• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • Probably

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 7 16.3%
  • Probably not

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 28 65.1%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    43
I think the common beliefs that markets naturally create monopolies and giant firms, is misplaced.
That is where a lot of people seem to have problems with freer market ideology.

Probably you are right, but my skepticism towards too unregulated markets is another problem: While the libertarian ideal of a really free market may sound nice on the paper, I don't think it is realistic. No matter how small government, there will always be some attempt of circumventing free market principles by both corrupt officials and corrupt private actors (yes, they often work against free market principles too, because they are more interested in rent seeking). It's simply not realistic to expect this to vanish entirely.

And my second point is that while genuinely free markets may not create monopolies and/or multinational companies by default, the market still creates a situation where there is extreme inequality. That's because some people simply have less to sell on the market (skills, workforce, etc) than they need to make for a living (think of ill, handicapped, elderly, very unintelligent people and so on). And markets create a situation where it's not really your effort and hard work that pays off, but you get rewarded for your possessions you have already: When you have few money, it's very difficult to make a little more, but when you have a lot already, it's very easy to make more -- in some cases, you can just let your money work for you, without investing much effort yourself. Maybe it's indeed the system with the smallest possible amount of coercion, but when your belly is empty, you can't fill it with that freedom. Freedom is not everything, satisfying basic needs is at least just as important.

The free market may be efficient, but in my personal opinion, this does not satisfy what I believe is an inherent human instinct: An instinct for fairness. It also flies in the face of the normative conviction that human beings all have an equal value, regardless of skills and traits -- on the market, their value is reduced to what they can sell, or on how many possessions they have. That's too Darwinist for my taste.

And because an inherent sense of fairness is indeed a probably even genetic trait in humans (many studies found that the common human instinctively tolerates only limited inequality), it's unrealistic to expect that there can ever be a true consensus for extirely free, unleashed markets without any limits. Those who are disadvantaged materially by such a free market will always turn to alternative ideologies.

That's why I am not quite as fond of free markets as libertarians, and why I believe limited redistribution, and the possibility for democratic participation and positive freedom are necessary. Also, I believe some libertarians often underestimate the problem that private actors too are often not really interested in respecting the free market, when it comes to expanding their profits. But I agree with libertarians insofar that they emphasize the efficiency of markets, and are warning of regulating it too much: Many left-leaning people seem to lack the awareness that markets are indeed very efficient, and go way too far when it comes to curbing markets, or redistribution. That's why I think it's good libertarians exist, and make their voices heard in the debate, because the debate often is dominated by voices who don't seem to really appreciate the strengthes of free markets, that indeed exist.

When we examine firms, we come to find that a lot/most of their "giantness" is stemmed from government favor and not from the natural growth of the firm itself.

Yes, that is often the case. But you also see private actors violating free market principles, by exploiting externalities and information assymmetry, by cancelling out true competition by conspirative agreements, and so on. Libertarians I met often don't seem to take this into account enough, IMHO.
 
Last edited:

A lot to cover here, but I do appreciate your valid criticism and reasonable tone, in which you express your argument.

I have to go to work shortly and wouldn't want to craft a quick response, to something that requires, a bit more time a detail.
I'll address it better in a little while.
 
I think I've made some pretty rigorous arguments, so either you must have simply ignored them or you're looking for something more. What more would you like?

Something that is more than just your conjecture and supposition based on your personal bigotries; that would be a good place to start.
 
Do libertarians inadvertently enable fascism by making institutions weak and vulnerable to private violence?

given that fascism is statist in nature, and of necessity involves extremely powerful state insitutions, almost by tautology the answer would have to be no.
 
I'll give you two names and two hard references, although I could give you hundreds. Bush admits to torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

George W. Bush Admits Torture, Says He Would 'Do It Again' | CommonDreams.org

Abu Zubayda's account of torture was confirmed by a CIA source.

Six Questions for Jane Mayer, Author of The Dark Side?By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine)

As to the murders, the most concrete were two deaths under torture-interrogation. The ICRC (International Committee of The Red Cross) brought them to the attention of the CIA Inspector General, who wrote a classified report saying that the program under which they were interrogated was illegal, and that their deaths probably constituted war crimes. Dick Cheney summoned the report's author to a meeting, despite having no official authority over him or his agency, and the investigation was terminated shortly thereafter (ibid). There many other deaths under torture, but those were the most egregious, and went the furthest toward official recognition.

