A blog on the Motley Fool website proclaimed ETFsRule's December Walk of Shame: Libertarians!
Unsurprisingly, it's a tirade written by someone who neither knows who "libertarians" are nor distinguishes them from "Republicans."
A Motley Fool blogger upbraids a
self-created cartoon straw man
version of libertarians and ends
up turning over the Fool card.
(Wikimedia Commons)
This anonymous Muttley Tool begins well by asking, "So what exactly is a Libertarian?" and answering with freedom, independence from government interference, and "They don't want the government to touch their money (or their guns)."
But then we're treated to a series of half-truths that are almost excusable since even many libertarians get these concepts wrong.
One is that libertarians want "fewer social programs." Not true. Libertarians want as many non-government social programs as the traffic will bear. Libertarians are not against social programs; they simply understand that social programs are far too important for society to allow government to touch them.
Then "they oppose any form of economic stimulus." Wrong again. Libertarians believe in one form of economic stimulus. It's called laissez-faire capitalism, the true "free market" that demonstrably offers the single greatest stimulus for wealth creation, prosperity, peace, freedom, and extension of human life expectancy the world has ever seen.
Also, "they often deny the existence of global warming" which is often true, but this seems merely a rebuke of libertarians for rejecting the progressive's "solution:" How dare they snub cap-and-trade and the redistribution of the world's wealth!
Next libertarians are condemned for not being Obama worshippers. "Many Libertarians even have the audacity to say that they "'hope Obama fails,' regardless of how catastrophic the results would be for the United States."
While libertarians, along with everyone else who believes in freedom rather than huge overbearing coercive government, would agree with the sentiment, the words "I hope Obama fails" were famously uttered by Rush Limbaugh and echoed by Michelle Malkin and Jonah Goldberg, conservatives all.
Libertarians hope Obama fails just as an earlier generation hoped the leaders of Russia, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and all the other captured socialist nations of the soviet empire would fail.
(Yes, "socialist" nations, as professed by that second S in the USSR's own nameplate, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.)
And that "catastrophic result" for America if Obama fails? That would be called "freedom."
Then there's the ultimate outrage in the progressive's playbook: "they want employers to have the 'freedom' to discriminate against their customers and employees however they want - whether it's based on race, religion, gender, etc."
Absolutely correct. Social issues require social solutions, not top-down coercive edicts from politicians playing class war politics for their own gain.
In a free society where governments can't pick favorites any business idiotic enough to discriminate against its own customers will quickly fail as swarms of companies swoop in to please those customers in exchange for profits, and employees will flock to fill out job applications with those same employers.
Profit is the great leveler of society that overrides discrimination of all types. Love of money – profit - is not the root of all evil, coercion is, and today's anti-discrimination policies are based on coercion.
The rest of the article confuses and conflates "libertarians" with "Republicans" until it eventually discovers Lew Rockwell, where shockingly politically incorrect and non-touchy feely out-of-context quotes are offered as the final coup de grâce for "these pesky Libertarians."
Ho-hum. Feel free to read those for yourselves.
Get the latest libertarian news from the All Libertarian All The Time news source:
The Libertarian News Examiner.
Comments
Well done!
Conservatives and libertarians are pretty much on the same page on the fundamental issues of man's relationship with the Government.
Small-government freedom versus big-government socialism.
"And that "catastrophic result" for America if Obama fails? That would be called "freedom.""
For clueless liberals who have been left completely in the dark about what conservatives, libertarians and 'non-sheeple' think, it's easy to get confused and wrong and cavil at strawmen.
"Conservatives" have much, MUCH more in common with "liberals" than they have with libertarians. Only libertarians understand it is wrong to try to control the private, non-coercive behavior of people. "Conservatives" and "liberals" only fight over which behaviors to forbid, tax, or otherwise interfere with.
It is just as wrong to punish a person for selling marijuana or marrying a person of the same sex as it is to punish a person for carrying a fully functional AK-47 down the street.
Until "conservatives" really understand and LIVE by that understanding, they will keeep heading the opposite direction from freedom.
