Why I fled libertarianism--and became a liberal

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You're right Democrats are decrying the drug war, and drafting bills to end victimless crimes... They are not in bed with big business, and seek to end subsidies... they are anti war...

I don't even understand these poorly framed sentences.

PEOPLE decry the drug war.

PEOPLE are trying to decry victimless crimes.

PEOPLE are doing all of these things. Some dems are on the same side as SOME republicans.

The fact that you can't see these issues without a red or blue tint is why your ass will never hold a candle to anyone on this forum in any serious discussion

 

[DEAD7]

I don't even understand these poorly framed sentences.

PEOPLE decry the drug war.

PEOPLE are trying to decry victimless crimes.

PEOPLE are doing all of these things. Some dems are on the same side as SOME republicans.
The fact that you can't see these issues without a red or blue tint is why your ass will never hold a candle to anyone on this forum in any serious discussion

Alright sir, link me to a Liberal or Republican bill that aims to end the wars and/or victimless crime.

edit: how about some one speaking on the floor about it... that can't be asking for too much.

 

[NvrCMyNut]

anyone who ascribed to these ready made political identities like liberal, conservative, libertarian etc is a sheep. there is no way you do not have multiple points of view & opinions that do not correlate with these philosophies you brand yourself as followers of.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

1- I think the GoP and green party have more loons, but w/e whats true of a part isnt true of the whole.

Percentage-wise, I'm pretty sure they don't, but okay. There's strong overlap between the GOP and libertarian-minded folks, btw.

2- I almost stopped, cause I realize you were running off with the opinion of one person, which is meaningless in the grand scope of things. I could find writings from people that used to be liberal, or used to be republican easily, but what would that actually prove? or mean? But "redistributing" something that wasnt distributed in the first place is complete bullshyt

Who said it proves anything? It's a perspective. Just like everything you say.

3- No, in unfettered capitalism corporations don't have any special economic rights. They get no special consideration, there's no tax code to manipulate, etc. they get no special advantages.

Why don't you tell where they do that at? I believe that place is called Duckberg, bruh.

Of course, inevitably, there will be some really big economic players in any economy. But free markets lower barriers to entry, making it easier to compete as a little guy. There must first be Govt. favor to be purchased in the first place ie. intervention.Why liberals have such a hard time with this is baffling, you can literally wiki corporations, and see the are created and maintained by Govt.... granted exceptions, and privilege by Govt.

Except that's never happened any place in the world, and free markets without robust state governance and regulation has always resulted in monopoly, social darwinism, robber baron thuggery. You love to argue about the same shyt over and over again though, I see.

Liberals blame the corruption and think changing the actors and/or rules will make a difference, libertarians expect the corruption, and seek to make the corrupted as powerless as possible.

In your minds, yes.

4- History has proven selfishness to be the more reliable. Its also proven to be the motivation behind our greatest achievements. Its not even close...

Just stop. Without altruism, we would've never formed complex self-sustaining egalitarian-oriented hunter-gatherer societies that facilitated our continued survival and would've gone extinct. In fact, if our hominid ancestors didn't have any altruism, they would've went extinct before they had a chance to evolve into us.

But if that isnt true,and you're right, then you need not force people to be good, you need only let them act on their own, and our altruistic nature will facilitate good ]But if that isnt true,and you're right, then you need not force people to be good, you need only let them act on their own, and our altruistic nature will facilitate good

At first you said our nature is inherently selfish, and that selfishness is the primary motivating factor of our existence, and the most reliable aspect of our nature.

Then you said if you're wrong, and our nature is truly altruistic, the free market will foster altruism.

You've already decided that libertarianism is the best organizing principle for society in concordance with our inherent nature, then you just go back and hypothesize blanket narratives of our inherent nature and make each narrative neatly conform to your libertarian views. Disingenuous.

 

[DEAD7]

Percentage-wise, I'm pretty sure they don't, but okay. There's strong overlap between the GOP and libertarian-minded folks, btw.

Sure, its a meaningless point unless we are promoting the fallacy of composition anyway.

Why don't you tell where they do that at? I believe that place is called Duckberg, bruh.

Its flat at denial at this point, if you dont accept govt. creates corporations, and sets all the rules by which these business's must try to earn a profit.
Dont hate the player, hate the game

Except that's never happened any place in the world, and free markets without robust state governance and regulation has always resulted in monopoly, social darwinism, robber baron thuggery. You love to argue about the same shyt over and over again though, I see.

You name things that are occurring under heavy regulation

Ignoring that though, your just wrong. Those are not instances of the free market at work, unless you define the free market as lawless, which no libertarian does. Hiring a hitman, extortion, threats etc. and all the other stuff you have mentioned are illegal, and have nothing to do with the market.
Standard Oil, the liberal go to, was crumbling when it was broken up, succumbing to market competition. I dont even think any of you know how standard oil established their "monopoly" cause if you did it would never be brought up in a negative light...

monopolies are not inherently good or bad.
I love the "its never been done/existed before" argument. We shouldn't look at voluntary interaction as possible, cause it hasnt been done/tried?... Actual socialism hasnt either... so lets stop pushing that

Just stop. Without altruism, we would've never formed complex self-sustaining egalitarian-oriented hunter-gatherer societies that facilitated our continued survival and would've gone extinct. In fact, if our hominid ancestors didn't have any altruism, they would've went extinct before they had a chance to evolve into us.

I said Selfishness is more reliable than Altruism... you didnt refute that or agree, so i guess you're ignoring it. Meaning its true, you just dont want to acknowledge it.

At first you said our nature is inherently selfish, and that selfishness is the primary motivating factor of our existence, and the most reliable aspect of our nature.

Then you said if you're wrong, and our nature is truly altruistic, the free market will foster altruism.

You've already decided that libertarianism is the best organizing principle for society in concordance with our inherent nature, then you just go back and hypothesize blanket narratives of our inherent nature and make each narrative neatly conform to your libertarian views.

The base of libertarianism, is that no one knows whats best, and each individual should be free to decide what best for himself on his own free of coercion... crazy right?

My point is if you are right, and people are naturally altruistic, why do you need to force them to do the right thing? The actions of liberals and their rhetoric dont match.

Disingenuous.

But its logically sound. If left to our own devices(as we would be in a free(r) market), our nature will prevail regardless of what it may be.