So, be aware that I don't "hate" Libertarians. (Not that I ever actually hated them the way a person might hate the guy who beat and robbed him.) In the past it was just that I could find nothing among them with which I could agree when it came to Libertarian policies. This is--to put it mildly--no longer the case.
See my "Why Liberals Piss Me Off" for some more of my evolving points of view. (Also, just to make it clear---I rather think Ron Paul is about right when it comes to foreign policy.)
In my personal experience I have found Libertarians to be greedy, self-centered, totally self-interested assholes. Their motto can be summed up easily:
“I’ve got mine (or I soon will have), everyone else go fuck themselves.”
You can count on a Libertarian to be relatively stupid, but at the same time think of himself as very far above the average in intelligence. In fact, though, Libertarians are stupid on a level that is almost singular for such a group. Which is why, I suppose, so many identify themselves as Libertarians—there’s certainly no shortage of stupid people in the USA.
Among the many negative things one can always count on a Libertarian to do is to come down on virtually every political and social and economic decision on the side of corporate interests and of the rich. In a truly twisted way, Libertarians are the modern equivalent of the Victorian era royalists. In those days, it was supposed that there must be a reason for everything. That said, then there was certainly a good reason why the masses were ruled over by royalty. The reason being that royalty were put in their positions by divine intervention, so it must therefore be a very good thing. Our modern-day version of the royalists are Libertarians. There must be a good reason why the rich are rich, and that reason being—in a nutshell—that the rich “deserve” to be rich; the reason generally given as by virtue of hard work or quick wit (a Darwinian reason, if you will). Therefore, leave them alone and allow them to continue to be rich and to gather about them still more riches. For the sake of all that is worthwhile (I would have said “God”, but Libertarians by and large claim not to believe in “God”), don’t regulate the rich and the corporations they own and control, for to do so would be to interfere with the natural right of the rich to be rich.
Libertarians are so fucking stupid. The only thing at which they are good is in knowing the hand that feeds them. Some Libertarians—such as a certain mildly talented comic book artist—find themselves growing richer the more they kiss the asses of those at the top. By praising the rich and defending the rich and the status quo at every opportunity, they are rewarded in relation to how much they have done for the very rich that day.
In brief, Libertarians have about them the two traits that I find most loathsome in the human race: selfishness and stupidity. In the 1930s we would have found them rallying around such political filth as Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, and Francisco Franco. Then, as now, they would justify their poisonous ideas and decisions as being the most logical. Just look to see what racist, nationalist bastards around whom they now gather for a look into the very diseased minds of these idiots.
Libertarians—what a bunch of stinking morons.
84 comments:
You forgot Ayn Rand, who wrote one of the most unintentionally hilarious novels of all time, *Atlas Shrugged,* in which all of the captains of industry (the "Prime Movers") are actually concerned, creative and compassionate human beings more interested in making better goods and services as opposed to lizard-hearted bastards bilking the rubes with every shortcut they can connive through their puppets in government.
A good quote from Don Marquis to baffle the libertarians: "When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him: 'Whose?'" This line dovetails with another aspect of *Atlas Shrugged* that caught my eye, naely that no humanity whatsoever was ascribed to the innumerable workers who built Hank Reardon's bridges or did the day-to-day running of the heroine's railroad. They may as well have been ants.
And where were these self-described advocates of freedom and liberty when the USA PATRIOT Act was proposed and passed? On their knees, quietly slurping away at the crotches of their conservafascist masters, pausing only to gulp down another load and gurgle, "It's a post 9-11 world."
Man, one could go on about these pathetic little hypocrites who fancy themselves intellectuals because they've read half a dozen more books than their conservafascist fellow travelers. Fuck 'em.
Well said. Ayn Rand stands like a turd on the shoulder of every Libertarian.
I am a libertarian, and social darwinist, and I am proud of it.
There is a very consistent set of principles that I follow:
1) I am the absolute owner of myself.
2) I have no obligation to help any other person who has never helped me before. We are all islands.
3) We all have a right to be selfish, and there is nothing wrong with selfishness.
Yes, I'd agree with survival of the fittest capitalism. I believe we should eliminate all taxes, and replace them with user fees for government services. You pay ONLY for what YOU use, and NOT for what anyone else uses, just like you would only pay for what you order at a restaurant, and not for what other random diners order. Charging taxes based on income is inherently price discrimination against high earners, because you are charging them a higher price for use of the same services. That would be akin to a bar charging Bill Gates $100,000 for a beer, while you get a beer for free. Why should a billionaire with no kids pay for public schools so that other people's kids can go? Why should Bill Gates pay more for the roads if he doesn't drive more than everyone else? Why should he help pay for your health care or education if you've never done a damn thing to help him? He has no obligation to help anyone, and his helping people would only serve to grant those people a better standard of living than they deserve.
Hehe. Interesting. These battle of ideologies will just last and last, but what ends up happening is people find the perfect political figure(a dream politician IYW) by "mix and matching" not too liberal, socialist, social darwinist, libertarion, paleo and new conservative. They're all good and all suck.
And elroy99 mentioned atlas shrugged, I've heard of it but will I get anything out of it? Anyone
Wow Benjamin, I think your position on the positive merits of selfishness makes you scum. Are you are so callous that you would let people in a burning building burn? Do victims deserve what happens to them? Would you let people starve to death because they didn't have personal responsibility over their finances? I know people like you exist in the world and it just makes me sad. What ever happened to the virtues of compassion and equality?
