4 ms·

I cannot take anyone seriously who calls himself a libertarian. For Christ's sake, learn something about the various traditions of right- and left-wing libertar

I cannot take anyone seriously who calls himself a libertarian. For Christ's sake, learn something about the various traditions of right- and left-wing libertarianism, study the basics of anarchism (e.g. Stirner), and read some Adam Smith. Libertarianism is either mislabeled right-wing liberalism, which has a long-standing tradition, or it turns out to be no more than a fairly inconsistent mix of classical liberal and anarchist ideas peppered with some generic right-wing gun-nuttery and diffuse anti-government sentiment. You know, in the end somebody has to pay for the military, police, firemen, ambulances, roads, drinking water, sanitation, food safety, consumer safety (like not getting electrocuted by your vacuum cleaner), schools, hospitals, ...

grandalf 10y ago
In isolation this comment is not absurd or incorrect. But when you consider the contorted meaning of nearly every word describing political affiliation, describing one's self as a libertarian is very minor offense, and far less inaccurate than the typical use of "right" and "left" in modern American politics.
nkrisc 10y ago
My personal interactions with a few self-labeled Libertarians tells me that they are fine paying for those services for themselves, but don't want to subsidize them for anyone else. Well, their vision of "Libertarianism" sure sounds good if they're rich. Nevermind the collective society that allowed them to profit in the first place. I suspect the label "Libertarian" is too widely used for many ideologies.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
xname2 10y ago
Libertarianism is not anarchism, so I am not sure what you mean. Somebody needs to pay A, B, C, D, ..., it does not mean all the answers to the "somebody" is the government.
- jonathanstrange 10y ago
  Libertarianism, as it is actually defended in the US by the libertarian party and others who label themselves libertarians, is de facto a mixture of anarchism and general right-wing ideas. That is not to be confused with the political constructions and justification of Nozick and other right-wing liberals, of course.
Analemma_ 10y ago
In general, I can take libertarians seriously... but not Peter Thiel. The depth of his convictions can be measured in microns. He's the perfect example of the "libertarian" who espouses that philosophy not out of any genuine commitment to its ideals, but just because he wants lower taxes and more leeway for whatever despicable business practices he has in mind. For instance, he founded a company whose, no joke, entire raison d'être is providing surveillance-as-a-service to increase the power of the State. This is something I wouldn't even do, and I'm what might be derisively called a "big-government liberal".
- gizmo 10y ago
  His justification, bizarrely, is that as a hardcore libertarian he is exactly the sort of person who should start a massive surveillance business because other people respect individual rights much less than he does. If the business is going to exist anyway (because of market demand) then having it chaired by a libertarian is the best case scenario.
- jnbiche 10y ago
  > In general, I can take libertarians seriously... but not Peter Thiel. ...and I'm what might be derisively called a "big-government liberal" Thank you. I'm glad you've been able to distinguish between Thiel, perhaps one of the most anti-liberty, authoritarian 'libertarians' in modern history. I likewise take many liberals (and conservatives!) seriously, even if we do not always agree. For example, one of my favorite congressmen is Alan Grayson (a pro-liberty Democrat/liberal) and one of my favorite senators is Rand Paul (a pro-liberty Republican/fiscal conservative). I don't always agree with them, but I appreciate their willingness to stick up for their beliefs. Sadly, people like us are relatively few and far between.
  - jonathanstrange 10y ago
    The point is that libertarianism is just one more whacky US misnomer for right-wing liberalism, which has existed since Bentham.
- Aloha 10y ago
davidw 10y ago
The actual Libertarian in the presidential race is a lot better than Thiel and Trump: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/opinions/making-legal-immigration-attainable-johnson/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/opinions/making-legal-immigrat... I still won't be voting for him, but he's got some good points of view. I wish he'd been Hillary's opposition; perhaps we would have had a more substantive debate about ideas, and the size of government.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Thoughtful debate about the size of government is nice and all. But it's also important to have at least of basic grasp of major world events. Per WP: On September 8, Johnson drew widespread attention, much of it negative, when he appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe and was asked by panelist Mike Barnicle, "As president, what would you do about Aleppo?" Johnson responded, "And what is Aleppo?" After a clarification from Barnicle, Johnson answered that he favored greater diplomacy with Russia and criticized U.S. support for the Free Syrian Army and Kurdish forces as well as U.S.-supported "regime change." Johnson's "what is Aleppo?" question prompted widespread criticism.[106][108] In response to charges that he was uninformed, Johnson said that he had "blanked," that he did "understand the dynamics of the Syrian conflict," and that he had thought that Barnicle's reference to "Aleppo" was in relation to "an acronym, not the Syrian conflict."
  - davidw 10y ago
    Yeah, I recall that. Certainly a reason to not vote for him. OTOH, unlike a certain major party candidate, he actually appeared really embarrassed and felt bad about his error, subsequently.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hyperpape 10y ago
It's a shame you weren't around 15 years ago to tell Robert Nozick he was an idiot for calling himself a libertarian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia (I'm not going to argue etymology with you, and I'm not inclined to defend libertarianism per se, I just think your condescension is gross).
- jonathanstrange 10y ago
  I was around then, and Nozick is indeed an idiot for calling himself that way.