Now, will you acknowledge the simple human truth of these atrocities?

How about the fact that Obama broke his promise never to allow the outsourcing of torture? Obama has not repealed the executive order giving the president almost unlimited power to conduct covert warfare. We STILL ship terrorist suspects to other countries, in the dead of night, so that they may be "interrogated" for information. And who is giving the direct order to bomb and shoot thousands of people in Afghanistan, all for the crusade to capture one man? Is it REALLY worth it?
 
Regarding the OP....

images
 
Umm first of all, one of the defining characteristics of being libertarian, is that is doesn't just stop at the ballot box but it is a pathway to walk. Your life is changed in total because of the belief system.

As Haymarket said earlier, and I agree, you are correct to say that libertarianism is a belief system - in fact, it has more in common with religion than political philosophy. I mean this entirely as observation and not as insult, but in the libertarian community the "free market" takes on aspects of the godhead: It's treated as a mysterious, sacred, and impenetrable force that must not be desecrated by the impure hand of government. It's as valid as any other religion, but as a set of ideas for improving the quality of American life it's basically moribund and sock-puppeted by fascistic elements merely trying to weaken current institutions.

No one believes that zero taxation brings in revenue

Plenty of libertarian arguments boil down to that - you can find them everywhere politics is debated, including here. Categorical statements like "cutting taxes increases revenue" and "raising taxes reduces revenue" are commonplace among libertarians (and conservatives), and there is little recognition that these statements inherently involve a claim that zero taxes would bring in maximum revenue. The vast majority of libertarians have no specific proposal for an optimum taxation level, and those who do just hit on 10% because it's a round number and sounds low relative to current rates, but be realistic: If taxes were 10% and another round of Republican politicians came along offering more tax cuts, it's a pretty safe bet that libertarians would support the proposal. The distinction between libertarianism and anarchism is almost entirely academic rather than practical.

but of course I rarely if ever see anyone try to "debunk" there economic policy suggestions.

How does one debunk a religious belief enough to convince its believers? The Cato Institute's work consists of deducing facts from predetermined conclusions, not the other way around - like Middle Age philosophers investigating the nature of the world by reading the Bible rather than just looking at the world. The difference between good work and shoddy work in such a context is merely how artful one's sophistry is - beyond that, there can be no surprises and no change in viewpoints. Cato promulgates a religion beneficial to a lot of elite interests, and as with the medieval Church, those interests are quite generous in supporting its efforts.

It's definitely a think tank, much like that of the Brookings Institute.

I'm not as well-acquainted with Brookings as Cato, but I seriously doubt it.

But I do see the danger that expanding markets, with the side effect of allowing inequality to increase and democratic participation to be curbed, has the unwanted side effect of turning more people towards demagoguery. That can be fascist demagoguery, communism or anything else. In these regards, maybe you can say that implementation of libertarian free market ideas has the side effect of pushing more people in the arms of demagogues, although this is the exact opposite of what libertarians intend. I see that danger.

Well said, and I agree.

Something that is more than just your conjecture and supposition based on your personal bigotries; that would be a good place to start.

That's not an answer, that's just a blanket-dismissal. I've addressed your comments and questions in detail while your responses to me become increasingly vague, superficial, and avoidant of specifics. From my experience arguing with right-wing commenters, this tells me you recognize the strength of my arguments and do not wish to engage them, but also do not wish to concede anything. I hope you change your mind and decide to discuss this issue substantively.

given that fascism is statist in nature, and of necessity involves extremely powerful state insitutions, almost by tautology the answer would have to be no.

Fascism creates an overbearing state, it rarely inherits one. And arguing tautology in physical causation is like saying that a peace treaty can't provoke a war - context, not the static definition of elements, is what shows cause-and-effect. Libertarianism has consequences that have nothing to do with its own values.

How about the fact that Obama broke his promise never to allow the outsourcing of torture? Obama has not repealed the executive order giving the president almost unlimited power to conduct covert warfare. We STILL ship terrorist suspects to other countries, in the dead of night, so that they may be "interrogated" for information. And who is giving the direct order to bomb and shoot thousands of people in Afghanistan, all for the crusade to capture one man? Is it REALLY worth it?

