libertarianism vs liberalism

One promotes a system of universal rights, while the other promotes a slave state under the pretense of liberty. There is nothing free about state mandated equality. There is nothing free about great people not being allowed to achieve at no one's expense. There is nothing free about a "social contract" that no one agreed to but that that an authoritarian government holds as justification for theft and murder. Liberals are evil. They live their lives flaunting their weakness and fear as virtues, demanding that others pity them. They demand that others feel guilt. They go around sobbing about some idiotic and irrelevant social agenda and they act as if they are so much better than others because they care. They act as if they are so much better because they care, despite there being no rational reason for them to care. They think they are the greatest people on earth. They are not. They are vile and evil people. They hate achievement. They hate accomplishment. They look at some starving bum who threw away his life and praise him for suffering. They completely ignore the fact that he is suffering because he is an idiot and destroyed his life. They look at the man who accomplishes things with his life, such as a successful businessman, and they criticize him for being greedy. They are too irrational to realize that his greed is what gives them the material objects that they cherish so much. They criticize Bill Gates for being greedy but then they use his computers every day. They are irrational. They act as if a hobo is a better man than Clint Eastwood just because he is a loser. They act like being a loser is a good thing. They act like being poor is a good thing. There is nothing good about being a loser. There is nothing good about being poor. They spend their whole lives crying about how people are poor, but they viciously hate anyone who is not living in poverty. They hate themselves for not being in poverty. They give to charity to buy their lives from the overwhelming guilt of not being a hobo. They cry about the poor but secretly they want everyone to be poor. They are too ignorant and far too deep in denial to recognize that the current resources at our disposal are not anywhere near enough for everyone to live even a middle class life, but they want everyone to be financially equal anyways just to satisfy their idiotic and irrational ideology that has no basis in objective reality. I hate liberals.

Laihendi

TL;DR: Views that aren't based in reality.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

Classical libertarianism eg; Joseph Déjacque, Peter Kropotkin.

kuraimen

libertrianism > bad product gets made> people die > people sue> safe prduct . kiberalism  rugulation> safe product.

 

 

osirisx3

Don't forget about this one.

libertrianism > bad product gets made> people die > people sue> people get paid hush money> bad product stays on the market.

Honestly have you ever met an intelligent lbertarian online?

I don't think I have.

They seem to often be heavily delusional ala 911 conspiracies, govment/aliens coming to get us crowd.

MakeMeaSammitch

Im saying Liberalism. I find too many Libertarian arguements surround the "Lets just not even get involved" idea- and that just seems weak to me.

I'd say libertarianism is better, but that doesn't mean liberalism is evil.  Many liberals are good people who simply have inconsistent morals and values.  Take this girl in one of my classes for example.  She has no problem using government to enforce her values in the name of equality, but as soon as someone else wants to use government to enforce their own values she gets all pissy.

I am personally anti-drug, anti-smoking, anti-drink, anti-abortion, pro-abstinence, and pro-church, but I wouldn't use government to force other people to behave or think the same way as I do, whereas a liberal would.  Take welfare for example.  Many liberals think it is ok to steal money from one person and give it to another, but they would never personally steal from someone.  They wouldn't go into someones house and steal the cash sitting in the dresser, but they are totally fine with government requiring taxes from people to pay for welfare.  What is the main moral difference here?  There isn't one.  Liberals have a view of government that is inconsistent with their personal values.  "ok for government to enforce my beliefs, not ok for me to enforce my beliefs."  And religious nuts fall into this category too, it isn't just a Democrat thing.  

I'd say libertarianism is better, but that doesn't mean liberalism is evil.  Many liberals are good people who simply have inconsistent morals and values.  Take this girl in one of my classes for example.  She has no problem using government to enforce her values in the name of equality, but as soon as someone else wants to use government to enforce their own values she gets all pissy.

