The piggish politics of fake libertarians

Timshel

New member
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/...tics-of-fake-libertarians/Content?oid=4670594

The Tea Party lie about "smaller government" and "personal responsibility" is most apparent in how its adherents approach the issue of women's rights. The true libertarian realizes that whatever one's personal opinion about a certain behavior may be, as long as that behavior does not directly threaten another person's well-being, there is no reason to legislate against it. This is why libertarians love the idea of legalizing drugs (a victimless crime, they say) and prostitution (a slightly less victimless crime). But the fake libertarian cannot walk that line all the way toward a woman's right to an abortion. These proto-theocrats are subjugating the very real lives and concerns of human beings to the potential lives they aim to "save," and they are doing so in a number of ways that are reprehensible.


The Texas Senate, despite a successful filibuster against a bill that would close 80 percent of the women's health clinics in that state, ultimately passed that much-maligned piece of legislation. Meanwhile in North Carolina — a state where Republicans are in control for the first time in a century — anti-abortion measures were tacked on to a motorcycle safety bill at the last moment in an effort to sneak them past the public. Ironically, the N.C. General Assembly's first attempt at this method of outlawing abortion came attached to an anti-Sharia Law bill. Imagine that, outlawing one set of religious beliefs in order to enforce another.


Other states have passed measures encouraging doctors to lie to patients or requiring forced transvaginal probes of women seeking abortions. Freedom and personal liberty, indeed.


These men — and they are mostly men after all — are perfectly willing to condemn women who are beneath their consideration as persons (just as the Founding Fathers apparently intended) to nine months of carrying a child who may be a product of rape or who may have insurmountable odds of survival upon birth. Assuming there is no person to adopt the child after birth, these same men then remove every single social program designed to help these women care for their children. For these libertarians in name only, a woman doesn't have the right to decide to have a child nor to receive help after she is forced to give birth. They only desire to impose their will upon women, as though they were nothing more than human chattel.


True libertarians must realize that the decision to carry another human life to term and then care for it for the next two decades is an intimately personal one and cannot, and should not, be legislated by other people. The false libertarian hides behind a series of false notions of "liberty" to enact a far more puritanical system of laws than what already exists in this country with the aim of subjugating all but a select minority of people to economic, social, cultural, and political exclusion and marginalization.
 
the funny thing is ?

the libertarians are all about the Austrian school of economics.

that is the short bus school.

Libertarianism is a silly half cult for young angry men

the right is getting really desperate.

Their historically failed ideas have hit the wall.

Nothing left to offer

libertarianism is jam packed with historically failed ideas.


defend them if you think they are vailid

little red squares are not an adequate defense of your historically failed ideas

the Austrian school of economics is a joke in the economics field.

why do you choose losing fringe ideas?

little red squares?


Ill have to remember that is all the libertarians are capable of providing to defend their historically failed ideas

Austrian school adherents are no very adultlike

Why does the economics field consider the austrian school inadequate?

You don't even know do you?


because you accepted a pile of shit as your go to experts instead of real economics thoery

you refuse to face the invalidity which is the very basis of your own ideas.

WHY?????

Because as smart as you are you are mired in a half cult

lots of little red squares but no real defense of your failed ideas.

why?

because even you know there is not real intellectual defense of them

Nope Im trying to get you to defend what you claim we should take seriously.

You can not .

proving you are in a half cult

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school


this is the basis of all libertarianism.

its your founding ideas.

why do you refuse to discuss it?

because you are in a half cult

where and when have these ideas been employed and worked as claimed?

he is avoiding any questioning of his historically failed ideas and the flawed theories of libertarianism.

Why people cling to ideas they cant defend is beyond me

every one knows it is.

Its the exact opposite of the libertrian ideas.


what difference does it make if people don't adhere rigidly to a historically failed set of ideas?

defending the indefensable by saying but these guys are not strictly adhearing to our failed ideas is pretty silly

making it up as they go along is just what the rest of the economic field think of the Austrian school

little red squares.


is that the material that libertarianism's house is built with?

Proff B


could you take a break from just red squaring just long enough to defend your historically failed ideas with some proof they woold work?

both factions are fools

hes an Austrian school guy so right there is a flaw

another red square?

still no facts?


gee your losing bad here

libertarianism is a sham
 
But those you call “fake” libertarians, can make a damn good argument that real libertarianism is all about “life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness and thereby at some point a life is a life and taking it is murder which of course is an action that DOES violate somebody else’s rights.

So will you answer the question? When is a life a life and when is taking it murder?
 
This is why we need a retroactive threadban feature. Please save your unsupported ad hominems for a thread where they are at least topical.
 
Took you off ignore...

But those you call “fake” libertarians, can make a damn good argument that real libertarianism is all about “life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness and thereby at some point a life is a life and taking it is murder which of course is an action that DOES violate somebody else’s rights.

So will you answer the question? When is a life a life and when is taking it murder?

But a fake libertarian like you cannot make an argument for laws, like the one from Texas, that have nothing to do with protecting any life but only seek to burden and shame women.

No, I won't answer that question because that has nothing to do with forcing a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound or attempting to regulate abortion providers out of business.
 
Took you off ignore...

Surely I’ll sleep better at night now!!! Personally I consider “ignore buttons” cowardice and boring as hell.

But a fake libertarian like you cannot make an argument for laws, like the one from Texas, that have nothing to do with protecting any life but only seek to burden and shame women.

Actually, I’m a “constitutionalist.” If you consider that “fake” libertarianism, so be it. I don’t necessarily totally identify with any political ideology, i. e. I have a few issues with what some folks call libertarianism.

I’m not well schooled in the Texas law, but to what I do know about it, it prohibits abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and requires abortion clinics to pass state health standards and requires doctors to have status at a local hospital within X-amount of miles away from the clinic wherein they operate. So what’s your issue with that?

No, I won't answer that question because that has nothing to do with forcing a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound or attempting to regulate abortion providers out of business.

It does though have everything to do with when a life is a life and when abortion is murder and when the state has the duty and authority to protect a life, right?
 
libertarianism is jam packed with historically failed ideas.

defend them if you think they are vailid

Again, please save your extremely vague, fallacious and unsupported assertions for a discussion where they might at least be topical.
 
the Austrian school of economics is a joke in the economics field.

why do you choose losing fringe ideas?

Why don’t you stick an economic up your stupid fucking leftist ass moron? This conversation is for the adults!!!
 
Surely I’ll sleep better at night now!!! Personally I consider “ignore buttons” cowardice and boring as hell.

I consider them away to avoid people who post nothing but crap.

Actually, I’m a “constitutionalist.” If you consider that “fake” libertarianism, so be it. I don’t necessarily totally identify with any political ideology, i. e. I have a few issues with what some folks call libertarianism.

I’m not well schooled in the Texas law, but to what I do know about it, it prohibits abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and requires abortion clinics to pass state health standards and requires doctors to have status at a local hospital within X-amount of miles away from the clinic wherein they operate. So what’s your issue with that?

You don't understand the constitution or support it. You support what you want it to say.

On what basis does a libertarian or constitutionalist argue for these regulations on the qualification of the clinic or the associations of the doctor? These requirements are nothing more than a cynical attempt to burden abortion providers, as Cuccinelli (sp?) did in Virginia with strict enforcement of regulations dictating door widths.

It also requires an invasive ultrasound. On what basis does a libertarian or constitutionalist dictate treatments?

It does though have everything to do with when a life is a life and when abortion is murder and when the state has the duty and authority to protect a life, right?

The regulations I mention do not have anything to do with that. Any one who supports them is nothing but a pos statist attempting to use regulatory powers of the state as an end around.
 
Desh, you are trolling and spamming the thread with off topic bullshit. Quit acting like a child. Go start your own thread if you are so desperate for attention.
 
So I think this topic is about people who claim to be libertarian but still go after women.

The thing is, the men in Texas who passed the bill that closed clinics and banned abortion after 20 weeks WEREN'T libertarians.

It seems like in most parties, once men get in power, women's rights go out the window. We're used when it's convenient ("oh we're invading Afghanistan, but it's for the women!") and abandoned as soon as possible ("Oh wait, never mind....we're ignoring the women's rights over there.")

Do you really think it's "fake" libertarians? or is that just part of many political philosophies?

The reason women stick with the democrats is that even though at times their policies may be too centrist - they ARE a part that pretty much supports women's rights; they don't try too often to throw us under the bus; they're a lot safer for us. That's what repubs don't get. We want a party that supports us, not just uses us when convenient. Of course, it takes women continue to pressure the dems, but it's working most of the time.

In terms of fake or real libertarians - while I understand the basic attraction of the party, it's not workable as a governing movement and people pretty much warp it any way they want, which is why someone who claims to be libertarian can still feel free to put rules on a woman's pregnancy.
 
he is avoiding any questioning of his historically failed ideas and the flawed theories of libertarianism.

Why people cling to ideas they cant defend is beyond me

I don't think he wants to discuss all of libertarianism, though; just whether being anti-abortion is false libertarianism.... ie someone who is anti shouldn't claim to be libertarian.

Just to me, seems libertarians make it up as they go along...
 
So I think this topic is about people who claim to be libertarian but still go after women.

The thing is, the men in Texas who passed the bill that closed clinics and banned abortion after 20 weeks WEREN'T libertarians.

It seems like in most parties, once men get in power, women's rights go out the window. We're used when it's convenient ("oh we're invading Afghanistan, but it's for the women!") and abandoned as soon as possible ("Oh wait, never mind....we're ignoring the women's rights over there.")

Do you really think it's "fake" libertarians? or is that just part of many political philosophies?

The reason women stick with the democrats is that even though at times their policies may be too centrist - they ARE a part that pretty much supports women's rights; they don't try too often to throw us under the bus; they're a lot safer for us. That's what repubs don't get. We want a party that supports us, not just uses us when convenient. Of course, it takes women continue to pressure the dems, but it's working most of the time.

