The Key Failures of Libertarianism

Only the consistent ones are.

@Wind Man Jones

Do you even realize how little sense you make? Are you saying I should of used a person's name in my examples? I'm sure we have all discussed/debated with someone whose support for a policy never changes despite all the evidence, including the effect on other people, being presented.

Maybe it's me, but your post(s) seem like you just sling a bunch of shit around hoping something will stick.

 

Ayn Rand

Rand was a bitter bigoted bitch but she could sling mud.

 

^ Lol. I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged but couldn't make it through that passage...so much fail.

 

Sorry we call it mob rule, but if one looks at the definitions of mob then you will see its not to far off. Also the liberty movement typically doesn't criticize capitalism because it is the most fair system we have. I don't know of any other system where you can be born dirt poor and become a millionaire through one good idea, hard work, and a little luck.

 

Feeding your family doesn't justify stealing bread.

I can demonstrate how charity would work in a free society by pointing to 300 billion dollars in charity Americans give each year, according to Indiana University. With more money in their pockets and less wasteful spending, I'm sure more money would be given.

It looks like you are trying to demonstrate that the system we have in place is more conducive to helping the poor than a state-less (or limited state) society. I posture the opposite. More competition and less wasteful spending is and always has been the greatest tool for upward mobility.

 

Me either.

I'm a minarchist and I consider myself a libertarian

Though I believe the government has no right to levy taxes.

If services are essential then people will ppay willingly. The government should run itself more like a profit making organization and earn the money it needs to fill its role.

There is no news for voting. If a citizen supports defense budget they are free to donate/purchase bonds

 

If you don't want to hear what i was trying to get across that's fine...

If that's what you get from the experience of failing to change someone's mind, then i feel sorry for you...

Your abstractions of others' experiences are mostly meaningless to me, though.

Claiming that someone is emotionally impervious to the consequences of their choices seems to be the definition of "slinging shit". Yes, I used to argue with people like that all the time, it's called close-mindedness and not emotional indestructibility. Maybe people not emotionally reacting to something in the same way you do is an example of why morals aren't natural but cultural.

This is a moment for reflection not judgement.

For example...
This:

Is a subjective moral statement. Do i think bum is emotionally unaffected by starvation? No. Do i agree with the claim? No. That's about as far as we will get...

 

So if government didn't make a profit, it would cease to exist? If that's true then what you're describing is just a business, not government.

 

Right. At that point what's the distinction?

Do taxes make a government?

I dabble between minarchist and anarchist but only.as a philosophical debate in my.own mind.

 

It's not necessarily subjective. Just because you don't agree, doesn't make it subjective.

 

I thought the distinction was that government holds a legitimate monopoly on the initiation of force (within a certain geographical area).

 

They like to call.it security. But a rose by any other name...

 

I think the most ethical, efficient, and quickest way to raise the standard of living is through voluntary interaction.

 

Self-ownership is the foundation of the philosophy of liberty. The moral implication of this is the non-aggression principle. The state can not exist without violating the non-aggression principle.

I've read the libertarian party's argument that a state could be voluntarily funded by lotteries, endowments, and user fees, but even this doesn't change the nature of the state...a violent monopoly.

 

I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind. I was sharing my opinion in response to the OP and sharing observations I've had. I made an attempt to keep my post short while trying not to over-generalize.

Save your pity for someone deserving of it.

 

Fair enough. I was assuming the inclusion of emotions in your analysis indicated such.

 

Emotional space is ambiguous. Conclusions drawn from said space are usually as ambiguous. Maybe subjective is not the word, but an over-generalization. Which is just semantics, really.

Either way it is a mystery whether the statement is true. It's an argument whose premise is one of faith. The line you follow is the same that belittles those with no belief in a higher power. It also limits discussion. Not bad or good. Just what it is, to me.

 

I can demonstrate through history and reasoning why I think the most ethical, efficient, and the quickest way to raise the standard of living is through voluntary interaction.