I am personally anti-drug, anti-smoking, anti-drink, anti-abortion, pro-abstinence, and pro-church, but I wouldn't use government to force other people to behave or think the same way as I do, whereas a liberal would.  Take welfare for example.  Many liberals think it is ok to steal money from one person and give it to another, but they would never personally steal from someone.  They wouldn't go into someones house and steal the cash sitting in the dresser, but they are totally fine with government requiring taxes from people to pay for welfare.  What is the main moral difference here?  There isn't one.  Liberals have a view of government that is inconsistent with their personal values.  "ok for government to enforce my beliefs, not ok for me to enforce my beliefs."  And religious nuts fall into this category too, it isn't just a Democrat thing.  

hoola

This is a trend I see in conservatives on this issue; extreme use of strawman, and a lack of empathy for others. Ignorance to the fact that policies like this distribute wealth more evenly and countries with more even wealth distribution have more happy citizens, as well as people that are in need do have basic needs.

You claim you're religious, but don't care about the poor. irony.

[QUOTE="hoola"]

I'd say libertarianism is better, but that doesn't mean liberalism is evil.  Many liberals are good people who simply have inconsistent morals and values.  Take this girl in one of my classes for example.  She has no problem using government to enforce her values in the name of equality, but as soon as someone else wants to use government to enforce their own values she gets all pissy.

I am personally anti-drug, anti-smoking, anti-drink, anti-abortion, pro-abstinence, and pro-church, but I wouldn't use government to force other people to behave or think the same way as I do, whereas a liberal would.  Take welfare for example.  Many liberals think it is ok to steal money from one person and give it to another, but they would never personally steal from someone.  They wouldn't go into someones house and steal the cash sitting in the dresser, but they are totally fine with government requiring taxes from people to pay for welfare.  What is the main moral difference here?  There isn't one.  Liberals have a view of government that is inconsistent with their personal values.  "ok for government to enforce my beliefs, not ok for me to enforce my beliefs."  And religious nuts fall into this category too, it isn't just a Democrat thing.  

MakeMeaSammitch

Option 1:  Money was taken from my dresser against my will.

Option 2:  Money was taken from my paycheck against my will.  

I can see the only argument you can possibly have right now "People voted for taxes therefore it is ok."  Unfortunately, that makes absolutely no sense.  There is no logical way you can say it is bad for one person to take someones money, but ok for two people who voted for it to take someones money.  The end result is the same.  The idea is the same.  The only difference is that multiple people did it instead of one.   Someone had something stolen from them, and another benefited because of it.  

Edit:

"

This is a trend I see in conservatives on this issue; extreme use of strawman, and a lack of empathy for others. Ignorance to the fact that policies like this distribute wealth more evenly and countries with more even wealth distribution have more happy citizens, as well as people that are in need do have basic needs.

You claim you're religious, but don't care about the poor. irony.

"

Incorrect.  I am pro-church, I am an athiest, I am anti big government.   

There is no strawman.  It is an observation of the way things are.  Money taken is money taken.  Liberals have an inconsistent view of what it is to take money.  And i'm not concerned about someones happiness.  I'm concerned about my happiness.  And you are concerned about your happiness.  And another person is concerned about their own happiness.  

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="hoola"]

I'd say libertarianism is better, but that doesn't mean liberalism is evil.  Many liberals are good people who simply have inconsistent morals and values.  Take this girl in one of my classes for example.  She has no problem using government to enforce her values in the name of equality, but as soon as someone else wants to use government to enforce their own values she gets all pissy.

I am personally anti-drug, anti-smoking, anti-drink, anti-abortion, pro-abstinence, and pro-church, but I wouldn't use government to force other people to behave or think the same way as I do, whereas a liberal would.  Take welfare for example.  Many liberals think it is ok to steal money from one person and give it to another, but they would never personally steal from someone.  They wouldn't go into someones house and steal the cash sitting in the dresser, but they are totally fine with government requiring taxes from people to pay for welfare.  What is the main moral difference here?  There isn't one.  Liberals have a view of government that is inconsistent with their personal values.  "ok for government to enforce my beliefs, not ok for me to enforce my beliefs."  And religious nuts fall into this category too, it isn't just a Democrat thing.  

hoola

Option 1:  Money was taken from my dresser against my will.

Option 2:  Money was taken from my paycheck against my will.  

