Libertarians, Explain This!
In 2001 Argentina was in crisis. The IMF told them to privitize most things. Argentina did this, the consequinces were appaling.
http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/sap/Argentina_crisis.php
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.htm
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html
Libertariansim is terrible
Side Score: 12
|
Libertarianism is not too bad
Side Score: 8
|
|
|
|
Libertarians believe that economic growth and affluence are equal to happiness. This is un-true. There are many statistics backing up my claim. Libertarians have a simplistic view of human nature. Libertarians believe each consumer can think rationally and asses the situation, hence the Libertarian quote : "You bought a piece of crap, it's your own damn fault" Humans have a vast non-rational underground of impulses, aggression, and instinctive responses to things We react emotionally on these impulses. Corporations lay traps and play on the flaws of human reasoning, this is because corporations want money, they would sell dog muck if there was a market for it. When Libertarians envision the perfect society, they imagine that it is filled with people like them, this is not true. Society is filled with a magnitude of different people with different ideas. Conclusively, it can be said that Libertarianism is the ole' bait and switch trick. They don't care what you do, but in the end they want all of your cash. Side: Libertariansim is terrible
|
Okay, a couple of things to dispute here. 1.Your first article said that the Argentinian crisis was caused by the government changing currency value, not privatizing business. They also made huge spending cuts. 2.Your second URL didnt work. 3.The man who wrote the third article doesn't really understand how Libertarianism works. Him writing this is like a Republican writing about how bad democrats are, there is going to be obvious bias. Some of his arguments can be traced to libertarianism, but a lot of his arguments are based on opinion and assumption. He also makes the reader believe that all Libertarians want and believe in the same thing and are radicals. Most of us are not radicals. And what's with all of this One-World One Government BS? Libertarians shudder at those terms! I would never advocate those things! Libertarians believe in a stronger isolationist viewpoint where the US shouldn't get heavily involved in another country's affairs and vice versa. Saying we are more Liberal than anything is also confounded. At first he takes a more historical viewpoint of the term Liberal which is fine, but later he leans toward us being more left-wing. We take viewpoints from both Liberal and conservative sides, so we think we offer a more even balance. Also, the author talked about people always being hostage to the market and can't influence it very much under a Libertarian government. So, according to the author, a person has more economic rights under democrats or republicans? It's the same deal no matter the party! He just puts the blaim on the Libertarians! Very hypocritical in my opinion. An individual may not have as much influence, but a whole group can, no matter the party we are under. Yes, the market is a communal and a group influenced affair. We just want the government to take their hands off of how business is done between the producer and the consumer. Now there will be arguments saying "well then corporations will coerce people and blackmail them and pay them low wages and and and other crimes unless the government steps in and manages the corporations!" This is when we bop them in the head and give them a "you could have had a V8" look. Hello! We know that there will be crime, and we will punish those who do it! That's why we have police and laws for them to enforce! We believe in no government intervention in conducting business, but if someone commits a crime, we will enforce the law. Sheesh! And another thing that ticks me off. We want to force our ideals on everyone else in the world! Complete bull shit. We're not going to take a gun to the head of people and force them to be Libertarians! We will offer educational materials, speakers, and information, just like any other party or ideal. This also goes against our more isolationist views. And the author creates us into some Maniacal dictatorship! Yes, we want to put our views out there and influence the government. Yes, there will be opposition, that is indisputable. But suddenly we are going to react differently than the republicans or democrats? The author is basing his views on his fear of the unknown and his fear that the status quo of a deadlocked government is going to change. What's wrong with change? Obama preached it, and he brought it. He brought socialism and deadlock and debt. Same as all the other presidents and parties have been preaching for the last few decades! People are getting tired of it! We want to bring change too, yet we are the enemies of the state? The author is bringing ignorance and superstition and saying it is fact. Side: Libertarianism is not too bad
1.Your first article said that the Argentinian crisis was caused by the government changing currency value, not privatizing business. They also made huge spending cuts. The reason they messed with their currency is so the IMF would give them bailout money. Secondly, they did privatize many state owned things to save money and that failed. 3.The man who wrote the third article doesn't really understand how Libertarianism works I have other links I can provide. I was attempting to get other sides of the story. He also makes the reader believe that all Libertarians want and believe in the same thing and are radicals Most libertarians are radicals, but that doesn't bother me. And what's with all of this One-World One Government BS? At least you read the links ;) Once again, I was trying to get a perspective more people may listen to you. Also, the author talked about people always being hostage to the market and can't influence it very much under a Libertarian government. So, according to the author, a person has more economic rights under democrats or republicans This article does have a different slant to things. However, a market would be difficult to influence under a libertarian regime. This is because everything would become clogged with businesses vying for power. We just want the government to take their hands off of how business is done between the producer and the consumer We socialists believe something similar. More worker control, but you have a different idea on how to solve it. but if someone commits a crime, we will enforce the law. Sheesh! If a proletariat member commits I crime, I bet it would be enforced! But what about if a big business commits a crime. Smaller govt. means less people to bribe. We want to force our ideals on everyone else in the world! Not everyone, just most people. When I talk to some libertarians, I can just feel the palpable rage building in them. He brought socialism and deadlock and debt He brought debt, he brought deadlock, but Socialism??? No. Just No. There are only a few Socialistic operated businesses in America, he has done more to harm Socialism in America than help it! Obama care is not Socialism, people sitting all day and collecting welfare is not Socialism, foreign wars is not socialism, polyarchy is not Socialism. I think that I can conclusively say that you did not agree with the article. Even I didn't agree with everything in it, but at the very least it was thought provoking. Side: Libertariansim is terrible
1.If big corporations commit a crime, they can and will be prosecuted. Nuff said! 2.He brought debt, he brought deadlock, but Socialism??? No. It's name is Socialized Healthcare. Every country that has a socialist system has it. It doesn't work, look at Canada. Florida has already stated that they won't have enough doctors to care for their citizens because of the plan. I know many doctors and they absolutely hate it. 3.I would say most Libertarians are not radicals, but if your okay with it, COOL! 4.Businesses won't be clogged up with less government control. It just offers more competition and more competitiveness. Not like a monopoly kind of business. 5.Like you previously stated, Humans have a vast non-rational underground of impulses, aggression, and instinctive responses to things We react emotionally on these impulses. So letting the populace control the means of production is a good idea? Now Im not saying businesses are all powerful and all-ruling, but letting the common folk control EVERYTHING is not a good idea. Side: Libertarianism is not too bad
2
points
We're not going to take a gun to the head of people and force them to be Libertarians General Pinochet killed for a free market in Chile. Chile has seen a period of growth, this could have saved many more lives than what was necessary to achieve the goal. Of course we may never really know what would have happened otherwise, but can you say this is wrong on principle, especially if the free market is indeed the best system of economic affairs? we want to put our views out there and influence the government Most libertarians would conclude that this is the same thing as holding a gun to someones head. Certainly if a socialist argued for market socialism in the same manner, he would receive that argument from the libertarians. The author is basing his views on his fear of the unknown and his fear that the status quo of a deadlocked government is going to change. This would seem like a valid fear to me at least. Why try something on 300 000 000 people when there are only limited and contradictory examples of it's practical implications? Side: Libertariansim is terrible
|