Equality... in a society equality means everyone is desperately poor. Being unequal means that hard work benefits you because you make more money for working harder. Is is the basic idea of capitalism. Your burning building analogy. Compassion is a great thing. We have charities and kind people who donate. But if someone says that no matter what, you have to rescue those people now no matter what or you'll be jailed is not kindness. You can't force kindness. You shouldn't be forced to pay other people for doing nothing. Don't create a society where the hard-worker and the lazy man get the same paycheck. That's not kindness. Every time we force kindness with things like welfare people just leech off it but still don't work. I believe in compassion, not forced compassion.
I don't want to force compassion. And I think you underestimate how much wealth there would be if it was distributed more evenly. And for the record I don't want equal pay for unequal work. The neurosurgeon deserves a bigger paycheck then the bus driver. But as a society and as a citizen, how far do you want to let people fall? No matter how lazy or hopeless someone is, where do we set the line that says, because you are human and a citizen, we will not allow you to decent any further. Veterans qualify as citizens as least, do we have the compassion to help the homeless vet? Or do you dream of a social darwinist society that leaves then to their own 'personal responsibility'.
I feel that how a society treats the meek reflects on the morality of that society, and I would rather live in place where we take care of the lost and hopeless as a function of government then in a place where we ignore them, and only let under-funded charities do that work.
It seems that every time the notion of equality in society comes up, people have to start invoking the meme that welfare queens drain your tax dollars because they have 47 babies and leech off the system because they have no 'personal responsibility' and will not work and want only hand outs. That is an entirely wrong way of thinking about it. They American society creates the conditions that allows this behavior. Welfare is under funded. People are allowed to leach off the system because it is mismanaged and neglected. If welfare was given the same priority (and funds) as National Security or the IRS, I think you would see the system bring people out of poverty rather then guaranteeing them to stay there.
And yes there will still be people who will refuse to work even if our minimum wage actually paid above the poverty line. Hypothetically, if there was real opportunity to earn a wage, and available work that wasn't degrading, and someone STILL wasn't working, don't you think that would qualify as some sort of disorder? Don't you think that rather then calling them lazy good-for-nothings who are taking your paycheck away, don't you think you as a moral and decent person want to give them help so they can at least be clean, fed and off the streets?
Our system is broken, and we can't all just be our for ourselves. We need to stand together as Americans and we can't afford to be a giant mob of assholes anymore.
"Our system is broken, and we can't all just be our for ourselves. We need to stand together as Americans and we can't afford to be a giant mob of assholes anymore."
Well said, atheist.
No one is *obligated* to do a thing to help someone else, unless that other person has already helped you before and you have not yet repaid the favor.
Would I let the people in the building burn? That's irrelevant. The point is that I have no obligation to do anything. If I choose to lift a finger to help, that's "extra credit." I have a perfect right to just go on watching tv and ignoring the fire.
And irrational atheist, stop your rubbish about "Hypothetically, if there was real opportunity to earn a wage, and available work that wasn't degrading, and someone STILL wasn't working, don't you think that would qualify as some sort of disorder?"
No, that is not a "disorder". If I knew that society would pay for my food, shelter, and health care no matter how lazy of a leech I am, then it would be perfectly rational for me to not work and to let everyone else pick up the tab for me. It's called rational self-interest. I work hard, not because I enjoy work (in fact, work is a dis-utility for me), but purely for the money. If I could have the tab picked up for me without working myself, it would be silly for me to not exploit that.
Liberals like you always seem to want to view people as good by nature, and naturally WANTING to carry their own weight. You think that people only leech off of others either because they "have a disorder," or because circumstances do not allow them to carry their weight like they so desperately want to. You people are just naive little idealists.
Why should anyone be subsidized and cared for by others purely because "he is a human and a citizen"? What is this idealistic bullshit about "Americans should stand together as one"? The way I see it, we are all individual islands, we are all in it for ourselves at the end, and we are all competitors in a Hobbesian fight to the death.
Personally, not only am I against ANY redistribution by the government, I'm also against private charities. These charities get in the way of justice, which entails the dying off of the weak and unfit. Yes, I would let them starve. They've done nothing for me; I'll do nothing for them.
"No one is *obligated* to do a thing to help someone else, unless that other person has already helped you before and you have not yet repaid the favor."
I agree with that. Every time you breath clean air, drink clean water, drive a safe car, call the cops, plug in your computer, log onto the internet outside an urban district, get paid a decent wage, watch television, it was society that did that for you. You repay the favor not just by paying taxes or paying your power bill. You repay the *obligation* of the favor of an infrastructure that provides everything you need to vent online on a Sunday afternoon by being a citizen and contributing to society... Or at least recognizing everything that is done for you.
You are just a callous little would-be emperor and it makes me sad for you. I know you would let me starve if circumstances caused me to be unable to support myself, but don't worry, we are not that cruel. When the revolution comes, we will take care of you.
Society did not "do that for me." The television producers, cops, car manufacturers, water treatment center workers, etc. etc. etc. do what they do not out of a desire to help me, but out of a need to make a living for themselves. They were paid for their services, and thus no one owes them anything for being able to drink clean water, watch television, etc. Moreover, since I pay my utilities bill, cable bill, etc., I sure as hell have no obligation to any of them.
Your logic would make it seem like everyone should be grateful to everyone else. I ate a hamburger tonight, so that means I should be grateful to the beef butcher, the grain farmer, etc.? I paid for the damn burger, and the butcher and farmer got paid their wages, so no one owes any gratitude to anyone else. These things are not "done for me." These things are produced because people act in their own self-interest.
"When the revolution comes" my ass. Go ahead and try it. I'd enjoy watching what happens to you. Just by your "revolution" line I can tell that you're not even a mainsteam liberal; you're one of those fringe commies who dream of workers' paradises and abolition of private property. Good luck with that. I'll still be here sitting on my millions and enjoying myself.
