titovka-and-bergmutzen:thebadgerman619:redthebouncer:thebadgerman619:redthebouncer:legoman0721:liber

titovka-and-bergmutzen:thebadgerman619:redthebouncer:thebadgerman619:redthebouncer:legoman0721:liberalpropagandagroup:What, how are people supposed to get medical care with all of these evil government regulations requiring that people be educated and qualified to practice medicine?-EliSo you don’t know anything about libertarianism…This poster really does not know anything about Libertarianism.False! As an ex-Republican, I dabbled in Libertarianism for a while. Then I realized it’s a bullshit philosophy that pretty much involves self-validation to treat other humans like dirt while doing it with the mentality of a 5-year old.No, that’s republicanism, still.Republicanism and Libertarianism are one in the same. Only difference is that Libertarianism is for those who tried playing by the rules and are tired of not getting their way. So like two children playing a game, the one losing flips out and kicks the game board and game pieces in a huff. Libertarianism is bullshit. Plain and simple and here’s why:1.  It’s impossible.  Libertarianism is impossible except for survivalist nutters and hermits.  Humans need a social structure because we’re a social species.  Trusting that humans can moderate their own behavior on their own is just a fantasy.  If we were as sparsely distributed as wolf packs, we could get along in our small groups without intervention from a higher authority in theory…. but the matriarch or patriarch would be the higher authority so even that isn’t strictly libertarian.  Anyway, we’re long past the point in evolution where we could manage our behavior without a formal structure.  Michael Shermer theorizes the optimal size for a human community to manage without any oversight is about 150.  Those days are gone.2.  It’s naive.  It assumes people are basically good.  This is a nice thought, and a refreshing break from the Christian belief that all people are sinners who need to be saved, but it’s just plain wrong.  Just as we differ in our DNA we differ in our personalities.  Some of us will go through life making very few decisions that negatively impact others, and some of us are sociopaths.  At its best, government protects the truly good from the sociopaths.  Without a government, we would be reduced to lynch mobs which can only avenge bad deeds, not prevent them.  And we certainly wouldn’t have something like the FBI, which can trace the path of a serial killer from one area to the next based on DNA evidence, etc.  I think the people who believe that “survival of the fittest ergo libertarianism” probably assume they are the fittest themselves.  They don’t think that they would be the victims of a sociopath.  Bernie Madoff counted on this kind of hubris to make his illegal millions.3.  It’s cold-hearted.  For example, regulations about safety in cars aren’t needed because over time car companies would be forced to make safer cars or they’d go out of business.  So the people who died in fires caused by exploding gas tanks in Ford Pintos, or in wrecks caused by the design of their Corvair were just collateral damage in the evolution of better cars.  People who died because of unregulated businesses did nothing to deserve that fate, except perhaps not be able to afford better cars.  And the pseudo-Darwinism of libertarianism really doesn’t care what the strong do to the weak.  Rich and powerful people are good and deserve to be rich and powerful.  The poor and powerless deserve what they get.4.  It ignores history.  We haven’t always had a U.S. government.  It’s only a little more than 200 years old.  But we do know earlier forms of society.  We’ve had monarchies.  We’ve had theocracies.  We had the ancient Roman & Greek systems that privileged people with money.  Modern democracy certainly has its failings, but we really be better off returning to “less” government considering what our previous systems gave us?5.  It’s not natural.  The underlying assumption of libertarianism is that government is an artificial construct that interferes with natural behavior, which they believe works just fine on its own.  There’s no evidence that humanity could have survived without some form of social organization.  The instinct for survival that causes some to climb to the top of the heap and others to hide from the climbers just doesn’t result in a society that works for large numbers.  It probably won’t work for small numbers, either.  6.  It ignores human failings.  We no longer live in family groups in tiny villages, and if Libertarianism became the “law” of the land, we would pretty much have to go back to that.  In our distant past, we helped each other within our own group and competed against other groups for resources.  Surviving without a government would require all of us to gather into small groups for protection and predation.  Child abuse and spousal abuse would again be perpetrated with no recourse.  Victims of alcoholism or mental illness would have no access to services, and their families would suffer.  A small group’s only hope of survival when “infected” with a defective member would be to ostracize that member.7.  It ignores human compassion.  Libertarianism denies the instinct to help others, which has been shown in other species as well. Government taking a role in “lifting up” the poor is an extension of the instinct we would follow individually in a smaller group.   By blaming the victim, libertarians can imagine themselves the agents of their own good luck.  There’s no place in their worldview for helping the blind, the deaf, the physically impaired, or the children of these people.  The mentally ill who are incapable of working for a living due to their illness?  *shrug*  At least religions have charities that make a dent in these issues.  Secular libertarians leave the powerless to their own devices as if blindness or mental illness were somehow the victim’s own fault.  There have been hundreds if not thousands of examples of other animals helping each other or even other species, so compassion seems to be instinctual.  I have yet to meet a libertarian who has a relative that needs help to survive.  If I had the power to curse people, I’d curse libertarians with multiple sclerosis.  Let’s see how many ways they make use of the ADA law’s provisions.8.  It ignores Somalia.  Somalia is the perfect example of libertarianism in action. There’s basically no government in Somalia so we can see what would happen.   Without a government, pirates and tribal groups terrorize others.  Women and children are mistreated.  Disease is rampant.  There’s no viable business other than crime.  It’s a chaotic mess.  Why would anyone want to copy that model?9.  It’s selfish.  