Why libertarians suck.

[wildcard]

A little gem I saved before the fire:

By 22Trainspotter

One often hears libertarians say something like, “Once we get rid of the welfare state, we can have open borders.”

This shows how blind and out of touch with reality they really are.

On the other hand, someone who is interested in objective reality over ideological cultism knows exactly what would happen.

We start off with a libertarian paradise. No welfare state, laissez-faire. Of course, because they aren’t mean collectivists, all immigrants are welcome. In comes the flood of mestizos and Africans. The initial ones come not for the welfare state (because there isn’t one), but for work. All is well…for about five minutes.

Unfortunately for the libertarian cultist, these non-white immigrants are not merely “labor units.” They are instead people, with their own values, personal qualities and group affiliations. The blacks immediately start engaging in higher rates of crime…the murder and rape of white libertarians begins in earnest. Doors that were left unlocked are now tightly secured. Many white libertarians can no longer walk down their streets in safety.

Hey, you import a more violence prone group of people, and not unsurprisingly you get more violence. Who’d a thunk it?

Other non-whites import their religious views, and start organizing along those lines. The first glimmerings of Sharia are noticed. Or just Catholics that support redistributionist policies.

Still no welfare state…yet. Don’t worry, though. It’s coming.

One basic problem is that the non-whites have average IQ levels ten, fifteen or twenty points below the white average. So, shock of shocks, they don’t perform as well as a group. They tend to cluster in the low end jobs, making shitty wages…while watching all those white libertarians riding around in their fancy cars. Must be racism! Then the organizing begins, the protests, the demands for social services to meet the needs of the impoverished non-whites. Many whites, after looking around at the squalor and crime of the new ghettos, conclude that something “Must be done.” Our first liberals are created! The problem now afflicts tens of millions of people, a task far too great for private charity. And don’t forget, these new “labor units” are becoming voters, and they know that the market is “unfair.”

Soon there are demands for affirmative action and government control to stamp out the hated racism, not to mention a welfare state to help ameliorate the grinding poverty. How much can a person with an IQ of 80 actually expect to make in a truly free market? Yet the libertarians have imported tens of millions of 80 IQ cretins.

That didn’t take long, did it? And, lickety split, you might as well be in the Kwa circa 2010. From libertarian paradise to utter shithole in no time.

In short, group differences will manifest themselves, as they always do. The religious cultist/libertarian cannot and will not allow himself to see this. He must imagine that, magically, his libertarian paradise will be preserved, no matter who moves in. This is of course insane, and contrary to everything we know from history, experience and human nature. Every law, every government program, every centralization of power has to start somewhere. Soon, the demands for government programs to combat the gross disparities between races would be sufficient to get them off the ground. Either that, or massive violence would result. One way or another, the seething resentments will find their way into the open.

The libertarian cultist just imagines that once he has created his mythical “true free market,” that everyone will of course simply accept market outcomes. I mean, why wouldn’t they accept market outcomes? The market is like, you know, god or something.

But human nature tells us that large numbers of people only accept market outcomes if they see them as reasonably fair, and only if it seems better than the alternative. For example, blacks don’t support a true free market, because they would rather have government provided advantages. They know that, in a truly free market, they would cluster toward the bottom of the economic rung. F*ck that! In what must be galling to the libertarian, blacks have concluded that their self interest is better served by government programs and beneficial laws than by the free market.

The libertarians have been putting up candidates for almost forty years now, and in all that time have probably gotten approximately three votes from blacks. Maybe four, assuming Walter Williams cast multiple votes. Yet they never think to ask themselves why that is. Ideological blinders are amazing.

[goldmonkey]

Why libertarians suck?
Because they believe in Utopian abstractions.

[Saul Mine]

If that's what was in your heart, I'm sure glad you got it out. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

[Olmstein]

I have voted libertarian my entire adult life, but have never really gotten into the whole Ayn Rand/anarchist wing of libertarian philosophy.

I wonder what silverblood and borderless libertarians like him would say about my freedom to not associate with people. In his world view, am I free to not hire someone based on any reason I choose, including the color of their skin? Do I have the liberty to enter into an agreement with my neighbors that says none of us shall sell our property to adherents of a certain religion?

I never seem to get a straight answer from the one world libertarians on this.

[Neuro]

I have voted libertarian my entire adult life, but have never really gotten into the whole Ayn Rand/anarchist wing of libertarian philosophy.

I wonder what silverblood and borderless libertarians like him would say about my freedom to not associate with people. In his world view, am I free to not hire someone based on any reason I choose, including the color of their skin? Do I have the liberty to enter into an agreement with my neighbors that says none of us shall sell our property to adherents of a certain religion?