Just wait. You haven't seen anything yet.
Everyone is connected.
Trying to say others have 'done nothing for you' is to pretend that a human can exist alone in this day.
You can't, sorry. Try escaping society - good luck. Ever seen 'The Prisoner'?
Theres not much left to do but cooperate.
When you say "how far are you willing to let people fall" I feel that is an uneducated comment. People need to fall before they learn to pick themselves back up. I'm a Libertarian and we have way too many laws that protect the wealth in this country just like we have too much welfare in this country.
A true Libertarian doesn't believe there should be things like patents. Especially in circumstances with pharmaceutical companies. Just because they create the formula for the next "miracle drug" doesn't mean they should own the formula to the next "miracle drug". Now the market only has to worry about the cost of production and competitive pricing (I'm using a micro example of a very large philosophy in libertarianism but you can apply these points anywhere). In many ways the true competitive market will curb inflation so much that poverty will be a choice, not forced by the current economic principles that we currently follow (keynesian models suggest more equality but in practice separate the classes of society even more).
Libertarians fight the selfishness in this world by not deeming behavior, that only affects the individual, "good" or "bad". They allow for people to express themselves in any way they see fit (being it through drug use, homosexual behavior, public acts of sex, sky diving, riding motorcycles without helmets, while still preserving the rights to practice relgious beliefs freely). We are for removing judgement in government and leaving judgement up to the individual.
Libertarians are not for the criminals on Wall Street, it's the exact opposite. We may have a more "open mind" about how people may conduct business, but not how they record their wealth and assets when it comes to accounting. The fraudulent accounting policies that were allowed by our current government when dealing with companies like Enron or AIG (basing current earnings on future projected earnings would never be allowed by Libertarians, we have a more "real world" approach to things, like recording actual earnings *sounds crazy I know*)
I feel you should do some more research on what Libertarianism is before you make slighted, uneducated posts about it.
"I feel you should do some more research on what Libertarianism is before you make slighted, uneducated posts about it."
This is the funniest part of that comment. The thing about Libert-Aryans is that they control the definitions that they point out about themselves. I'm sure any fascist would love to write a definition of his own philosophy so that it sounds wonderful and cozy and warm.
I prefer to continue to see Libert-Aryans as they truly are, and not through their own rose-colored propaganda.
By the term "Libert-Aryans", you make it seem like libertarians are motivated by racism, which just shows how reflexive and irrational you are. It has nothing to do with race. It has purely to do with the principle that "I am the sovereign owner of myself."
You seem to think that not wanting to use MY money to pay for SOMEONE ELSE'S health care is "fascist." Do you even know what the hell "fascist" means? Keep in mind that Fascism, Nazism, etc. are LEFT-wing ideologies (National SOCIALISM is hardly right-wing).
You want to see me how I really am, and I am perfectly proud to declare that I am selfish, and don't give a shit about you. As I've written before, I believe we are all sovereign islands in an all-against-all competition for survival in a dog-eat-dog world. I believe in social darwinism, survival of the fittest, every man for himself, etc. etc.
The government should be a completely value-less entity with no preferences at all as to what results from this competition. It's only role is to serve as an impartial referee to make sure that no one violated the rules of the game.
Based on this game, the fittest competitors should be able to walk away with millions or billions of dollars, while the unfit players would starve to death. This is the fair and just outcome.
And just as a post-script, I'll state that I've already made plans for my estate. If I have kids, all of it will go to them. If I do not, then I will convert all of my assets into cash, and then set fire to the pile. I do not want millions of dollars going to the government, or to any charities. It would result in the poor being bailed out of their well-deserved predicament.
My problem with the concept that a libertarian is against the corporate corruption (Enron and AiG), is that without a strong regulating government, you can't have any over-site to prevent corruption like that from happening. For-profit corporations only care about making profit. We've seen what just 8 years of low taxes on the rich and no oversight brings our economy. You can't seriously believe that if we loosen the leashes on business even more that it will self-regulate into a financial utopia for everyone.
When there are no limitations on your growth, if you have a successful business model you can eventually form a monopoly. We have seen monopolies many times in history. I have yet to see a single argument that could explain how The Market can control corporations that have taken control of a resource.
I'm all about the freedom of believing what you want, and expressing your beliefs and sexuality anyway you choose. With that though, there are ideas that are beneficial to society as a whole, and there are ideas that are selfish and to the detriment of society as a whole. We all breathe the same air and drink the same water. Nobody is insulated. The collapse of the market is foreshadowing another great depression that is the direct result of bank and financial institutions gambling with other people's money and the extension of credit to bad risk and passing the buck. Libertarians say 'shouda done your homework better when you signed that contract' and judge and admonish straw men, but the problem is that the system got fucked up for everybody. The Market only exists with regulation. People lie, and contracts can be signed based on false information.
The Market the Libertarians worship depends on some sort of selfish altruism that doesn't exist. People are selfish and short-sighted to their own detriment. You can believe what you want Libertarians, but you are wrong headed about the way people are. When you give people the power to expand, they will invariably eventually stand on the heads of the oppressed. Just because you are comfortable enough financially to worry about the percentage of the taxation on your investment income doesn't mean that you are one of the privileged and will not be under a boot someday.
I coined the term "Libert-Aryan" to display my complete and utter disdain for the species. At base, they are almost all racists (with a very few exceptions). They're also neo-fascists and would have fit in quite without complaint with the brownshirts of yesteryear.
Fortunately, their constant whining bitchery of "smaller government" has proven disastrous for this nation. Their belief system is all but dead, save for the fact that a core of Libert-Aryan zealots will keep harping the insanities of Laissez-faire capitalism and disgraced Reaganomics madness (I look forward to the day when we can place a pissoir over Reagan's grave).