On the surface, Penn Jillette saying that he doesn’t know what’s best for someone else seems humble and charitable.  But really, sometimes he would know what’s best.  He would know that a woman being beaten on a daily basis by an abusive husband would be better off if she could get out of that situation.  He would know that someone with asthma would be better off in a world with less air pollution.  His pseudo-humility covers up a basic unwillingness to get involved.  Or, he’s got his head in the sand when it comes to the problems of society and of individuals that are just too big or complicated for a family or small group to help with.10.  It’s provincial.  It ignores the fact that the economies and socieities of all the world’s nations are now interconnected.  If someone lives in the country with well water, septic tank and a burn pit for their garbage, they can fantasize they are not relying on the government.  But then when their four-year-old comes down with cancer, they’re only too happy to take him to the big city hospital for chemo that was studied using federal funding.So…  I call BULLSHIT on libertarianism.  It’s a stupid position to take.  Even if it could be implemented it couldn’t succeed.  Its thinly veiled social “darwinism” but without any of the nuance of true evolutionary theory. Oh god I’m being memed to death.Shut the fuck up about Somalia, you ignorant cunt.1. It’s impossible due to a lack of social structure? That’s funny, I wasn’t aware that all of my friends, family, and community in general were gifts from the government. You failed to mention that the overwhelming majority of social interaction is already voluntary. There would still be leaders and people in higher social positions by communities elevating them to that level. Human interaction being voluntary wouldn’t change the fact that we’re still social creatures. 2. It doesn’t assume people are inherently good. That’s why libertarians believe in owning weapons. You know? The ones that the federal government (in all its benevolence) keeps trying to restrict. You failed to mention that there’d still be privatized police/security forces to apprehend all those pesky sociopaths. In a stateless society the fact that these forces would be reactive to previously committed crimes would still remain the same. But quality is a product of necessity. And competition amongst these security forces would ensure that only the strongest of agencies survive. Just take a look at Detroit. The government failed there so now some of the citizenry is hiring private police forces.And oh by the way, the majority of murders in large cities go unsolved. The root cause of the violence being the war on drugs. Thanks again government. 3. It’s cold hearted? Really? Have you ever picked up a history book?How do you think corporations become so gluttonous and massive? Through hard work, or through using legislatures to pass laws that ban competition? Individuals and groups have committed heinous crimes in the past but it’s minuscule when compared to what governments have done. 4. “Less government” means less government intervention. One man in charge or 1000 doesn’t matter if they’re meddling with the lives of the citizenry. And just like I stated previously, legislators are kept in office by large companies that use them to kill competition. The less a government intrudes, the more prosperity there is. 5. Broken record. Humans are inherently social creatures. There will still be voluntary social constructs in a stateless society. As I said before, the majority of human interaction is already voluntary. 6. It ignores human failings? Quite the contrary. Libertarianism is the solution to human failings. You mean to suggest that humans aren’t socially in small groups now? So in a major city like New York, you don’t think that the population only interacts regularly with the people that they know already? Millions of people who are closely condensed geographically don’t interact with every single person in that area. Humans are still in small groups now socially whether they realize it or not. And your point about not having access to care is ridiculous and without basis. I suppose I couldn’t go to the CVS up the road to buy aspirin without the kind touch of the state to guide me. 7. Government “lifting up” the poor or constraining them? Clearly the number of poor is dwindling. And oh by the way, the states that donate the least amount of money to charity all voted for Obama. You’re never met a libertarian who has a relative with a handicap? Most likely due to the fact that you associate yourself with like-minded people. If I could curse people, it’d be statists who think that confiscation of wealth at gun point is compassion. 8. Somalia, of course. Clearly a failed socialist government is the Achilles Heel for libertarianism. No one wants to copy that model. Libertarianism like other theories for society has a certain criteria that must be met to succeed. Giving more power to the state, then having it collapse all of a sudden is not a successful mode.9. You completely missed the point Penn Jillete was making. He wasn’t saying that he wouldn’t help anyone solve the problems in their lives. His point was that he’s not willing to use violence to force people to live a certain way.But what the hell was he thinking? Clearly people using violence to have control over the lives of others can’t be that bad.10. No shit. Private companies would still trade amongst each other despite geographical obstacles. You didn’t even make anything remotely close to a point here. Businesses associate and disassociate from one another all the time now. There’s nothing to stop them from doing that without powerful nation states.And that was a cute spin you put on it about the hypothetical child with cancer. Fun fact: My sister has had over 10 open heart surgeries in her lifetime. It wasn’t state intervention that saved her, it was my parents and private doctors. And they did this by taking her to the surgeon with the best reputation. See how that works? Competition amongst doctors is what got her the care she needed. Not involvement from government. So your little ace up your sleeve actually happened to my family and your pretentious presumption of the outcome was proved false. So…I call bullshit on statism. Burdening children with $50,000 in debt, committing genocide, and using young people as disposable vessels of physical strength to fight meaningless wars isn’t a successful model for society. And libertarianism isn’t an ideology. Ideologies need propaganda to unite people with emotional, fact-less rhetoric. Libertarianism is a set of conclusions based on what human history has taught us. If you haven’t reached those conclusions then you’re either not trying to or you’re blinded by your own arrogance.  -- source link

More pics about