I can see the only argument you can possibly have right now "People voted for taxes therefore it is ok."  Unfortunately, that makes absolutely no sense.  There is no logical way you can say it is bad for one person to take someones money, but ok for two people who voted for it to take someones money.  The end result is the same.  The idea is the same.  The only difference is that multiple people did it instead of one.   Someone had something stolen from them, and another benefited because of it.  

Taxes do have a purpose and they do hold society together policies like this distribute wealth more evenly and countries with more even wealth distribution have more happy citizens, as well as people that are in need do have basic needs.. Your argument fails quickly knowing that taking somebodies money for no reason or personal ones vs. ones that broadly benefit and are nessasary for socioty are very different.

and there's the whole lack of empathy for others. Honestly I don't see any view that is selfish rather than selfless as valid....

[QUOTE="hoola"]

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]I don't think you know what the word steal means or what it's like to be poor.

MakeMeaSammitch

Option 1:  Money was taken from my dresser against my will.

Option 2:  Money was taken from my paycheck against my will.  

I can see the only argument you can possibly have right now "People voted for taxes therefore it is ok."  Unfortunately, that makes absolutely no sense.  There is no logical way you can say it is bad for one person to take someones money, but ok for two people who voted for it to take someones money.  The end result is the same.  The idea is the same.  The only difference is that multiple people did it instead of one.   Someone had something stolen from them, and another benefited because of it.  

Taxes do have a purpose and they do hold society together policies like this distribute wealth more evenly and countries with more even wealth distribution have more happy citizens, as well as people that are in need do have basic needs.. Your argument fails quickly knowing that taking somebodies money for no reason or personal ones vs. ones that broadly benefit and are nessasary for socioty are very different.

and there's the whole lack of empathy for others. Honestly I don't see any view that is selfish rather than selfless as valid....

My argument falls apart because some people in society benefit?  Stealing is ok if it benefits society?  You gave the exact response I  knew you would, it doesn't have any kind of answer to the inconsistency issue I talked about originally.  Are you personally going to go into someones house and steal the money from their dresser to give to government so they can pay for someones poverty?  That is what my original post was about.  It makes no sense to think that it is bad for one person to do it, but ok when multiple people vote on it and use government to enforce their beliefs.  If you agree that it is ok to steal from someone and give to another to "benefit society," then please go outside right now and do it yourself.  Address the issue of you doing it VS government doing, not the idea of welfare.  

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="hoola"]

Option 1:  Money was taken from my dresser against my will.

Option 2:  Money was taken from my paycheck against my will.  

 

I can see the only argument you can possibly have right now "People voted for taxes therefore it is ok."  Unfortunately, that makes absolutely no sense.  There is no logical way you can say it is bad for one person to take someones money, but ok for two people who voted for it to take someones money.  The end result is the same.  The idea is the same.  The only difference is that multiple people did it instead of one.   Someone had something stolen from them, and another benefited because of it.  

hoola

Taxes do have a purpose and they do hold society together policies like this distribute wealth more evenly and countries with more even wealth distribution have more happy citizens, as well as people that are in need do have basic needs.. Your argument fails quickly knowing that taking somebodies money for no reason or personal ones vs. ones that broadly benefit and are nessasary for socioty are very different.

and there's the whole lack of empathy for others. Honestly I don't see any view that is selfish rather than selfless as valid....

My argument falls apart because some people in society benefit?  Stealing is ok if it benefits society?  You gave the exact response I  knew you would, it doesn't have any kind of answer to the inconsistency issue I talked about originally.  Are you personally going to go into someones house and steal the money from their dresser to give to government so they can pay for someones poverty?  That is what my original post was about.  It makes no sense to think that it is bad for one person to do it, but ok when multiple people vote on it and use government to enforce their beliefs.  If you agree that it is ok to steal from someone and give to another to "benefit society," then please go outside right now and do it yourself.  Address the issue of you doing it VS government doing, not the idea of welfare.  

um cause it's necessary for society. An illegal action vs. a legal one that yes is accomplising the same thing. Very poor argument on your part, and taxes are pretty strait forward; they do help people and support the economy and people's quality of life. having empathy is not a bad thing.....