Regulations are back. Get used to it. Pay your freaking taxes or else quit your jobs and hit the rails like the rest of the honest hobos.
"Regulations are back. Get used to it. Pay your freaking taxes or else quit your jobs and hit the rails like the rest of the honest hobos."
Well, it's a good thing that I've set up plenty of shell entities to get around all your tax laws, and your civil justice system.
"The Market the Libertarians worship depends on some sort of selfish altruism that doesn't exist."
I couldn't careless if the selfish altruism doesn't exist. To me, selfishness in and of itself is a good thing, even if it does nothing to promote social welfare.
"At base, they are almost all racists (with a very few exceptions). They're also neo-fascists and would have fit in quite without complaint with the brownshirts of yesteryear."
I am a minority. I believe in a race-blind society, where one's race does not work to his advantage or disadvantage. I am against racial discrimination of any kind, and also against affirmative action of any kind.
I could care less about race. I only want to live to serve myself and my own well-being. I do NOT live to serve God, society, mankind, the nation, the human race, etc. etc. etc. Selfish I may be, but "fascist" I definitely am not. Get your definitions right.
Your post about why you hate libertarians is rather unfortunate in my opinion. I consider myself a libertarian, and if what you say about libertarians is true, I would not call myself a libertarian anymore.
My understanding of libertarianism has always been classical liberalism. The ideas of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. The idea that all individuals have the right to liberty, and that government power is supposed to protect that right. These are the ideas in the Declaration of Independence. This may not be an accurate understanding of libertarianism, which would make me a Jeffersonian or classical liberal.
Your main problem with libertarians is that they "side with the rich." Well, I dont. I dont take a side when it comes to rich, or poor, or middle class. I think the most important things for members of all classes are the rights of the individual.
With that being said, I dont believe the government should take money away from people because they have aquired too much. I dont think the government is in a position to decide. This may be where you start to hate me, and claim that i side with the rich. Well, thats inaccurate. I dont side with the rich, i just dont want the government taking away anything from anyone that they aquired without using force or fraud.
Other then that, I dont know what your problem is. Comparing libertarians to Nazis is a straw man argument, the Nazis were statists and authoritarian, and libertarians are not authoritarian. So, i dont know where you got that. If anything your post proves perception is everything, and that what is good is in the eye of the beyholder.
Another good definition of your average Libertarian is this:
dupe.
I'm not going to post any more comments by cowardly, hate-mongering, racist Libertarians who will only comment anonymously. If you're going to try to write your stupid, hateful comments, at least have the courage to own up to them instead of being a quaking coward.
Nothing wrong with a nickname, but at least have it attached to a personal profile that holds you accountable for your free speech.
They are not all racists, some are just dicks.
I also hate those MFing libertarians. Another one of their loathsome traits is hypocrisy. I have little doubt that these morons use such services as public parks, schools and state universities for example. They delude themselves, in their self righteous arrogance, into believing that they are totally self reliant in all regards. They dismiss the value of the services, both private and public sector, that made and make it possible for them to lead a decent life.
When you take their pathetic philosophy to its logical extreme, the libertarian liars have no answer. Like a bad reflection from a mirror, it leaves them speechless. In an online discussion elsewhere, the libertarian talked about how his superior work ethic and smarts allowed him the money to build his "dream home".
He went to say how the only legitimate function of government is national security and law enforcement e.g. local police to enforce such laws as robbery, murder, assault, rape, etc - the standard sort of street crime - and nothing more than that.
I asked him whether he believes the government should have any role in regulating the use of private property - with the predictable answer of no. I then asked him to assume that the USA is now a libertarian nation - and then how he would deal with his new next door neighbor, Mr. Purdue, after Purdue starts raising chickens and hogs as a business. I told him that there are no zoning laws, too bad, too sad. I asked him to assume that the odors and pollution are making his wife and children sick, with unrelenting migraine headaches and constant vomiting, causing them to go to the doctor - who prescribes some meds - which cause each of them to convulse violently without curing their condition. Turns out the state does not license doctors and their is no longer an FDA. Too bad, too sad - Mr. Libertarian - you were not self reliant enough here. You should have found out more about the fake doctor, who turns out to be Joe the Plummer and before letting oyur wife and kids take the meds, had them analyzed for safety or even run some tests on rats himself!
Seriously - this libertarian had no response to this, as the true picture of the illogic of his political philosophy was stripped naked.
Well, that's the bottom line. Libertarians are nothing but corporate shills. They exist merely to defend the rich. They would (and do) stab themselves in the gut if requested to do so by the rich.
Libertarians... Ok so they believe both in private property and in only paying for the services one uses. In that case they must be against a universally funded police force because not everybody has as much property as he next guy that needs protecting. So presumably the world would be made up of landowners and private armies. Those with no property will then be at the mercy of these landlords. It's a bit like the ancient world but with bigger explosions.
We should put all the libertarians together and let them get on with it! What are the odds a bunch would band together and lay down the law on the rest?
Exactly. The haves versus the have-nots. Only they'd take it to the fascist extreme, which is what Libertarians really are: neo-fascists.
hello. i just found this blog and i think it's absolutely brilliant. and it's comforting and refreshing to find people who share my views. you don't know how often i am recruited to join the libertarian cause b/c i am not conservative and like to "party." that's what libertarians are. right wingers who really like to party and want to do it without all the hassle. oh, and rich (or aspiring to be rich) self-interested assholes. a few i've met are paranoid, suspicious, xenophobic gun freaks. i really haven't met a libbie i connected with. i can see how it's possible to twist their philosophy to where it seems appealing-but i just can't take the bait. sorry libbies!