grandalf 10y ago

In isolation this comment is not absurd or incorrect. But when you consider the contorted meaning of nearly every word describing political affiliation, describing one's self as a libertarian is very minor offense, and far less inaccurate than the typical use of "right" and "left" in modern American politics.

nkrisc 10y ago

My personal interactions with a few self-labeled Libertarians tells me that they are fine paying for those services for themselves, but don't want to subsidize them for anyone else. Well, their vision of "Libertarianism" sure sounds good if they're rich. Nevermind the collective society that allowed them to profit in the first place. I suspect the label "Libertarian" is too widely used for many ideologies.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

xname2 10y ago

Libertarianism is not anarchism, so I am not sure what you mean. Somebody needs to pay A, B, C, D, ..., it does not mean all the answers to the "somebody" is the government.

jonathanstrange 10y ago
Libertarianism, as it is actually defended in the US by the libertarian party and others who label themselves libertarians, is de facto a mixture of anarchism and general right-wing ideas. That is not to be confused with the political constructions and justification of Nozick and other right-wing liberals, of course.

Analemma_ 10y ago

In general, I can take libertarians seriously... but not Peter Thiel. The depth of his convictions can be measured in microns. He's the perfect example of the "libertarian" who espouses that philosophy not out of any genuine commitment to its ideals, but just because he wants lower taxes and more leeway for whatever despicable business practices he has in mind. For instance, he founded a company whose, no joke, entire raison d'être is providing surveillance-as-a-service to increase the power of the State. This is something I wouldn't even do, and I'm what might be derisively called a "big-government liberal".

gizmo 10y ago
His justification, bizarrely, is that as a hardcore libertarian he is exactly the sort of person who should start a massive surveillance business because other people respect individual rights much less than he does. If the business is going to exist anyway (because of market demand) then having it chaired by a libertarian is the best case scenario.
jnbiche 10y ago
> In general, I can take libertarians seriously... but not Peter Thiel. ...and I'm what might be derisively called a "big-government liberal" Thank you. I'm glad you've been able to distinguish between Thiel, perhaps one of the most anti-liberty, authoritarian 'libertarians' in modern history. I likewise take many liberals (and conservatives!) seriously, even if we do not always agree. For example, one of my favorite congressmen is Alan Grayson (a pro-liberty Democrat/liberal) and one of my favorite senators is Rand Paul (a pro-liberty Republican/fiscal conservative). I don't always agree with them, but I appreciate their willingness to stick up for their beliefs. Sadly, people like us are relatively few and far between.
- jonathanstrange 10y ago
  The point is that libertarianism is just one more whacky US misnomer for right-wing liberalism, which has existed since Bentham.
Aloha 10y ago

davidw 10y ago

The actual Libertarian in the presidential race is a lot better than Thiel and Trump: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/opinions/making-legal-immigration-attainable-johnson/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/29/opinions/making-legal-immigrat... I still won't be voting for him, but he's got some good points of view. I wish he'd been Hillary's opposition; perhaps we would have had a more substantive debate about ideas, and the size of government.

kafkaesq 10y ago
Thoughtful debate about the size of government is nice and all. But it's also important to have at least of basic grasp of major world events. Per WP: On September 8, Johnson drew widespread attention, much of it negative, when he appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe and was asked by panelist Mike Barnicle, "As president, what would you do about Aleppo?" Johnson responded, "And what is Aleppo?" After a clarification from Barnicle, Johnson answered that he favored greater diplomacy with Russia and criticized U.S. support for the Free Syrian Army and Kurdish forces as well as U.S.-supported "regime change." Johnson's "what is Aleppo?" question prompted widespread criticism.[106][108] In response to charges that he was uninformed, Johnson said that he had "blanked," that he did "understand the dynamics of the Syrian conflict," and that he had thought that Barnicle's reference to "Aleppo" was in relation to "an acronym, not the Syrian conflict."
- davidw 10y ago
  Yeah, I recall that. Certainly a reason to not vote for him. OTOH, unlike a certain major party candidate, he actually appeared really embarrassed and felt bad about his error, subsequently.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

hyperpape 10y ago

It's a shame you weren't around 15 years ago to tell Robert Nozick he was an idiot for calling himself a libertarian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia (I'm not going to argue etymology with you, and I'm not inclined to defend libertarianism per se, I just think your condescension is gross).

jonathanstrange 10y ago
I was around then, and Nozick is indeed an idiot for calling himself that way.