I strongly disagree with your characterizations, but we're veering pretty far from the topic - the unintended consequences of libertarianism. I only brought up Bush because it demonstrated how pliant and passive the self-described libertarian community becomes when fed tax cuts and small government rhetoric.

Regarding the OP....

images

There have been plenty of lively, substantive discussions so far, so I urge you to read the rest of the thread and feel free to offer your thoughts after doing so.
 
Can you explain the distinction?

This is written unclearly, so I'm not sure what you're saying.

I guess, what you're saying in the OP is that in a libertarian state, the government would be so weak, that it would be subject to overthrow or corruption by other powerful interests. My response is that a libertarian government still has all of mechanisms needed for it to work. It still has police, a military, and courts. The state is still fully capable of putting down unrest. My point is, I don't see how all the extra stuff you want to add on, like entitlements, welfare, and other programs, would add to the stability and prevent fascism.
 
Probably you are right, but my skepticism towards too unregulated markets is another problem: While the libertarian ideal of a really free market may sound nice on the paper, I don't think it is realistic. No matter how small government, there will always be some attempt of circumventing free market principles by both corrupt officials and corrupt private actors (yes, they often work against free market principles too, because they are more interested in rent seeking). It's simply not realistic to expect this to vanish entirely.

I agree, I think a complete restructure of government is in order to make it work better, not perfect but much better than now.

Also remember that it isn't total unregulated, it's reasonable regulation.
We have to remove the knee jerk emotion that seems to come part and parcel with the regulations we do have.


And my second point is that while genuinely free markets may not create monopolies and/or multinational companies by default, the market still creates a situation where there is extreme inequality. That's because some people simply have less to sell on the market (skills, workforce, etc) than they need to make for a living (think of ill, handicapped, elderly, very unintelligent people and so on). And markets create a situation where it's not really your effort and hard work that pays off, but you get rewarded for your possessions you have already: When you have few money, it's very difficult to make a little more, but when you have a lot already, it's very easy to make more -- in some cases, you can just let your money work for you, without investing much effort yourself. Maybe it's indeed the system with the smallest possible amount of coercion, but when your belly is empty, you can't fill it with that freedom. Freedom is not everything, satisfying basic needs is at least just as important.

I'm fine with some basic level of safety net services, the problem I have with the supposed safety net now, is that people use it for life style (at least in the states).
Instead of, saving the difference of, what they would of spent of food, shelter, medical care, people are spending it on excess.

We also need to consider the long term generation inequalities that come with some social programs.
If in the long term, future generations are poorer because of the program, it may not be a good idea.

We can see this potential with Social Security and Medicaid in the U.S.
For something closer to your home, the Greek situation shows what can happen when one generation lives to excess, at the expense of future generations.
It creates a similar inequality by trying to equalize things.

The free market may be efficient, but in my personal opinion, this does not satisfy what I believe is an inherent human instinct: An instinct for fairness. It also flies in the face of the normative conviction that human beings all have an equal value, regardless of skills and traits -- on the market, their value is reduced to what they can sell, or on how many possessions they have. That's too Darwinist for my taste.

And because an inherent sense of fairness is indeed a probably even genetic trait in humans (many studies found that the common human instinctively tolerates only limited inequality), it's unrealistic to expect that there can ever be a true consensus for extirely free, unleashed markets without any limits. Those who are disadvantaged materially by such a free market will always turn to alternative ideologies.

I'm pretty well convinced that fairness is instinctual.
We need to consider how much fairness we need in this world.
Some people will be inherently better than others, we shouldn't handicap them though.
That isn't fair either.

That's why I am not quite as fond of free markets as libertarians, and why I believe limited redistribution, and the possibility for democratic participation and positive freedom are necessary. Also, I believe some libertarians often underestimate the problem that private actors too are often not really interested in respecting the free market, when it comes to expanding their profits. But I agree with libertarians insofar that they emphasize the efficiency of markets, and are warning of regulating it too much: Many left-leaning people seem to lack the awareness that markets are indeed very efficient, and go way too far when it comes to curbing markets, or redistribution. That's why I think it's good libertarians exist, and make their voices heard in the debate, because the debate often is dominated by voices who don't seem to really appreciate the strengthes of free markets, that indeed exist.

I'm not to big of democracy, it degrades the potential long term stability that can be created under a potential libertarian government.
Individual citizens happen to be rent seekers, as much as corporations are.