Glad you enjoyed the blog. What I've really liked to see lately is that the Ron/Rand Pauls of the USA have proven themselves beyond any hope of misdirection to be racist assholes. I guess if you're a white supremacist then Rand Paul and his Tea Party/Libert-Aryan batch are the company for you.
LOL thank you, after i re-read my comment i thought i was being a little too harsh... but they really do unnerve me, and i kinda really do feel that way about them. i live in the south where arch-conservatism is so rampant i'm always the odd woman out, so i turn to the internet to find sympathetic. so look forward to reading more of your writing-you really have a gift :-)
Libertarians are selfish jerks who game the system to their own ends. These are the same free market tycoons were more than happy to take bail out money when they screwed up. If they were REALLY believers, they would have let the market decide... to the failure of their own companies.
Libertarians delude themselves that they are self-made and are not reliant on, nor have a responsibility to, society. They are leeches on the commons and are sociopaths. Worshiping the Free Market and John Gault gives them a pose of legitimacy to a mindset that is no further developed then a child's selfishness. Libertarians can only be that way, because a) they only talk the talk and b) most of the rest of use think that it is a jerky mindset. If everyone was a Libertarian, it would be Chaos.
I couldn't agree more. They're leeches. Oh for some effective way to salt them all.
The only ones throwing insults are the ones against libertarians, and the writer dishes insults like candy. Insults are a fallacy. From an objective perspective, the libertarians are clearly making a more sound argument. A prime example, the commenter 'AN Irrational Atheist' actually said "I think your position on the positive merits of selfishness makes you scum... What ever happened to the virtue of compassion"? I hope im not the only one who saw a contradiction.
I've seen nothing from Libertarians that is anything other than selfish, pro-corporate bullcrap. Please, post more kissing of rich ass. I love it when you guys coat your noses with brown. You all have turds where your nostrils should be. I guess you like the stench.
HemlockMan,
Why shouldn't I be pro-corporate? You haven't argued anything, you've just thrown insults. If I were in the middle of the political spectrum, whose side would I take after reading this blog? "Libertarians kiss ass" isn't a compelling statement that is going to get me to take a side on an issue. If you had any faith or support in your political views, you would be arguing, not bashing. Do you side a favor, and don't represent it so poorly.
Irrational Athiest said...
"They are not all racists, some are just dicks."
Better to be a dick with millions in the bank than a postal worker with nothing but envy to his name. Or, for that matter, an almost-40-year-old who still hasn't finished college.
If I were that mediocre, I guess I'd also try to cope by railing about those more successful than I.
Said the coward who hides his identity.
Aww. You read my blog! I'm touched.
It is not postmen or students who are worthy of contempt, but those who feel superior on account of their wealth and who reconcile injustice and inequality in the world by assuming the problem is that everybody else is jealous of their success. Hard, useful work isn't what gets you paid in this world.
Furthermore, somebody who thinks 'we are all islands' and that the only person responsible for their material conditions is themselves, is completely blind to the reality that even money is a social relation linked directly to labour and production. There is a reason it doesn't just have an inherent value.
"Among the many negative things one can always count on a Libertarian to do is to come down on virtually every political and social and economic decision on the side of corporate interests and of the rich."
Nope, sorry. Libertarians -- at least the most radical and consistent ones -- are consistently on the side of the poor and against corporate interests. If you think otherwise, that suggests you've done inadequate research before attacking us. Check out what real libertarians think at:
http://all-left.net
http://c4ss.org
That would be nice if it were true. But, nope, sorry, Libertarians are a bunch of worthless selfish self-serving short-sighted fuckwads.
@Benjamin This how societies function: People band to together for the mutual good and mutual security. You are so arrogant and certain that you will never fall onto hard times. Many others have thought the same and fell. Hopefully you will one day do the same and experience first hand what you are advocation for others. I assume you are living in the US. It is a sovereign state. The sovereign is the supreme authority, you have sovereignty over nothing. You act as thoough you wish to live in some stateless society where you are free to do ANYTHING that your self absorbed little black heart wishes. If so this state has existed for over 200 years, it has a much greater claim to legitimacy than you do. So by choosing to live remaining in a society that has determined that society has certain responsibilities to the memebers of that sociey and that people have a responsibility to that society you consent to that arrangment. If you do not which to consent to that arrangement your remedy is to find a place more to your liking and moving there. As for taxes, the constitution - the supreme law of the land - allows congress to levy taxes. Your property also exist within a geographical area that is a part of a sovereign state and that state can tax your for your property because of the securities it provides (fire if your property is on fire, police if their is a crime against your property). If you do not want to pay property taxes then your remedy is to rent rather than own a home. I'm sure you would claim you have never had any help in your life, which would be a lie, as every one has had some help of some kind during their lives. It's more like you were an extremly spoiled child who was mistakenly led to believe that you were the center of the universe and that only your interests and desires mattered and that other people did not matter. Now that child has grown up to be a sociopathic adult.
Benjamin: "Personally, not only am I against ANY redistribution by the government, I'm also against private charities. These charities get in the way of justice, which entails the dying off of the weak and unfit. Yes, I would let them starve. They've done nothing for me; I'll do nothing for them."
WOW. Now that is psychopathic. Actually that sounds very Hiterlite. Next you be advocating for the euthanasia of the physcially and mentally disabled. Some thing that self centered mental cases like you fail to realize is none of those very wealthy people you praise would have a thing if it was not for the labor of other people. You want to live as an island? Then find an island and live there. Societies do not function as as per your wishes, never have and never will. If your unhappy with the fundaments of how a society functions, then it's on you. You have to leave that society, society doesn't have to change to accomodate you. A world full of people like you would be a cold and miserable place to live.