I never seem to get a straight answer from the one world libertarians on this.
I think most libertarians agree that you are free to contract or not with anyone you like or dislike, and enter voluntary agreements with your neighbours about keeping people you don't like out from the neighbourhood.

[Ash_Williams]

I wonder what silverblood and borderless libertarians like him would say about my freedom to not associate with people. In his world view, am I free to not hire someone based on any reason I choose, including the color of their skin? Do I have the liberty to enter into an agreement with my neighbors that says none of us shall sell our property to adherents of a certain religion?


Of course.
If someone can't immediately answer those question with "yes" then they're not much of a libertarian. For every person with an appreciate of the simple ideals of libertarianism there's about 5 or 6 that latch onto the philosophy because they hear one point they like (legalize pot, small government, no bailouts, etc.) and they think they've found 'their party' and they start blabbing about how to use government power to create their paradise. Or we get the ones that say "It's a great philosophy, except we need to use the government to do just one other thing to make it perfect!" where that "other thing" is totally contradictory to the whole philosophy. I think of it as someone claiming to be Christian saying Christianity would be perfect if we just took that Jesus guy out of the picture.

Any system where everyone can vote has the same troubles as those put forth by the original article. When #of people = political power we end up with every group wanting more people, as useless as they may be, just for the sake of political power.

[nunaem]

I have voted libertarian my entire adult life, but have never really gotten into the whole Ayn Rand/anarchist wing of libertarian philosophy.

I wonder what silverblood and borderless libertarians like him would say about my freedom to not associate with people. In his world view, am I free to not hire someone based on any reason I choose, including the color of their skin? Do I have the liberty to enter into an agreement with my neighbors that says none of us shall sell our property to adherents of a certain religion?

I never seem to get a straight answer from the one world libertarians on this.
I think most libertarians agree that you are free to contract or not with anyone you like or dislike, and enter voluntary agreements with your neighbours about keeping people you don't like out from the neighbourhood.



This one agrees, as long as it's a voluntary contract not a 'social contract' AKA coercion. It's not consistent with morality to believe in state-mandated integration. It's also not consistent with morality to believe in state-mandated segregation.

[Golden]

The rush to judge and accuse all hyphenated people's are same. Without reflection.
Is nature itself the culprit?

[K_Flynn]

I have voted libertarian my entire adult life, but have never really gotten into the whole Ayn Rand/anarchist wing of libertarian philosophy.

I wonder what silverblood and borderless libertarians like him would say about my freedom to not associate with people. In his world view, am I free to not hire someone based on any reason I choose, including the color of their skin? Do I have the liberty to enter into an agreement with my neighbors that says none of us shall sell our property to adherents of a certain religion?

I never seem to get a straight answer from the one world libertarians on this.


If you think Rand is an anarchist, you haven't looked closely at her views. She's far from it.

Here's an answer-- you have no freedom to not view or hear or be contacted by people unless you are on your own property, living in a hole.

According to libertarian theory, you have a right to self-ownership. That means you do as you choose unless what you are doing stops someone else from doing the same. Nothing in there indicates you have a right to not be offended or a right to not see brown people since you hate them.

[Book]

Nothing in there indicates you have a right to not be offended or a right to not see brown people since you hate them.


http://obit-mag.com/media/image/rand_pic.jpg

http://i491.photobucket.com/albums/rr280/FoundingFather1776/Misc/Alan_Greenspan_Ayn_Rand.jpg

Rand Institute always has been and still remains a Jews Only club...lol.

:oo-->

[Neuro]

Good points Nunaem. I thought about adding a point of no coercion in my post, but then I forgot about it... The neighbours are of course free to try and convince you not to sell your property to a man of colour, but they can't twist your arm. I guess they can go around in pointed hoods and burn crosses on their own properties. While you show your property...

[K_Flynn]

A little gem I saved before the fire:

By 22Trainspotter

One often hears libertarians say something like, “Once we get rid of the welfare state, we can have open borders.”

This shows how blind and out of touch with reality they really are.

As opposed to the people who think that a police state hunting down non-whites = freedom?



We start off with a libertarian paradise. No welfare state, laissez-faire. Of course, because they aren’t mean collectivists, all immigrants are welcome. In comes the flood of mestizos and Africans. The initial ones come not for the welfare state (because there isn’t one), but for work. All is well…for about five minutes.

There is not and never will be a paradise. All we can do is to strive to come as close as we can, as individuals.