Private actors can be a big problem, it's not an anarchistic market ideology.
There would be laws in place to help prevent fraud and force against unwilling individuals.

Yes, that is often the case. But you also see private actors violating free market principles, by exploiting externalities and information assymmetry, by cancelling out true competition by conspirative agreements, and so on. Libertarians I met often don't seem to take this into account enough, IMHO.

Some externalities get a, sort of, free pass from the state, pollution being one of them.
Firms that pollute are violating another persons private property rights.
That is a criminal act, that often get treated with civil penalties.

Information asymmetry, in my opinion is required to make a market function.
Without it, we have achieved perfection.
 
That's not an answer, that's just a blanket-dismissal. I've addressed your comments and questions in detail while your responses to me become increasingly vague, superficial, and avoidant of specifics. From my experience arguing with right-wing commenters, this tells me you recognize the strength of my arguments and do not wish to engage them, but also do not wish to concede anything. I hope you change your mind and decide to discuss this issue substantively.

You have addressed nothing. All you have are things you suppose and things you conjecture. You haven't provided one iota of proof. The entirety of this thread has been a bastion to intellectual dishonest conjecture and you have tried your best to paint libertarian philosophy in the worst of light. But you have NEVER addressed libertarian philosophy. Where? Point it out? You want to try to claim some smarmy "do not wish to concede anything" argument, but where is the beef? You've shown nothing, you've supplied nothing, you've argued nothing. There is nothing in anything you presented to back up your claims which has any amount of factual truth or logical argument behind it. Where is it? This is your chance. You wanted to be smarmy. I can appreciate smarmy. But you have to be good at it, and you fail. Now tell me, where are these proofs you claim you made? What is it that you have, factual and on hand, that isn't conjecture, that isn't supposition, which isn't based in your bigotries against libertarians. Where is it. Show it now or recant you statement I quoted here. Those are your only two options.;
 
Last edited:
As Haymarket said earlier, and I agree, you are correct to say that libertarianism is a belief system - in fact, it has more in common with religion than political philosophy. I mean this entirely as observation and not as insult, but in the libertarian community the "free market" takes on aspects of the godhead: It's treated as a mysterious, sacred, and impenetrable force that must not be desecrated by the impure hand of government. It's as valid as any other religion, but as a set of ideas for improving the quality of American life it's basically moribund and sock-puppeted by fascistic elements merely trying to weaken current institutions.

There is nothing else in this world that has improved the livelihood of so many people than a more open market.
Sorry but there isn't, it isn't a godhead, it is the actions of millions of people facilitating mutual aid, out of self interest.

Plenty of libertarian arguments boil down to that - you can find them everywhere politics is debated, including here. Categorical statements like "cutting taxes increases revenue" and "raising taxes reduces revenue" are commonplace among libertarians (and conservatives), and there is little recognition that these statements inherently involve a claim that zero taxes would bring in maximum revenue. The vast majority of libertarians have no specific proposal for an optimum taxation level, and those who do just hit on 10% because it's a round number and sounds low relative to current rates, but be realistic: If taxes were 10% and another round of Republican politicians came along offering more tax cuts, it's a pretty safe bet that libertarians would support the proposal. The distinction between libertarianism and anarchism is almost entirely academic rather than practical.

But that isn't true, no self respecting libertarian would argue that, it's hyperbole.

No there is a huge difference between libertarianism and anarchism.
Libertarianism is a smaller, logically and rationally implemented government.
Anarchism is absolutely no government what so ever.

The divide between the two is enormous.

How does one debunk a religious belief enough to convince its believers? The Cato Institute's work consists of deducing facts from predetermined conclusions, not the other way around - like Middle Age philosophers investigating the nature of the world by reading the Bible rather than just looking at the world. The difference between good work and shoddy work in such a context is merely how artful one's sophistry is - beyond that, there can be no surprises and no change in viewpoints. Cato promulgates a religion beneficial to a lot of elite interests, and as with the medieval Church, those interests are quite generous in supporting its efforts.

It isn't a religious belief.
For it to be religious, there would have to be only faith supporting it, which isn't the case.
Cato documents, practically, all the stances they take with fact based evidence.
Almost any libertarian, worth their salt, can defend themselves quite well on policy with documented facts.

Practically all the attacks against libertarianism are hyperbolic or appeals to ridicule.