Thanks for confirming Libertarians are pro-discrimination/hate. I suppose 'equal protection' does not exist in the libertarian constitution. Identity politics and white nationalism disguised as 'freedom advocation'. Ask reknown libertarians and popular antisemite Don Black.
Some people are so stupid...
HegelReborn is one of those poor lost souls who will never get it, no matter how carefully it's explained to him. Libertarians are pro-freedom. Using big coercive government to force people to act in ways the enforcer wants them to act is not freedom. "Coerced freedom" is an oxymoron. But tell some people ABC and all their minds can fathom is XYZ.
I may be a 'pour soul who will never get it', but that still makes me better than a group of people who cannot handle criticism or reply to it without ad hominem attacks.
Likewise, I may be 'stupid', but I am smart enough to know libertarianism started LONG before its American Mockery. The movement is basically a home for rejected post-bush neoconservatives and dejected neo-confederates who seek freedom to espouse their prejudices openly.
The christian right may have its problems, but its not hate based.
Freedom includes the freedom to love or hate, the freedom to be selective or inclusive, the freedom to be a moron or a genius, the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail.
Libertarians (the term comes from the root "liberty") promote freedom from coercion. The body which most often abuses freedom with coercion is government. Hence the animus.
The author's summary correctly describes my views as a self-defined libertarian. Having been acquainted with some in power on a national level, I find it much easier to guard against granting them excessive power to "fix" things with the punishing arm of government than to trust in their beneficent use of that power.
People do not become saints upon accepting a government position. They remain no better or worse than you are, and should have just as much power as you do.
The fatal flaw to advocation of smaller government is
1. You advocate using big government to make itself smaller.
2. By default, you force your ideals on people who do not want smaller, less effective government and, via their own 'freedoms' choose to want a government that helps them in some way.
You may not agree, but you advocate taking their freedom of choice away to live by your standards. Freedom for one to oppress another is not freedom, and while socalled american libertarians claim to want freedom from government, effectively that equates to wanting the freedom to act discriminately against whatever groups you choose, and TAKE the freedoms of others who disagree with you.
That is the grand farce of libertarianism that those who follow the teachings of jesus, and even some left wing liberals, easily recognize. You dont want freedom for everyone, you want your freedom to take the liberties of others away.
Libertarians tend to advocate active citizen involvement to make government smaller. Politicians are responsive to their perceptions of voter interest.
If you deny a mugger his interest in coercing wealth from you to spend as he sees fit, are you denying him the freedom to live as he would prefer? Perhaps. Whether the mugger is working for himself, or some bureaucracy, libertarians oppose this forceful transfer of the fruits of one man's labor to another.
Libertarians support freedom from aggression, not a "freedom" to aggress. If my satisfaction requires appropriation of your life, liberty or property, then I am the aggressor and libertarians would oppose my actions.
"Freedom from" (molestation, interference, control, oppression) is what libertarians champion. "Freedom to" (molest, interfere, control, oppress) is what thugs and tyrants champion.
It may help HegelReborn to re-read his own comments with the understanding that in the political and social context libertarians use the word "force" in two distinct ways: "coercion" is the initiation of force; "self-defense" is the use of force against coercion. Government is inherently coercive (taxation, regulation, conscription, etc.). Since the concept of "rights" applies to all people equally, there can be no such thing as a "right" to force unwanted government on others, nor can there be a "right" to force people to be free of it. If some people want a government in a libertarian society "that helps them in some way" they have the right to find a means to provide it, or its equivalent, for themselves, without forcing (coercing) it on those who don't want it. Conversely, nobody would have a right to prevent people from joining together in some form of non-coercive government-like association in pursuit of their own purposes. Libertarians do indeed want freedom for everyone.
It may help HegelReborn to re-read his own comments with the understanding that in the political and social context libertarians use the word "force" in two distinct ways: "coercion" is the initiation of force; "self-defense" is the use of force against coercion. Government is inherently coercive (taxation, regulation, conscription, etc.). Since the concept of "rights" applies to all people equally, there can be no such thing as a "right" to force unwanted government on others, nor can there be a "right" to force people to be free of it. If some people want a government in a libertarian society "that helps them in some way" they have the right to find a means to provide it, or its equivalent, for themselves, without forcing (coercing) it on those who don't want it. Conversely, nobody would have a right to prevent people from joining together in some form of non-coercive government-like association in pursuit of their own purposes. Libertarians do indeed want freedom for everyone.