@Benjamin Another thing you fail to realize in your myopic, cruel and short sighted world view is that few things are more dangerous than a population that can no longer afford to feed itself. That's toppled governments about brought down rulers (ask Louis VXI and Marie Antoinette). Therefore a state has a vested interest in assuring it's citizens have the access to the basic neccisities of life as well as as protecting the righs of all segments of society, not just YOUR rights. It's the population as a whole that makes the country, not any one individual. You alone are not as important or as valuable as you think.
@Benjamin Just a general observation: Taxes are one of the oldest things around. The Roman Empire collected taxes from their citizens. They aren't going to go away, no matter how much you complain.
People who don't like paying their taxes are whiny-assed babies.
Hold on a sec..Benjamin: So, you don't feel like you should help anyone who hasn't directly helped you in some way. What if that person feels the same way. Who lifts a finger first? Awesome way for a society to behave. Two childish adults saying "Well, you didn't help me, so I don't need to help you." *facepalm*
Classic Libertarian logic. Basically, they're all assholes. It's pretty simple, just like they all are. Simpletons.
Luna, your view that libertarianism is two childish adults not helping eachother unless one helps the other is called a "CONTRACT". You may not have heard of it. Its when two people make a mutual agreement to help eachother. Its not as "warped and unheard of" as you make it out to be. And Hemlock, Libertarians don't always believe its wrong to help society. They just don't think you should be FORCED to help people at the point of a government gun (welfare,social security, medicare/aide). And please, your plethora of insults makes you come off as a 'white-trash douchebag'.
I hate that contract b.s. line. It's just like telling your parents, "I don't have to do chores, I didn't ask to be born."
You enjoy the fruits of The Commons (water, roads, etc.), by default, you were born with a contract to contribute to society to enjoy them. Grow up.
That's the thing about Libertarians...they don't want to grow up. They're by definition the whiniest, tantrum-throwing little bastards in the building.
Note to any Libert-Aryans who want to post here...please don't hide behind anonymous filters. I don't mind posting your insane, cock-knocking gibberish, but at least have the guts to stand behind your wacko neo-fascist bull-shite.
It's funny how fundamentally screwed up Benjamin W's argument is. To actually suggest that no one has ever helped him get to where he is is ludicrous. From the dawn of time, societies have only survived through free or cheap labor provided by those who have been outcast by law and "inferior birth". These people did not stay downtrodden because they were lazy, but because it was both illegal and extremely hard to overcome their circumstances. Therefore, his suggestion that his success was earned solely by his own hard work and success is not ignorant, it's stupid. At some point and time, someone poor and in need helped out his ancestors. I bet if we were to look far back enough, they may have even utilized free programs during the great depression.
However, all of that is irrelevant. I seriously doubt Benjamin that you have gone your entire life eating a vegetable or wearing an item of clothing that wasn't cultivated on the backs of immigrants or outsourcing to other countries whose workers were paid a less than livable wage. Are you really so delusional to think you think you work harder for your dollar than these people? If indeed your society based solely on hard work were to come to fruition, you my friend would be fucked. I doubt you could even survive a day without the people you wouldn't save from a burning building. I would love to watch the debacle that is you without these people. Good luck paying for what you use, your bills will be sky fucking high.
Your argument is based on your delusion that everyone is born with equal opportunity. Most of the poor of this country, especially minorities, are so due a systematic disadvantages stemming from Jim Crow laws and a lack of regulation of the free market. This is why one cannot be an advocate of the poor and be a libertarian. The two are mutually exclusive. Contrary to popular belief, the poor do not want to stay poor. I know people like Benjamin think the government is shelling out the American dream to anyone with a sad story and empty pockets, but that is truly not the case. Free housing comes at a price. Bad neighborhoods, shitty schooling, and inferior access to opportunities creates a cycle of poverty that is overwhelmingly hard to overcome. But I digress. My point is this: No man's success is his own. Simply being born in a country that stole this all its land from it native people, and then proceeded to build it up on the backs of various other makes all of us indebted to the poor( a great deal of which I am sure are the ancestors of these people). If you truly want a society where you don't owe anyone anything, hop in a time machine and stop the founders of this country from owning anything they did work for. What would America(if there is any such place)look like then? Exactly.
P.S. Benjamin, a life where you don't owe anyone anything is a life where you do not exsist!
Well said.
I like Benjamin W's comments because they are so fundamentally stupid and wrong-headed. He and his are classic neo-Fascists. Pouring more gasoline on their own pyres.
Some how I doubt Benjamin W's story about having loads of money and placing in off shore accounts to avoid his tax responsibllity. If that is true then he is an idiot for admitting that in writting online as it wouldn't be a difficult matter for the IRS to track him down and investigate his claims if someone brought this to their attention.
Some good rebuttals of libertarian "thought":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7txUSPbBp8&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIFTmv6OKzw
That is very true. Even "anonymous" postings here are a simple matter for even the clumsiest computer geek to track. The IRS can nail someone like that in a second if they so choose.
It's as I said: not only are Libert-Aryans vile, they are also--to a man--amazingly stupid.
Who said anything about "offshore account?" Never did I say anywhere that I used offshore mechanisms. Trust me, effective tax avoidance can be well achieved using perfectly legal, and onshore, methods. I am not nearly stupid or reckless enough to set up offshore accounts and not disclose them to the IRS. I work on Wall Street, and am intimately familiar with the perils of the offshore business. Plus, I have enough experience with legal methods of tax avoidance that I don't need that offshore crap.
