Much like arguing with Religionists, Libertarians don't seem to need to have facts. Simple ideas and rhetoric is all that you need. I've hammered on the free capitalism arguments they make. If you take it to it's end, either you have too much government or two little and we never have the right mix to show where capitalism works. We are looking for friggin Goldilocks on all issues only we can't ever find the "just right" example of Libertarianism working. I have a Facebook friend whom I like. But he has 1800 FB friends and it's a Libertarian Hive Mind on his page. He posted a question today. There were 15 answers of bullshit. One of the persons had posted three times. I post the likely answer to his question, and the circle of denial starts all over again.
If you are a Libertarian, you should ask yourself this question. Am I arguing based on historical evidence, or wish thinking? If you are an Atheist you undoubtedly are choosing to live based on reality. The following has been altered to the relevant posts, but is an example of being dishonest with one's self. Consistently, this is what I run into with Libertarians. Facts... don't need those, I have ideology! It's as much a douche move as denying science and accepting religion.
As for the "history" lessons of free market, I would love to get some examples of a modern free market that has actually existed
How modern? Because a pure free market is unworkable in society, the closest we can get always has some form of government. But you can site the robber barons of the 19th century as a prime example of what Gaytor is talking about.
Or, you can even look at any point in the last 100 years and find companies causing harm in the name of profits in spite of government controls, not because of them. From BP in the Gulf to lead paint in Chinese toys to severely unsanitary conditions at American food plants. These are all things you surely have read about in the news just over the last few years and it is only the tip of the iceberg.
While I agree with you that it would be nice to have the government not intruding on our personal liberties, do you ever get angry that your toothpaste is safer because of the government? Or do you get pissed about seat belts and airbags being in your car? Are you angry that yellow and white lines are painted on your roadways making them safer?
The sheer amount of things that government accomplishes that are not personal infringements on our liberties is astounding. And the benefit is mostly ignored or taken for granted by many Libertarians, it seems.
I detest the Patriot Act and governmental coercion of any form.
While I agree about the Patriot Act, I am curious as to the second part here. Do you have examples of government coercion? Are you talking about laws? Are you talking about Federal power over States? Or are you talking about how you will be stopped from driving on the wrong side of the road by the police? What type of coercion? And if it is personal coercion, do you have an example of where the government has coerced you?
I think Gaytor was comparing most Libertarian's dogmatic, unrelenting opinion to that of religionists. Someone earlier in this thread gave examples of how Libertarian ideals don't work in practice based on what she has learned in her Economics class, nevertheless they cling to these ideals though they have been proven to be false.
Other than having a knee-jerk reaction to the comparison, and being offended, can you please explain (in your opinion) what the difference is in this case? IMO, we're allowed to compare anything to anything, and nothing is so fully in its own bracket it is exempt from comparison. What's the harm of comparing anyway?
Really? You're going to delete your responses? Well, I'll respond to your last response anyway:
I'd like you to elaborate on those opinions of yours. Is that too much to ask?
When you say that you "don't like" the comparison, it's not a stretch for me to assume you're offended. And I was only giving my opinion: that you had a knee-jerk, unfounded opinion (hence we are discussing our opinions). But I'm also willing to amend my opinion if you'd explain a little further.
As the OP, Please let me state that my posting isn't about winning. It's about holding effective positions based on evidence. It's a question for those who are Libertarians to think about the limits of ideology. IE, claiming that slavery would have been cured through capitalism.
There are Libertarian groups whom have left the field of effective debate and solution seeking. Those are the folks that have gone on to acting as religionists. If you are using the ideology to guide you, then you aren't droid that I was looking for. If you think that capitalism and small government cures all, then maybe we have a direct hit.
It's not about winning for me. It's about pointing out a over application of principles like Rand Paul has been doing. It's dangerous and gaining steam. As a contrast, his father is a good voice to have in the House. We could use some more of it for balance, just not the only principle.
Rand Paul as a Libertarian is a horrible example.
His one semi-libertarian position he tried to tout (that businesses should be free to "discriminate") he completely jacked up his argument. He's also a big pro-war guy and has attacked libertarians relentlessly since he got the nomination to run.
Personally, I'd like to see businesses be able to openly discriminate. Purely from an Atheist perspective I'm interested to see how fundamentalist such covertly Christian stores like XX1and NOTW really are. A little sunlight on their extreme views is sure to kill their business.
I was recently in Yakutat AK doing some work. Two restaurants in 9000 square miles. Two general stores. No roads out, you have to fly out. What happens to the person here that is legally discriminated against?
In this highly rare and unusal case: they can protest, they can draw shame and publicity to such businesses (and they should) or they can take more drastic actions such as setting up another business, or even moving should they be so distressed.
Maybe I'm too optimistic or think too much of people, but I believe people are generally good at heart and will not tolerate such intolerance.
I'm inclined to believe the effect of public shaming will be magnified in the situation of Yakutat because of the low population and liklihood that all 808 residents are somewhat familiar with eachother.
Well... all I have to say is that I think Gaytor was comparing the attitude of some Libertarians to the attitude of religious fundies. I don't even think he was trying to say Libertarianism is like a religion.
I don't necessarily think we should redefine religion; I think it still makes sense in the context of a job. Yeah, a person religiously goes to work; they have a set of "beliefs and practices" they have to adhere to while on the job. In a way, you do have to get into a certain state of mind before you step into the office (or wherever)... so, I think it works. Although I still don't think it applies to atheism since atheism is simply a lack of a belief in ONE thing; there are no practices to follow devotedly. I guess individuals can make a big stink about their non-belief, but they should redefine what they're doing because you can't "do" atheism.