I'm not as well-acquainted with Brookings as Cato, but I seriously doubt it.

It's a center left think tank, they have some decent, reasonable stances.
I don't agree with everything, put forth by them, but their intent is good.

Brookings - Quality. Independence. Impact.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing else in this world that has improved the livelihood of so many people than a more open market.
Sorry but there isn't, it isn't a godhead, it is the actions of millions of people facilitating mutual aid, out of self interest.



But that isn't true, no self respecting libertarian would argue that, it's hyperbole.

No there is a huge difference between libertarianism and anarchism.
Libertarianism is a smaller, logically and rationally implemented government.
Anarchism is absolutely no government what so ever.

The divide between the two is enormous.



It isn't a religious belief.
For it to be religious, there would have to be only faith supporting it, which isn't the case.
Cato documents, practically, all the stances they take with fact based evidence.
Almost any libertarian, worth their salt, can defend themselves quite well on policy with documented facts.

Practically all the attacks against libertarianism are hyperbolic or appeals to ridicule.



It's a center left think tank, they have some decent, reasonable stances.
I don't agree with everything, put forth by them, but their intent is good.

Brookings - Quality. Independence. Impact.

You're preaching to the deaf sir. You make valid and logical arguments, but they won't be heard. There are several people on this site whom have proven that they'd like to engage us on an intellectual and honest level. I give it up to them in this thread, thanks very much. Y'all know who you are. But the OP ain't one of them. He's not interested in intelligent debate and discussion. You know, we don't demand that people agree with us; only that they'll hear us out. There are those whom shall do so, and there are those whom shall not. The best thing out of this thread is that I know the people who will engage in an intellectually honest and curious manner, agree or disagree with our policies, but treat us with respect and try to understand (even if disagreeing) in some part with our philosophy.

For the ones who have engaged in honest debate, I thank you.
 
Libertarians laugh at the idea that they consider the free market a "godhead," but there are those who certainly consider it a near-supernatural devil. Can't imagine who that might be.

The free market is the most voluntarily cooperative system ever devised by man.
 
Perhaps you can name a Fascist regime under which the government was limited.
 
The Keith Olbermann thread offers ample evidence that when libertarians have the choice, they will weaken government even at the expense of strengthening the power of the corporation. Their predisposed mindset to loathe government is strong and nearly instinctual. Its like a knee jerk response with some of them. The greatest threat to our freedom is NOT the US Government. It is international corporations. The fight for our freedoms and way of life between average folks and corporate interests will be the major struggle of the next few decades until it is decided one way or the other.
 
The Keith Olbermann thread offers ample evidence that when libertarians have the choice, they will weaken government even at the expense of strengthening the power of the corporation. Their predisposed mindset to loathe government is strong and nearly instinctual. Its like a knee jerk response with some of them. The greatest threat to our freedom is NOT the US Government. It is international corporations. The fight for our freedoms and way of life between average folks and corporate interests will be the major struggle of the next few decades until it is decided one way or the other.

Despite being a relatively conservative person who leans a bit Libertarian except on Tuesdays, I agree that large corporations can be a threat to individual liberty in some ways. Anyone who has ever worked for one can testify that they can be incredibly pushy, intrusive, demanding, prying, and have control over your income. Some people say "don't like it? find another employer!" which is easier said than done, when MOST of those 'other employers' are just as bad.

Where I part company with you, is that I see asking Government to protect us from Big Corp as the same as asking the weasel to guard the henhouse.
 
To all kneejerk Libertarian bashers:

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the freaking articles. Many of you have been around here or other debate sites for a long time. You should have a grasp on basic political terms. Your kneejerk equating American-style Libertarianism with Anarchism, Corpratism, or other things that don't involve keeping a small, but still functional government shows nothing but ignorance on your part, willful or otherwise. I'm sick of responding to these kinds of things.
 
The Keith Olbermann thread offers ample evidence that when libertarians have the choice, they will weaken government even at the expense of strengthening the power of the corporation. Their predisposed mindset to loathe government is strong and nearly instinctual. Its like a knee jerk response with some of them. The greatest threat to our freedom is NOT the US Government. It is international corporations. The fight for our freedoms and way of life between average folks and corporate interests will be the major struggle of the next few decades until it is decided one way or the other.