Libertarians of the Ron Paul/Randian sort are not even operating in reality. IMO, they have a silly and immature ideology that lacks both compassion and pragmatism.

In this context, I'm assuming that "liberalism" encompasses both social liberalism and fiscal liberalism and that "libertarianism" encompasses both right libertarianism (e.g. what Ron Paul espouses) and left libertarianism (e.g. anarchism, libertarian Marxism, etc.).

Social liberalism, which includes feminism, queer rights, anti-racism, etc. (at least in the US, where I live), wins my view as it has a generally well-founded perspective of social justice issues. Fiscal liberalism is pretty much a set of well-meaning and respectable but ultimately flawed attempts to fix an inherently flawed political and economic system. Right libertarianism is mostly nonsensical aside from those who don't swoon at the sight of Atlas Shrugged, don't believe that private ownership is totally feasible in a stateless society (I'm looking at you, anarcho-capitalists), and don't vehemently oppose identity politics merely because of their conservative roots.

I'm a left libertarian, personally, as left libertarianism not only has been heavily influenced by social liberalism, but it also lacks the absurd perspective of economics and politics commonly found among right libertarians. And then there's the fact that anarchism, the sociopolitical ideology I espouse, is left-libertarian. So I guess libertarianism wins for me.

I'd say libertarianism is better, but that doesn't mean liberalism is evil.  Many liberals are good people who simply have inconsistent morals and values.  Take this girl in one of my classes for example.  She has no problem using government to enforce her values in the name of equality, but as soon as someone else wants to use government to enforce their own values she gets all pissy.

I am personally anti-drug, anti-smoking, anti-drink, anti-abortion, pro-abstinence, and pro-church, but I wouldn't use government to force other people to behave or think the same way as I do, whereas a liberal would.  Take welfare for example.  Many liberals think it is ok to steal money from one person and give it to another, but they would never personally steal from someone.  They wouldn't go into someones house and steal the cash sitting in the dresser, but they are totally fine with government requiring taxes from people to pay for welfare.  What is the main moral difference here?  There isn't one.  Liberals have a view of government that is inconsistent with their personal values.  "ok for government to enforce my beliefs, not ok for me to enforce my beliefs."  And religious nuts fall into this category too, it isn't just a Democrat thing.  

hoola

Based on history liberal movements have given us things like universal elections, gender and racial equality under the law, environmental protections, regulations against worker and consumer abuse, .etc. While I'm not sure what libertarians have done other than look for increasingly unworkable, unstable and dysfunctional models of human society to put on increasingly higher pedestals. This is probably because their numbers are just significant enough to be extremely annoying while also being too small to be politically meaningful anywhere. So liberals win this one with ease. 

Based on history liberal movements have given us things like universal elections, gender and racial equality under the law, environmental protections, regulations against worker and consumer abuse, .etc. While I'm not sure what libertarians have done other than look for increasingly unworkable, unstable and dysfunctional models of human society to put on increasingly higher pedestals. This is probably because their numbers are just significant enough to be extremely annoying while also being too small to be politically meaningful anywhere. So liberals win this one with ease. 

 

Barbariser

Libertarians gave us company towns and working conditions like what is described in "The Jungle"

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="hoola"]

Option 1:  Money was taken from my dresser against my will.

Option 2:  Money was taken from my paycheck against my will.  

 

I can see the only argument you can possibly have right now "People voted for taxes therefore it is ok."  Unfortunately, that makes absolutely no sense.  There is no logical way you can say it is bad for one person to take someones money, but ok for two people who voted for it to take someones money.  The end result is the same.  The idea is the same.  The only difference is that multiple people did it instead of one.   Someone had something stolen from them, and another benefited because of it.  

hoola

Taxes do have a purpose and they do hold society together policies like this distribute wealth more evenly and countries with more even wealth distribution have more happy citizens, as well as people that are in need do have basic needs.. Your argument fails quickly knowing that taking somebodies money for no reason or personal ones vs. ones that broadly benefit and are nessasary for socioty are very different.

and there's the whole lack of empathy for others. Honestly I don't see any view that is selfish rather than selfless as valid....