Unfortunately for the libertarian cultist, these non-white immigrants are not merely “labor units.” They are instead people, with their own values, personal qualities and group affiliations. The blacks immediately start engaging in higher rates of crime…the murder and rape of white libertarians begins in earnest. Doors that were left unlocked are now tightly secured. Many white libertarians can no longer walk down their streets in safety.

This is supposition. Perhaps certain people are culturally indisposed to want freedom. But if the population they are moving into is of the opposite persuasion, the newcomers will have a hard time integrating. And criminals would be treated as such, just like now. Perhaps in a close-to-ideal libertarian world, the right to bear arms would actually be unrestricted, allowing people to defend themselves, instead of waiting 30 mins for the cops to show up.


Hey, you import a more violence prone group of people, and not unsurprisingly you get more violence. Who’d a thunk it?

That's funny, governments have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last century. Individuals have done not even a tiny fraction of that. I wonder who's more violent?


Other non-whites import their religious views, and start organizing along those lines. The first glimmerings of Sharia are noticed. Or just Catholics that support redistributionist policies.

I don't give a crap about people's religious views, and sharia law would never even come close to being realized in a libertarian-style society. Perhaps in our current fascist society it might have a chance of sneaking in.


One basic problem is that the non-whites have average IQ levels ten, fifteen or twenty points below the white average. So, shock of shocks, they don’t perform as well as a group. They tend to cluster in the low end jobs, making sh*tty wages…while watching all those white libertarians riding around in their fancy cars.

That's funny. Asians have historically had higher IQs than whites. And guess what---THE JOOS have even higher IQs on average than asians! There are certainly a large percentage of low IQ morons from whatever race you pick, so your point is moot anyway.



Must be racism! Then the organizing begins, the protests, the demands for social services to meet the needs of the impoverished non-whites. Many whites, after looking around at the squalor and crime of the new ghettos, conclude that something “Must be done.” Our first liberals are created! The problem now afflicts tens of millions of people, a task far too great for private charity. And don’t forget, these new “labor units” are becoming voters, and they know that the market is “unfair.”

It's not racism. It's humanity. As long as the government is democratic, people will always vote themselves other peoples' stuff. The only way to stop this is to have either no govt. or a govt that is powerless to redistribute anything.


Soon there are demands for affirmative action and government control to stamp out the hated racism, not to mention a welfare state to help ameliorate the grinding poverty. How much can a person with an IQ of 80 actually expect to make in a truly free market? Yet the libertarians have imported tens of millions of 80 IQ cretins.

In a free market, there are a very good chunk of people with lower IQs making more money than people with higher IQs. It comes down to business sense more than intelligence. If it were all IQ, supergeniuses would be the richest around, right? Wrong-- they are teaching in universities while their stupider friends are billionaires.


In short, group differences will manifest themselves, as they always do. The religious cultist/libertarian cannot and will not allow himself to see this. He must imagine that, magically, his libertarian paradise will be preserved, no matter who moves in. This is of course insane, and contrary to everything we know from history, experience and human nature. Every law, every government program, every centralization of power has to start somewhere. Soon, the demands for government programs to combat the gross disparities between races would be sufficient to get them off the ground. Either that, or massive violence would result. One way or another, the seething resentments will find their way into the open.

People are different. They like different things, and they are tribal by nature. Having an all powerful government to try to force people to segregate or integrate will fail. If race is such a problem, then you might as well find a home that is more to your ethnic liking, because there is no way back to a white majority in the US from here on. It simply isn't going to happen.


The libertarian cultist just imagines that once he has created his mythical “true free market,” that everyone will of course simply accept market outcomes. I mean, why wouldn’t they accept market outcomes? The market is like, you know, god or something.

The market is not god. It is simply the most fair and efficient way to conduct interactions between people that has yet been found.


But human nature tells us that large numbers of people only accept market outcomes if they see them as reasonably fair, and only if it seems better than the alternative. For example, blacks don’t support a true free market, because they would rather have government provided advantages. They know that, in a truly free market, they would cluster toward the bottom of the economic rung. F*ck that! In what must be galling to the libertarian, blacks have concluded that their self interest is better served by government programs and beneficial laws than by the free market.

Actually in a free market, all classes have improved standards of living. Just look at East Germany vs. West Germany circa 1988. Or Hong Kong vs. Red China ca. 1985. Again, if the government doesn't have a license to steal, it doesn't matter if people want welfare or not, they can't have it.


The libertarians have been putting up candidates for almost forty years now, and in all that time have probably gotten approximately three votes from blacks. Maybe four, assuming Walter Williams cast multiple votes. Yet they never think to ask themselves why that is. Ideological blinders are amazing.


