to provoke debate. What are your opinions? Is libertarianism "dangerous and selfish" or are we justified in protecting our own interests in a dog-eat-dog world? Is social liberalism a better alternative? And what place does libertarianism have in a world where the wealth gap is already increasing?

    Cheers for reading my rant. Hopefully it will prove productive. (And I'm glad to be back!)

    EDIT:if anyone wants the transcript of the conversation (it was on MSN) I can PM it; it makes an interesting discussion on our different views.
    You little *******, what right does this Government have to take my money without my authorisation (I dont even dare give me that crap of the social contract)? I am willing to pay for the Government to maintain defence, police, roads, and to bomb Mosques in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not social services, benefits, asylum, and all that other crap.

    The State is the most inefficient member in any economic group. Whenever it tries to do good it creates more problems. That is why I vote Tory. The Tories are a bunch of mediocre nobodies, completely devoid of vision. BUT they do far less damage that those Commie *******s currently in power.

    The more Government the more the problems. Leave it to the freemarket and individuals and problems will reduce.

    The best choice, of course, would be to let me into power. I read this morning that some northern *******s put a hamster in the microwave. I would hunt them down and crucify them.

    So, yes, complete freedom - for those who deserve it. And destruction for those who deserve it. NOT freedom for all or Government for all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Biggles)
    You little *******, what right does this Government have to take my money without my authorisation (I dont even dare give me that crap of the social contract)? I am willing to pay for the Government to maintain defence, police, roads, and to bomb Mosques in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not social services, benefits, asylum, and all that other crap.
    What is the differnce between the government using your money on roads, defence, police etc and hospitals, schools, unemployment benefit - you benefit from all of these things just the same as everyone else, without unemployment benefit you wouldnt have more people with jobs, just more people living on the streets, without hospitals you'd have more sick people who are unable to play a part in your uber free market ideas

    (Original post by Biggles)
    The State is the most inefficient member in any economic group. Whenever it tries to do good it creates more problems. That is why I vote Tory. The Tories are a bunch of mediocre nobodies, completely devoid of vision. BUT they do far less damage that those Commie *******s currently in power.
    Arent you just selling out your beleifs therefore, if you believe the governement are inefficient and callous why take part in the democratic process if you beleive it will achieve nothing?

    (Original post by Biggles)
    The more Government the more the problems. Leave it to the freemarket and individuals and problems will reduce.
    Individuals will reduce - do you mean the popualation will fall? If so that would have a devastating effect on the ability of the free market to function. And the only leader who has ever really tried to use this form of free market that you are trumpeting was Pinochet, and he managed to cripple his country and murder a few thousand of them in hte process.

    (Original post by Biggles)
    The best choice, of course, would be to let me into power. I read this morning that some northern *******s put a hamster in the microwave. I would hunt them down and crucify them.
    how touching

    (Original post by Biggles)
    So, yes, complete freedom - for those who deserve it. And destruction for those who deserve it. NOT freedom for all or Government for all.
    What a tremendous idea, well done

    (Original post by Cossack2004)


    Individuals will reduce - do you mean the popualation will fall?
    There should have been a comma - ie

    "Leave it to the freemarket and individuals, and problems will reduce"

    And I dont benefit from aslyum seekers, or aid to mumbo jumbo countries, or state benefits to lazy people etc. The Government steals my money, enslaves me to work for these decadents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Biggles)
    And I dont benefit from aslyum seekers,
    Apart from those that treat you in hospital, serve you in shops, clean the streets, and pay taxes that benefit you (Im not sure if you are aware of this but Asylum seekers pay 2.4 billions pounds more in taxes than they receive in benefit


    (Original post by Biggles)
    or aid to mumbo jumbo countries,
    Helping these countries opends up markets to export goods and offer cheaper labour for our goods in order to increase productivity, having more developed countries in the world benefits us as well as them, if disease and famine are prevalent in the third world this has a negative effect on us as well

    (Original post by Biggles)
    or state benefits to lazy people etc.
    Or disabled, single parents, temporary employed people, yes there are those that abuse the welfare system but they are far outnumbered by those who want to, but due to circumstances cannot work.

    Are you also opposed to the government paying pensions to senior citizens?

    (Original post by Cossack2004)
    Apart from those that treat you in hospital, serve you in shops, clean the streets, and pay taxes that benefit you (Im not sure if you are aware of this but Asylum seekers pay 2.4 billions pounds more in taxes than they receive in benefit
    I dont know what crack you've been smoking this morning but asylum seekers are forbidden by law to work, and even if they were I doubt that I would see Kosovans in my local GP surgery working as doctors - more likely to see them in Soho.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Biggles)
    I dont know what crack you've been smoking this morning but asylum seekers are forbidden by law to work, and even if they were I doubt that I would see Kosovans in my local GP surgery working as doctors - more likely to see them in Soho.
    No but asylum seekers are then granted asylum, thus are capable of gainign employement - and have you ever noticed that most doctors are not white middle class????

    (Original post by Cossack2004)
    No but asylum seekers are then granted asylum, thus are capable of gainign employement - and have you ever noticed that most doctors are not white middle class????
    Most non-white doctors are Indians who have never claimed aslyum. Most aslyum seekers are Kosovan scum, or Aids ridden drug-dealing Africans. Not decent, law-abiding people.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 3, 2004
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.