It may help Richard Reed to respond to commentary with direct and well thought out responses rather than 2nd hand ad hominems. Do most libertarians argue in such a fashion? Is this the strength behind your convictions, no logic or reason, just animus towards anyone you disagree with?
Reed Said: ". Since the concept of "rights" applies to all people equally, there can be no such thing as a "right" to force unwanted government on others,"
--But their is a 'right' take TAKE AWAY government from those who want or determine themselves to need it? Such ideals are no better than what they argue against.
"No one has the right to force their ideals and government down my throat, but I have the right to force my ideals and want for lack of government down everyone elses!"
'Libertarian"-indeed!
(Add to comment below That should have been "Garry said"
Perhaps a useful question might be to ask oneself, "What is the proper function of government?" What do you want your government to do?
One possible answer is: "To protect myself and other citizens from initiated force so that we may live in liberty." Libertarians support that.
Another possible answer is: "To take resources from other citizens and supply me with goods and services I feel I need." While this would potentially yield desirable end for the recipient, the means would eventually involve forceful coercion of goods and services from the producer if he chose not to supply them (de-facto enslavement). Do the ends justify those means? Would you knowingly accept goods you knew were stolen? Would it be ethical to do so?
And what happens when the fruits of your life's effort becomes subject to claim by others who want the "freedom" to demand government deliver it? What part of your life's work is mine to dispose of as I see fit?
"Thanks for confirming Libertarians are pro-discrimination/hate."
That's a pretty audacious/outrageous statement. The phrase "not starting off on the right foot" springs immediately to mind...
And then you have the gall to get offended and call out others for their use of ad homs?!?
And to answer your *actual* 'question' (lol), libertarians are not "pro-discrimination/hate," they just believe/recognize that the profit motive is a better (and/or more moral) motivator to *not* discriminate/hate than is the barrel of a government's gun.
Cheers for Kent from Albuquerque! I enjoy reading your comments ALMOST as much as Garry's articles!
"I suppose 'equal protection' does not exist in the libertarian constitution. Identity politics and white nationalism disguised as 'freedom advocation'. Ask reknown libertarians and popular antisemite Don Black."
Several thoughts here:
1) "renown libertarian" -- I had no idea who he was, and had to look him up... for whatever it may or may not be worth to you.
2) "popular antisemite" -- Are you trying to say he's popular amongst anti-semites? Or are you trying to say he's popular amongst libertarians? Because the latter is *not* the case, I can assure you.
3) Is it the fault of libertarianism that people like Black are partial to libertarianism under the present political climate? Because I can pretty much guarantee you, if people like Black were themselves in power, they would be *no* fans of libertarianism.
4) Your argumentum ad Hitlerum did not escape me, either... which is funny, considering you then immediately feigned indignance at someone else's use of ad homs.
Jake: ??? You made all the points I was making in a much better way then I ever could, by pointing out the antisemetism, racism, and identity politics entrenched in Libertarianism.
If libertarianism were the national standard, women would not have the right to vote and blacks would remain in slavery (after all, slavery was a 'states rights' issue).
Thanks for pointing out the movements obvious fatal flaws.
Don't know where you guys got 180 degrees out of sync with real libertarianism. Your "definitions" of libertarianism are utterly foreign to the beliefs held by real libertarians. Are you just making these things up or do you sincerely believe what you're saying? If you sincerely believe what you say there is absolutely no common ground for discussion because then it just deteriorates into nonsense. Telling libertarians we believe in slavery when we believe the opposite is like telling us the sky is made of chocolate and expecting us to believe it. Government IS coercion and coercion IS anti-freedom. There is no such thing as "states rights" because the concept of rights, no matter how they're defined, apply only to individual human beings. Since libertarians reject all coercion we can't possibly enslave anyone. Only those who want to establish their ideology using government coercion can enslave others. That's why real libertarians reject both left and right.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!