Everything I've done is onshore, and 100% within the law (and we're not talking about some frivolous interpretation of the law either). I simply exploited various esoteric loopholes in the tax code to achieve my aims while not running afoul of any laws. Even the IRS itself has conceded that it can do nothing to ban the methods that I used, absent further legislation from Congress (and yes, I have actually discussed these methods with the IRS brain trust in Washington DC). And even if Congress were to pass new legislation to close the loopholes, the new legislation would only apply prospectively, not retroactively. Thus, any trusts or other entities already created would not be affected by the legislation. Obama, in his FY2012 budget proposals, acknowledged as much.
So yes, I am set up in a way that allows me to avoid taxes, and it's perfectly legal to boot (as confirmed numerous times by the IRS and by the US Tax Court). And because the loopholes are esoteric enough where the general public doesn't know about them (and thus cannot protest), the chances of Congressional action to close those loopholes is unlikely at best.
I'm sure is disappointing to you. I might suggest you focus your attentions on more productive things than hating those who are richer than you. While you rant and rave about libertarians, I'm just continuing to increase my net worth. I profited from the recent financial crisis, and I plan to profit from the next one as well.
Oh, and I hear they may lay off a lot of US Postal workers. Such a shame..... *smirk*
Whatever Ben. I doubt most of the stuff you babble about here has any truth in it. Fact of the matter is if all of these people you so hate (the ordinary people of society) did not exist none of the most wealthy would have anything. No one to work for them, no one to consume their products - they would have nothing, including their wealth. Continue one with your delusions that whatever you do have, that you have it solely by your own work and that no one has every helped you during your life. I work and have a decent life, but unlike you I realize how I've been helped during my life and that if it weren't for in society who play their parts, I would have nothing. You live in a little self inflicted bubble of a make believe world that's never existed and never will.
Also, appearing to take pleasure in the fact that people may be loosing their jobs shows you up for what you are: a sociopath.
"Profited from the last financial crisis" Perhaps he's one of those Wall Street thugs who engaged in fraud by selling fraudlent securities and/or banrupting the pension accounts of ordinary people. Or a banker who was happy to take a government hand out that benefitied him. In any case one day his time will come. Some how I suspect though really he is full of lies, likely just someone in his mother's basement some where trying to stir people up thinking it's funny.
Libertarianism isn't about being selfish. It's about liberty and not letting the government tell you how to live. I'm a libertarian and would I try to help someone that was dying on the street? Absolutely. Everyone should. If you don't, you're a horrible person and if you do you're a good person. The point of libertarianism is that the government can't force us to be good people. The government has no right to jump in and put ridiculous restrictions on us. This leads to authoritarianism when it gets out of hand.
Well, good for you. That's always nice to hear, even from someone claiming to be a Libertarian. I think your heart's in the right place, but that you need to find some other political outlet for yourself.
Ah, the Libertarians.
http://www.examiner.com/democrat-in-national/california-politician-advocates-assassination-of-obama-and-family
Benjamin W. you are one of the most callous pieces of shit I've ever encountered. I wish you nothing but pain you selfish asshole.
Benjamin W. you are one of the most callous pieces of shit I've ever encountered. I wish you nothing but pain you selfish asshole.
Benjamin W. you are one of the most callous pieces of shit I've ever encountered. I wish you nothing but pain you selfish asshole.
LOL. You're going to have to do a much better job of wishing then. Last I checked, I'm living happily and comfortably in a 6500 sq ft house with my girlfriend, and getting a fairly sizable income based solely on tax-exempt interest. And that's not even counting the money I'm making in the financial services industry where I help very wealthy people profit from financial derivatives and legally avoid taxes on their gains. Life is pretty good, and my net worth is also up ~70% since the financial crisis started.
And because of the perpetual trusts and other entities I've set up, my future bloodline will be pretty much FOREVER exempt from wealth transfer taxes, and even income taxes depending on what they choose to invest in. The best best part, however, is immunity from the civil justice system. If my kids run over your kids while driving negligently, it'll be next to impossible for you to sue a dime out of us.
So keep on wishing, Miles66. While you and your Occupy brethren scream and yell about inequality, I'll have a good time laughing at you while the money keeps coming in.
@Miles66 I don't believe anything Benjamin has to say about his life. If he actually had the life he claims to then he would have far more pressing things to attend to besides coming back here over and over and posting his idiotic comments (most likely from his mother's basement). He's just a wannabe. But taking his comments at face value he is an idiot. Several things he doesn't get: 1) If the inequality gap continues to worsen at the pace it has over the last several years eventually the majority will be unable to purchase much other than the bare essentially of life (if that), thus that great decline in consumers will only in the end hurt businesses - big and small - as people can no longer purchase their products and services 2) Social safety net programs - be it unemployment insurance or welfare programs put money in the pockets of people who wouldn't have it otherwise, that money is then spent, goes back into the economy and keeps more business out of the red, saving jobs and preventing even more layoffs - perhaps even Ben's own job (most likely at McDonalds, if he even has one). 3) When a government, economy and society no longer functions in a way that benefits the majority of it's citizens then that is when you end up with revolutionary movements. And people like Ben (or as he portrays himself to be) are dragged out into the streets and killed because the hatred and resentment against them is so great. Ask Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette - the French revolution basically began as a food riot. Ask Nicholas II and the rest of the elites of Tsarist Russia what eventually happens when the majority live in abject misery. There are countless such stories that have repeated themselves over and over in the course of history. Attitudes like Ben's are nothing more than myopic short sighted stupidity that ultimately fail.
Nick: I can assure you that every single statement I've made is 100% true and not exaggerated (not that your opinion matters very much in any event). While trading floors can get very busy and hectic at times, 80% or more of the time spent here is dead time, when we're basically free to browse online and make fun of Occupy Wall Street, among other things. Leaving a few posts a month (if that) is hardly taxing.