In terms of fake or real libertarians - while I understand the basic attraction of the party, it's not workable as a governing movement and people pretty much warp it any way they want, which is why someone who claims to be libertarian can still feel free to put rules on a woman's pregnancy.

They certainly were not big L libertarians. But the Tea Partiers have been claiming libertarian principles while doing this sort of thing. Many of the fake libertarian interlopers support this or turn a blind eye to it. My point is they are not little l either.

You can claim to be progressive or liberal and still feel free to put rules on a woman's pregnancy. With "liberal" it might require some dishonesty and it requires even more with "libertarian." It does not make either of them unworkable as a governing movement.

I am not attacking anyone, women or otherwise, for supporting Democrats. I think it is unfortunate when women and others turn a blind eye to the misdeeds of Obama and Democrats on privacy, civil liberties, war powers, the creeping imperial nature of the office of POTUS and some other issues, but I understand why they would choose them over the despicable and immoral Republicans.
 
I don't think he wants to discuss all of libertarianism, though; just whether being anti-abortion is false libertarianism.... ie someone who is anti shouldn't claim to be libertarian.

Just to me, seems libertarians make it up as they go along...

Your last line is absurd. Fake libertarians make it up as they go along. These people are culture war conservatives and neo-confederates who have abused the libertarian brand for many decades and they confuse the uninitiated.

Libertarian philosophy is far more complete than anything governing the Democrats. Democrats just allow party bosses to make it up as they go along.

BTW, one could be anti abortion and libertarian. I am not one, but there is room for the argument that the unborn has a right to life which supersedes a woman's right to choose. I think it is a very weak libertarian argument on pregnancies under 20 weeks and it is primarily dependent on religious convictions and attitudes.

They can't support the sort of interference Texas and other similar laws include. These laws are just a cowardly attempt to use the regulatory power of the state to achieve their culture war goals. The primary reason libertarians support free markets is to avoid the abuse of regulatory and financial pressures to control behavior by a central power.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Your last line is absurd. Fake libertarians make it up as they go along.

Look, I'm not a Libertarian so I'm not going to argue what is and what isn't "true" libertarianism. But if people claim to be libertarians but the party thinks they are false, then it's up to the party to expose them (which I guess is kind of what you're doing here).

Anyway, thanks for pointing out that you think people who claim to be libertarians but who still try to restrict a woman's right to choose are faking it. I think I get your point.

Re Tea Party - I don't think they have a CLUE what they are. They say "libertarian" because it sounds good to them. My bet most of them don't have a clue what it really is.
 
Look, I'm not a Libertarian so I'm not going to argue what is and what isn't "true" libertarianism. But if people claim to be libertarians but the party thinks they are false, then it's up to the party to expose them (which I guess is kind of what you're doing here).

Anyway, thanks for pointing out that you think people who claim to be libertarians but who still try to restrict a woman's right to choose are faking it. I think I get your point.

Re Tea Party - I don't think they have a CLUE what they are. They say "libertarian" because it sounds good to them. My bet most of them don't have a clue what it really is.

Baxter is basically arguing that tea party types who say they are for limited government and less government spending aren't libertarians based on social issues and specifically the abortion law attempting to be passed in Texas. The only issue I see is tea party types (as a whole, it could be different for some individuals) have never claimed to be libertarians. I would say they definitely share some economic beliefs but overall they aren't one and the same.
 
Baxter is basically arguing that tea party types who say they are for limited government and less government spending aren't libertarians based on social issues and specifically the abortion law attempting to be passed in Texas. The only issue I see is tea party types (as a whole, it could be different for some individuals) have never claimed to be libertarians. I would say they definitely share some economic beliefs but overall they aren't one and the same.

They made use of the rhetoric, especially early on. There is still quite a bit of crossover. Rand Paul has straddled both, has referred to himself as a libertarian and has not seemed to object too much to the Tea Party label.

I know people within the LP that are culture war conservatives and/or neo confederates. They disgust me and I find them more revolting in many ways than neocons or progressives, but they are there. Just because we are on the same side on many issues will not prevent me from taking them to task. I won't turn a blind eye to it. Somebody has to be perfect and I have decided I am the obvious choice. :)
 
They made use of the rhetoric, especially early on. There is still quite a bit of crossover. Rand Paul has straddled both, has referred to himself as a libertarian and has not seemed to object too much to the Tea Party label.

I know people within the LP that are culture war conservatives and/or neo confederates. They disgust me and I find them more revolting in many ways than neocons or progressives, but they are there. Just because we are on the same side on many issues will not prevent me from taking them to task. I won't turn a blind eye to it. Somebody has to be perfect and I have decided I am the obvious choice. :)

Are you from Ohio and did you go to USC? If you can't answer yes to those two questions I'm sorry to inform you perfection is just out of your reach fine sir. However I do applaud your effort at aiming "for the stars".
 
Back
Top