My argument falls apart because some people in society benefit?  Stealing is ok if it benefits society?  You gave the exact response I  knew you would, it doesn't have any kind of answer to the inconsistency issue I talked about originally.  Are you personally going to go into someones house and steal the money from their dresser to give to government so they can pay for someones poverty?  That is what my original post was about.  It makes no sense to think that it is bad for one person to do it, but ok when multiple people vote on it and use government to enforce their beliefs.  If you agree that it is ok to steal from someone and give to another to "benefit society," then please go outside right now and do it yourself.  Address the issue of you doing it VS government doing, not the idea of welfare.  

In the US taxes are imposed by a government that is elected by it's own people to pay for things that would not be taken care of by the free market, or to balance out the failures of free market as part of a social contrract that benefits the people of this country. They arent just for the benefit of the poor but for everyone. They pay for law enforcement (that protects your stuff from getting stolen by people more powerful than you), schooling, roads, social safety nets, the military that protects the country, and so on. Taxes aren't theft.

I'd say libertarianism is better, but that doesn't mean liberalism is evil.  Many liberals are good people who simply have inconsistent morals and values.  Take this girl in one of my classes for example.  She has no problem using government to enforce her values in the name of equality, but as soon as someone else wants to use government to enforce their own values she gets all pissy.

I am personally anti-drug, anti-smoking, anti-drink, anti-abortion, pro-abstinence, and pro-church, but I wouldn't use government to force other people to behave or think the same way as I do, whereas a liberal would.  Take welfare for example.  Many liberals think it is ok to steal money from one person and give it to another, but they would never personally steal from someone.  They wouldn't go into someones house and steal the cash sitting in the dresser, but they are totally fine with government requiring taxes from people to pay for welfare.  What is the main moral difference here?  There isn't one.  Liberals have a view of government that is inconsistent with their personal values.  "ok for government to enforce my beliefs, not ok for me to enforce my beliefs."  And religious nuts fall into this category too, it isn't just a Democrat thing.  

hoola

This ultlimately comes down to whether you believe in the implied social contract. Liberals do, libertarians don't. One side thinks of taxes as closer to paying rent while the other believes a thief has directly stolen money from their bank account.

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

Libertarianism and communism aren't so different: both tend to be idealistic. Communism puts too much faith on the government; libertarianism puts too much faith on individuals.

osirisx3

You need someone in charge to conduct a communist revolution. The problem is, once they got into power, they don't want to let it go.

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

Libertarianism and communism aren't so different: both tend to be idealistic. Communism puts too much faith on the government; libertarianism puts too much faith on individuals.

one_plum

You need someone in charge to conduct a communist revolution. The problem is, once they got into power, they don't want to let it go.

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

You need someone in charge to conduct a communist revolution. The problem is, once they got into power, they don't want to let it go.

AncientDozer

[QUOTE="RushKing"]

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

You need someone in charge to conduct a communist revolution. The problem is, once they got into power, they don't want to let it go.

AncientDozer

none of them reached communism they are all socialist goverments.

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"][QUOTE="RushKing"]

You're talking about marxist-leninism. Vanguard parties are not universally agreed upon among communists.

osirisx3

none of them reached communism they are all socialist goverments.

Hence why communism is an idealist ideology to this date.

Are we talking about Liberalism or liberalism?

Are we talking about Liberalism or liberalism?

THE_DRUGGIE

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Are we talking about Liberalism or liberalism?

surrealnumber5

Then everyone here is a liberal republican while some are liberal conservative republicans while others are liberal libertarian conservative republicans!

But seriously, I giggle to myself when people think Liberal and liberal are the same. Gives me a smug sense of self-satisfaction.

[QUOTE="osirisx3"]

[QUOTE="AncientDozer"] But it still happens. We've endured Castro, Kim Jong, and so many more. . .one_plum

none of them reached communism they are all socialist goverments.

Hence why communism is an idealist ideology to this date.