And, forever exempting your bloodline from wealth transfer taxes and the civil justice system is not too difficult, with only some proper estate planning. You can just Google "perpetual dynasty trusts" and "asset protection" to see what I'm talking about. I've basically circumvented the spirit of the tax laws and made us "judgment proof" (i.e. immune to lawsuits, divorces, etc.), and it was all perfectly legal. (And no, I didn't use any of the bullshit and probably illegal techniques peddled by certain salespeople on the internet.)
As to your 3 points:
(1) I'm in a business that only serves wealthy clientele to begin with, so even if the middle class were to go under the poverty line, that would probably have negligible short-term effect on our business. By the time it did have any effect (if at all), I'll probably be retired anyway.
(2) Even if businesses were to start shutting down and I get laid off (which, I might add, I have been before - Wall Street is not known for lifetime job security with the same firm), I'm not all that upset. Working is strictly optional for me, and I wouldn't mind having more free time. In fact, I'm rooting for the economy to worsen a lot this year just to increase the chances that Obama will be voted out. If that happens, it'll probably hurt you a lot more than it would hurt me.
(3) Your revolution scenario is not likely to affect me anyway. Sure, in the large cities there might be unrest, but I live a good 50+ miles from the city in a sleepy town. But in the event people were to try to climb over my gates, I would feel no guilt about shooting them as soon as they entered the house (where I can then claim self-defense).
"I work on Wall Street." Yeah, kinda figured that. The place where all the psychopaths work. And make no mistake about it, libertarians are psychopaths. Now, most of them haven't killed anyone *yet*, but the wheels are a-turnin'. Usually, they'd start with the poor and disabled, let them starve and die of illness. Then it will be the working poor, because hey, fuck it, they're poor. And then it will be the middle class because mediocrity is so...mediocre. It's only the captains of industry such as Benjamin W who keep this country going. Except, well, they don't. They are a PART, but not even a large PART of this country. And hardly worthy of ass-kissing and respect. Hell, most of them, after the Great Recession, can't even be declared competent at their jobs.
So, yeah, he's selfish, amoral and psychopathic. He should be contained, not applauded.
Someday I hope to see these greedheads contained. I fear it won't happen until they've stolen so much that violent revolution erupts and they're taken care of once and for all.
@Benjamin - Still not buying your story, it's full of BS and ignorance of how any system works.
As for your idiotic points:
1)Claiming to serve only wealth clients...where do those clients get their wealth from? Business? What sorts of business? Do they depend on the consumerism of the middle class to keep those businesses profitable? Likely they do. They suffer then you will suffer. Only and idiot such as yourself fails to understand how inter-dependent we all are.
2) So you want the economy to worsen, regardless of how that harms others, just so you can in some way make a short term benefit. Again you are a short sighted idiot. Nor do I buy your claim that "working is optional for you". Your ignorance of the things about which you speak are rather telling.
3) Yes, I'm sure that Louis XVI & Marie Antoinette also thought they could easily shoot any one trying to get over the gates of Versailles. (Versailles also a once quite small village located out in the countryside).
So then to sum it all up for you Ben, you are a both a short sighted economic and historical ingoramous and wannabe sociopath. I say wannabe because I don't buy any of the things you say. The reason you have so much free time is most probably because you are living in mommy's basement.
They bring out my inner-Vlad The Impaler...I often feel that I'd love to see them slowly, over the course of hours, have their (usually) lifeless bodies slide down an enormous wooden stake. Too far?
No, I think you've adequately revealed yourself.
Wow.
Angry people on internet say libertarians are stupid scum.
Are they right? Who knows?
But I suggest a simple experiment. The crux of the argument seems to be:
Libertarians: "We want to keep our stuff".
Anti-Libertarians: "You wouldn't have any stuff without us."
Soooo.. the experiment: Anti-Libertarians should give the libertarians precisely what they ask for. Do not help them. Do not buy their products, do not sell your labor to them. Do not steal from them, but do not allow them to steal from you.
See how it goes. All sciencey-like.
BTW, my favorite quote:
"They bring out my inner-Vlad The Impaler."
Wow. Can you believe a psycho like that thinks the someone else is "painfully full of fail"?
Dude, normal people don't have bloodthirsty gory atrocity fantasies. You need help. Put down the internet and go find a field of daisies somewhere.
Stupid argument, but you're welcome to it. Since the Libertarians wouldn't have any stuff without the rest of us, they would begin the experiment with an undue advantage. Silly experiment and unworkable.
The thing is to keep the Libertarians as far from political and financial influence as possible. Let them starve to death is the best policy.
Benjamin is obviously a troll.You guys are silly to keep responding to him.
You are kidding, right? If not, I think you just proved the author of this blog correct about Libertarians. They are too stupid to realize they are stupid, and when combined with selfishness we have a person who doesn't amount to a pile of crap. So go be an island Benjamin. Decent people don't want to be around you.
Wow. Are you still such a disgusting pile of excrement 8 years later? I guess this is what a sociopath, devoid of any empathy, really looks like.
Benjamin, keep in mind that when you order food at a restaurant, you not only pay for the food and the employees' labor that you consume, but also for the restaurant's overhead: the utilities, the use and maintenance of the building, advertising, professional services needed to run the business, as well as payments to investors. Thus, the restaurant needs to charge a markup on its food and drinks just to break even, let alone to turn a profit. So it is with government services: to fund government entirely on user fees, a portion of the user fees would have to be diverted to pay for overhead that doesn't bring in revenue of its own.
Post a Comment