The greatest threat to freedom has ALWAYS been the tyranny of government. Corporations do not impose limits to freedom. If they do, they will be punished by even a libertarian government. What you really mean to say is that the freedom of speech should be limited to only certain groups, and the government should impose speech restrictions on other groups. Let's discuss Citizens United, shall we? Even the Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Steward, admitted that such restrictions, before the overturn made by the Supreme Court in the above case, included pamphlet and book material. BOOKS! People who opposed the court case decision claim that even books and pamphlets, published by corporations (which most of them are already), that include some "magical" phrases, should be banned during primary and election seasons. And these jokers don't even realize that the vast majority of those who are incorporated are non-profit groups and small businesses!
 
The greatest threat to freedom has ALWAYS been the tyranny of government. Corporations do not impose limits to freedom. If they do, they will be punished by even a libertarian government. What you really mean to say is that the freedom of speech should be limited to only certain groups, and the government should impose speech restrictions on other groups. Let's discuss Citizens United, shall we? Even the Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Steward, admitted that such restrictions, before the overturn made by the Supreme Court in the above case, included pamphlet and book material. BOOKS! People who opposed the court case decision claim that even books and pamphlets, published by corporations (which most of them are already), that include some "magical" phrases, should be banned during primary and election seasons. And these jokers don't even realize that the vast majority of those who are incorporated are non-profit groups and small businesses!

In the world of the 21st century, corporations are amassing wealth and the power that it can purchase at an alarming rate. The idea that a corporation can tell an employee that a condition of employment is a surrender of their political rights or they risk termination is a reality. That is the world we live in and the Citizens United decision is not going to help change that. Many progressives like myself have a very strong conviction that it will only be the government representing the will of the majority of the people that can counter balance corporate power. I see no other force with enough resources to do it.

Asparagus - perhaps the problem is that there are many people calling themselves LIBERTARIANS who also preface it with some modifier that makes them a bit different from others who do the same? They are a difficult breed to classify and pin down. And that is something of an understatement. Put five libertarians in a room and you will get six different opinions on the same subject. At least until the next Lew Rockwell column comes out about the topic. ;)
 
Last edited:
here is an article that identifies a least ten different types of libertarians

What Kind of Libertarian Are You? - 10 Different Types of Libertarianism

maybe people are confused because libertarians themselves can be very confusing.

and of course the famous cartoon giving us a full two dozen libertarian types -- humorously of course

The 24 Types of Libertarian | Progressive Political Cartoon by Barry Deutsch





This is such an asinine position in barely deserves a response. Are there only one type of republican? Democrat? Are you all the borg for your respective parties?

Please, this post of yours fails the intellectual moxy test.
 
You seem to miss the point ... again ... as nearly always. Some here have complained that non-libertarians do not really know what libertarians stand for, what they believe, what the support or do not support. This seems to be a continual and nearly constant complaint from libertarians going back years.

So why does this exist? One reason is that there are so many varied types of libertarians that you need a scorecard and guide book to keep them apart. This is not the fault of non-libertarians.

Does using words like asinine make you feel better about yourself rev? Do you think you raise the intellectual level of the debate by resorting to continually having to judge the worth of those who disagree with your ideology?
 
You seem to miss the point ... again ... as nearly always. Some here have complained that non-libertarians do not really know what libertarians stand for, what they believe, what the support or do not support. This seems to be a continual and nearly constant complaint from libertarians going back years.

Strawman


So why does this exist? One reason is that there are so many varied types of libertarians that you need a scorecard and guide book to keep them apart. This is not the fault of non-libertarians.

Strawman


Does using words like asinine make you feel better about yourself rev? Do you think you raise the intellectual level of the debate by resorting to continually having to judge the worth of those who disagree with your ideology?


The Good Reverend can not possibly feel any better about himself, his awesomeness is absolute. It is your asinine posting of strawmen, nonsense, and hap hazard theories that need work. :thumbs:
 
Do laissez faire policies translate to political stability?
 
So rev... you know how to type a word. Now back it up with explanation and analysis to show the world why my arguments are just strawmen.

if you are able that is. But I bet you cannot. :peace (just for you since you seem addicted to these smilie faces) :mrgreen:

Let me assist you:

The argument put forward by Harmarket regarding ________________________ is actually just use of the strawman because ____________________________ and ______________________________________.

No thanks are necessary.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom