|
To a Libertarian, taking away even a dime of your money to give someone else is immoral, because he views it as an act of theft, and theft is always immoral to him, even if that someone else is starving. To a libertarian, property is right up there with life and liberty, and those who want to take a dime of his money are down there with Hitler and Stalin.
You are equating Libertarianism with libertarianism. The two concepts are vastly different. If you continue an argument on that flawed basis, the errors will only increase in frequency and magnitude.
Obviously, that is the big flaw with libertarians. They believe in absolutist ethics. To a libertarian, theft is NEVER justified, and so welfare is evil.
Not in the least. Not only are you taking the libertarian argument to an absurdist extreme, but libertarianism has no qualms whatsoever in regards to private welfare, charity, donations, etc...
Because he rates property as equal to life and property,
What, precisely, does that sentence mean?
people who support welfare are evil, maybe even approaching the evil of Ted Bundy and Janet Reno. That is, of course, pure, unadulterated, unmixed nonsense.
Yes, nonsense on par with your ridiculous comparisons to Reno and Bundy.
The idea that ethical rules are absolute, simple, and unyielding to circumstances is the basis of libertarian ideology and it is demonstrably false. For example, take the statement "Killing is wrong". But is it ALWAYS wrong? Even when somebody tries to kill you?
You are attempting to take a Platonic ideal and extrapolate real-world scenarios from it. This is illogical and patently absurd.
Libertarianism allows for your example of killing (or defending oneself) when one is attacked. Any basic primer of libertarianism will tell you that, and it is dishonest to maintain otherwise.
Was the assassination of Nazi leaders wrong?
Of course not. They were actively involved in attempting to violate the rights and liberty of others.
Or let's say abortion is wrong (abortion rights people will have to bear with me for a moment) ALWAYS wrong? Even when it saves a life? Obviously, as the writers of the Bible and Talmud already knew, you cannot have a hard and fast law which will fit all situations - in fact, according to the Talmud, in some situations you MUST steal.
As does the philosophy of libertarianism.
Libertarians and other political writers have almost invariably used the appeal to absolutist ethics for the same reason: to avoid using statistics and facts, and in fact to avoid discussing the efficiency of a given policy.
Patently false and mischaraterized. Libertarianism is based on principle, but that does not preclude utilizing extant statistical data for bolsterting arguments. It is simply intellectually dishonest to maintain that libertarians do not use them, and only appeal to absolutist ethics.
Obviously, to a non-absolutist reader, welfare would only be an immoral policy if it caused damage.
And there is obviously a libertarian argument against welfare couched in terms of the damage it causes.
To an absolutist, welfare would be an immoral policy even if it aided untold millions of people – because “how does that justify stealing one red cent?”
Libertarianism is, again, not necessarily against welfare. The primary argument against it is when it is administered under color of gov't force.
I have a friend who lives in the UK. He is suffering from a CF. The National Health Service provides him with access to Britain’s best doctors. The “immoral” NHS system is why he is still alive. If the libertarians had their way, it would be almost absolutely impossible for him to have that access. Yet to them, it is “unjustifiable” to steal “one red cent” to keep my friend alive.
No, it's not unjustifiable. You are misrepresenting the libertarian position.
Libertarians view foreign policy from the same angle. They believe America (or whatever country the libertarian is question is in) should never involve itself in foreign affairs except to direct defend herself – even to prevent a war.
Wrong again. If there is a direct and obvious threat to national security and/or sovereignty, nothing in libertarianism precludes removing that threat.
Even to prevent genocide. (Note: America’s lack of opposition on the UN 1994 decision to ban arms imports into the Balkans, combined with it’s non-interventionist position caused Sriebrenica. They further extend these position to apply to – well, anything.
Get real. From your angle, Clinton's decision to delay involvement in Rwanda was somehow, magically, libertarian. It wasn't.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why libertarians suck – because they build their entire social platform on an unsupportable basis of absolutist ethics and logic.
No, we don't, and you have yet to demonstrate that we do.
A pure libertarian government would unyieldingly steer America, Israel, or any other country to a total social collapse, unwilling to steal “one red cent” from Enron and Haliburton – yet willing to watch hundreds spend whatever remains of their lives on the verge of starvation, unwilling to send “one soldier abroad” – yet willing to watch thousands of people being massacred by the dictator du jour.
Your comments are typical of most critiques of libertarianism.
One misapplication of a fundamental tenet of the philosophy is used to extrapolate hysterical assumptions, ie., personal ownership of nukes and cocaine vending machines in daycare centers. Or, your case, 'not one red cent'.
Which is not to say, of course, that libertarians suck MORE than the current political party. If a libertarian party existed in Israel, I would vote for it. In the current climate, all the difference between the major political parties (in Israel as well as elsewhere in the West) is the colour and size of the proverbial government boot. Voting for libertarians would at the very least shift the focus of the debate to whether such a boot was needed – and help candidates from other parties gain a dose of healthy respect to my civil rights. So if libertarians were available, I’d vote for them, until a liberal supportive of my rights popped up (maybe an Israeli John Dingell variant?)
Hold on for part two – “Why Republicans Suck?” and part three – “Why Liberals Suck?”
I'm on the edge of my seat.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(227 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