I agree, the LP is a waste of time, as is trying to vote for that one good Republican candidate. It's all a sham. Wake up and smell the coffee, it's the democratic state that is your enemy, not libertarians.

[K_Flynn]

Nothing in there indicates you have a right to not be offended or a right to not see brown people since you hate them.

Rand Institute always has been and still remains a Jews Only club...lol.

:oo-->


This is relevant how? I wasn't even promoting Rand, just stating that she wasn't an anarchist. (quite true)

You seem to be fixated on something.

[AndreaGail]

it was refreshing opening up a libertarian thread and not see a ulysses post in it :)

[philo beddoe]

Nothing in there indicates you have a right to not be offended or a right to not see brown people since you hate them.

Rand Institute always has been and still remains a Jews Only club...lol.

:oo-->


This is relevant how? I wasn't even promoting Rand, just stating that she wasn't an anarchist. (quite true)

You seem to be fixated on something.
If you don't know why it's relevant, you've got a long way to go. Or, you're here to secretly defend the jews.

[Neuro]

it was refreshing opening up a libertarian thread and not see a ulysses post in it :)
OTOH Ulysses may post here under a different handle...

[K_Flynn]

This is relevant how? I wasn't even promoting Rand, just stating that she wasn't an anarchist. (quite true)

You seem to be fixated on something.
If you don't know why it's relevant, you've got a long way to go. Or, you're here to secretly defend the jews.


LOL.... Jews are anarchists.... riiiiiiiight


OTOH Ulysses may post here under a different handle...

Yet another irrational fixation.... But hey, if you want to believe I am someone that I am not, feel free.

[Olmstein]

If you think Rand is an anarchist, you haven't looked closely at her views. She's far from it.

Here's an answer-- you have no freedom to not view or hear or be contacted by people unless you are on your own property, living in a hole.

According to libertarian theory, you have a right to self-ownership. That means you do as you choose unless what you are doing stops someone else from doing the same. Nothing in there indicates you have a right to not be offended or a right to not see brown people since you hate them.


First, don't put words in my mouth. I don't hate brown people, never said I did.

Second, K_Flynn, welcome to the forum, it's good to have all views represented here.

Third, please do us all a favor and introduce yourself, perhaps in this thread:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.php?topic=127

[Book]

I wasn't even promoting Rand, just stating that she wasn't an anarchist.


You were promoting Rand. Rand Institute always has been and still remains a Jews Only group designed to confuse the goyim with "Freedom" slogans while actually preaching no-borders social and racial promiscuity.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gbv=2&q=jewish+forums&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

But they always preserve their own tribal cohesion...lol.

:oo-->

[K_Flynn]

If you think Rand is an anarchist, you haven't looked closely at her views. She's far from it.

Here's an answer-- you have no freedom to not view or hear or be contacted by people unless you are on your own property, living in a hole.

According to libertarian theory, you have a right to self-ownership. That means you do as you choose unless what you are doing stops someone else from doing the same. Nothing in there indicates you have a right to not be offended or a right to not see brown people since you hate them.


First, don't put words in my mouth. I don't hate brown people, never said I did.




I do apologize, I was mistaken. I was thinking of other posts on other threads around here, not attributed to you, when I wrote that response.

[K_Flynn]

I wasn't even promoting Rand, just stating that she wasn't an anarchist.


You were promoting Rand. Rand Institute always has been and still remains a Jews Only group designed to confuse the goyim with "Freedom" slogans while actually preaching no-borders social and racial promiscuity.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gbv=2&q=jewish+forums&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

But they always preserve their own tribal cohesion...lol.

:oo-->



You can post all the links you wish, but I wasn't promoting Rand. I was claiming she was not an anarchist.

In fact I do appreciate much of what she has done, but I disagree with her philosophy on many points, since I am an anarchist and she is not.

[philo beddoe]

If you think Rand is an anarchist, you haven't looked closely at her views. She's far from it.

Here's an answer-- you have no freedom to not view or hear or be contacted by people unless you are on your own property, living in a hole.

According to libertarian theory, you have a right to self-ownership. That means you do as you choose unless what you are doing stops someone else from doing the same. Nothing in there indicates you have a right to not be offended or a right to not see brown people since you hate them.

First, don't put words in my mouth. I don't hate brown people, never said I did.




I do apologize, I was mistaken. I was thinking of other posts on other threads around here, not attributed to you, when I wrote that response.

I hate who hates me. Can you get any simpler than that?