Libertarianism = Hand's off my Lexus
Libertarianism = "The freedom to insert apostrophes anywhere I feel like." Punctuation is the road to serfdom.
Good point, how did that sneak in there? I'm saying typo, and any dissenters will be sent to the Gulag.
"A barrier to people accepting libertarianism is the notion that we'd let people starve in the streets."
The barrier to me accepting libertarianism is libertarians. I'm buying a bloody big dog on the off chance one of my daughters brings one home. He'll be free to stride off my property as quick as he likes.
Good God, and there's Andrew Ian Dodge in the comments ascribing the public's natural aversion to libertarian politics to the BBC and the left-wing media in the UK.
So, not "The wisdom of crowds" this time then? Are the public so deep in their false consciousness that minarchist principles can't get a fair hearing in the marketplace of ideas?
Hey, I could so be the most kickass libertarian blogger on the internets - this cliche-riddled drivel practically writes, critiques and roundly rejects itself.
Bunch of spoiled kids. Bunch of greedy spoiled kids.
[applauds]
Libertarians have always been a bugbear of mine.
"the well-worn notion that charitable donations will instantly fill the benefits gap. Let-Them-Tug-Their-Forelocks-And-Say-Please, Sir - I've always loved that one. I'd love to see it argued in a job centre"
You've hit the nail on the head with this one. A few years ago, a Libertarian acquaintance argued for the legalisation of child pr0n, yet when I offered to inform his neighbours of his radical ideas, he claimed I'd "threatened him with a lynch mob".
IIRC, the OECD country that gives the greatest GDP percentage as aid is Norway, and the country that gives the lowest is the USA, yet private charity donations follow the exact same pattern - those overtaxed Norwegians are the most generous, while the Yanks are the stingiest. Like all things in life, it's exactly the reverse of what Libertarian logic would suggest.
In case anyone's wondering about the title of the post...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I...h?
v=IWO4JxM3nDc
Any excuse, really.
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/20...tch-part-
1.html
In fact, I've been through the comments and I don't think Hands off my Lexus cuts it in this context.
Clearly, the appropriate line should be We Libertarians are so nice and caring that we'll voluntarily feed and clothe all of you feckless, lazy,grasping vermin out of our own pockets.
you feckless, lazy,grasping vermin
Surely you mean "the other trash infesting this country".
"Or perhaps I'm wrong"
You are.
"and, when the first baying mob eviscerates the first local businessman, the libertarians will call for even more liberty."
No, they will just show the baying mob that people with more money can afford better guns. Just like you, most of us have no problem with using violence to defend our position.
Oh, I'm not advocating violence Perry. I'm saying that this is what would happen in reality the day that these policies went into practice, which is why it'd probably be a good idea not to do it in the first place.
"Oh, I'm not advocating violence Perry."
Really? Sorry then, I thought you were in favour of the state taxing people (i.e. threat-of-violence backed redistribution of wealth) to fund welfare programs :-D Personally I am all for people using similar force to not 'contribute' to such programmes (not a realistic option just now, but I have no problem with the idea).
On a less gratuitously flippant note, actually the whole point of JP's article was that in our view it is state interference in the economy which is the biggest cause of people *needing* to be on welfare, so the argument we are cool with people starving on the street is not really accurate. You don't have to agree with our notion of the consequences of less state, but the fact is we think our way leads to less poor people, not more.
After all, every libertarian I've ever conversed with has been emphatic in their belief in the rule of law.
Very true and how boring the concept.
in our view it is state interference in the economy which is the biggest cause of people *needing* to be on welfare
Indeed, prior to state interference in the economy there was hardly any poverty at all.
leads to less poor people
Fewer.
It's amazing how our greedy teenage libertarians think that tax only exists to take money off the likes of them and redistribute it to the feckless poor. I'd love, for instance, to see the idiot Perry driving to his well-paid job without his state-funded roads, maintained and lit by goveernment, policed by nobody and shared with cars the conditition and indeed the driving of which is the concern of nobody but the owners.
Teenage? Me? Heh.
And if all the state did was maintain the roads, prevent plagues and run the police and the military, well, I would have little problem with a state like that. Personally I am not an anarchist, I just want a whole lot less state. I also have no problem with lots of private roads and private police, but if that is all the state did, I could certainly live with that.
It is all the other crap I have a problem with. The state is simply a terrible provider of healthcare, education and lifestyle regulation. The quality of cars and driving however is not something that needs the state, there are all sorts of other mechanisms which can sort that out and much has been written on the subject of non-state order... but do your own homework if you actually want to opine on the basis you know what you are talking about. I doubt you will.
The state is a great deal better a provider of education for most people than anybody else: also see "healthcare". Or public libraries. Or street lighting, garbage collection, and so on. Anything else is self-serving and dogmatic fantasy driven by a desire to avoid paying tax and by an extremely limited experience of the world (and one limited, in general, by the possession of money).
When people start insisting theat standards of driving will reguate themselves without the intervention of the government - then, I think, we're talking about something a little lower than stupidity.
A few years ago, a Libertarian acquaintance argued for the legalisation of child pr0n, yet when I offered to inform his neighbours of his radical ideas, he claimed I'd "threatened him with a lynch mob".
Libertarianism is the politics that dare not speak its name?
Does the UK possess thousands of closet libertarians like this chap?
I love libertarians. Hopeless optimism that de-regulation will result in utopia for all, because all those private companies (and individuals) can't wait to be nice and fair to us if only the govt would let them.
And a dear love to give the poor and needy a good, solid kick in the knackers - it warms the cockles of the heart.
Incidentally, is there many examples in history of a health service that managed to care for all society fairly and cheaply? Just curious.
i'll keep this brief, as my pc has packed in and i'm using my playstation to access the blog... think text messaging, but worse.
perry, i think you're failing to grasp my point here. sure, one of the motivations for the welfare state was general humanity, and of course any massive system will create waste. as i've noted, though, crude laissez faire has already been tried and you will have a hard time convincing people to accept its return. you're not fighting the bbc for public opinion here, you're fighting charles dickens.
i you may very well believe that benefits won't be needed in this perfect society, but i can assure you that you'll have a basic choice between welfare for people who need it or riot cops to guard your house, and the second option isn't going to look much like liberty to most people.
apologies, folks, no updates until my pc is fixed. this tiny message alone took 15 mins to type
If Perry's right, then come the libertarian revolution, there will be fewer poor. It's just that the ones that there are will be royally fucked.
The idea that only rich people are libertarian is nonsense. When you are on a low wage, you get a very keen idea of how much the government is taking from your pay packet, much more so than if you're reasonably affluent.
Although I recognise the 'lexus libertarians' that the rodent is tilting at, my own libertarianism stems from a visceral hatred which I've always had for being told what to do by wankers who think they know better and have some kind of God-given right to laud it over the rest of us.
Commenting by HaloScan
