General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy are libertarians such idiots?
I got into a discussion on Twitter (if you can call a couple of tweets a discussion) with this (apparent) libertarian type who insisted that businesses will not discriminate because it's bad for business. The conversation really started with a discussion of Arizona's law (or bill, if it hasn't been signed yet) that would allow discrimination against gays for "religious" reasons. Now, I realize sexual orientation is not one of the protected classes on the federal level or in most states (though I think it should be). I pointed out to this libertarian that it was perfectly acceptable to discriminate against African Americans or other ethnic groups at one time too.
Now, if I recall history correctly, discrimination was actually a feature, not a bug. Businesses that did not discriminate were few and far between at one time. Jackie Robinson could not even stay in the same hotel as his teammates. His argument was that the team should not have patronized those hotels. They could have found another that would. I seriously doubt that would have been true in the 1950's or that the Brooklyn Dodgers would have had the guts as an organization to make that stand. This guy I was arguing with was clearly ignorant of history, as are most libertarians and conservatives.
Yes, times have changed for the better, in that many people would protest businesses that discriminated against gays in the manner that the Arizona would allow. So there has been considerable progress even without having in enacted in federal law. But I don't think you can rely on businesses to do the right thing because it's best for the bottom line. I don't think that has ever been true. And I don't think it's true even now, with all the progress that has been made. The Civil Rights Act was necessary to enforce equal protection and equal access to public accommodations. And it still is.
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)Have you ever met a Libertarian that votes for Democrats?
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I assumed he was libertarian. He could have been a run-of-the-mill conservative who thinks we don't need laws. But what he was saying was very similar to what Rand Paul (I think) said on a few occasions.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)I bet he is just a flat out RWNJ
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So obviously one can sound exactly like both a Republican and Rand Paul.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)He smoked a lot of pot.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)that they are children wanting their way no matter what happens to anyone else. Rand Paul, Exhibit A.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)brush
(53,968 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)unblock
(52,442 posts)bill maher calls himself a libertarian but almost surely votes for democrats.
in real life, i'd say half the libertarians i know are left-libertarians, half are right-libertarians.
left libertarians focus on individual/civil liberties and therefore tend to be very left-wing in terms of rights of women, minorities, workers, etc., but differ from democrats in that they also tend to dislike government control.
right libertarians focus on rights and freedom for businesses, particularly (in their mind) small businesses. very much anti-red tape and government programs. as for individual liberties, they tend to focus more on gun rights but also care about search and seizure, privacy, etc. they vote republican mostly for the anti-tax and anti-regulation stance, even if they differ on individual liberties.
for whatever reason, there don't seem to be many vocal left-libertarian types in the public sphere, at least not compared to right-libertarians.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)alarimer
(16,245 posts)Is that what you mean?
I suppose if you really aren't very good at thinking critically, libertarians has aa great deal of appeal.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)It just feels much better when you are certain you know what's going on, so simple dogmas rule.
And that is the answer to the question: "Why are the simple-minded so attracted to Libertarianism".
Sort of Democracy for Dollars, easy and simple to understand, that's LIbertarianism..
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)It's in the job description.
Libertarianism itself is a philosophy constructed of idiotic doctrines, so only those who are capable of swallowing that pustulent corpus of theory are attracted to the system.
What else can you say of a belief system that finds its most compelling expression in a bad novel written by a pathetically unsuccessful psychopath?
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)Instead of calling libertarians "idiots," why not simply use factual information to refute neo-liberal talking points? Truth doesn't need to put down; it can stand on it's own. I think that's what you are referring to: not "libertarian" types, but neo-liberal economics.
Why make neo-liberal economic policy a "them" issue by painting it on libertarians, when the mainstream Democratic Party leans neo-liberal itself? It's not just a libertarian philosophy.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)an "emoprog?" What is an "emoprog," other than just one more name to call someone that might be intended as a put-down instead of discussing actual issues? I don't really understand what point you are making.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Let me know how it goes.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Who is "them?" Some group that makes you feel better to put down? Who, on this discussion board, am I supposed to "go talk to?"
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I've heard "emoprog" used as an insult here on DU quite a bit, almost always by the pragmatic moderate centrists against anyone to their left politically.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)They would call us effeminate, gay etc., if they thought it would work for them, but our feminist and LGBT friends have put the fear of God into them about that sort of thing. So we get these invented substitutes like "emoprog".
That is the basic argument being made, if you care about people, you are being emotional, like that was a bad thing.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)It says:
emoprog
Emoprogs make fake Democrats get their undies in a bunch because emoprogs insist that Democrats act like Democrats and not like Reagan Republicans. (I'm on board with that!!!!)
A pejorative used by hawkish, austerity-loving conservatives who think they're Liberals because they're not or barely not racist or anti-gay. (A perfect description of Randists - Libertarians).
Does that mean I'm an emoprog? Maybe so?
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)they're trying to boil us both in the same kettle.
But then, you're a good soul to share a kettle with.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Obviously, I'm some sort of right-winger.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)and an economic libertarian.
How many "real" libertarians belong to ACLU? (I do.)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)them.
social or left-libertarianism (which, I would wager, most of this place subscribes to, as do you and I) is not the same thing as broad-based small-l libertarian philosophy in general, which again is not the same thing as the big-L Libertarian Party.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)You need (at least) a 2-dimensional model to provide coordinates for political philosophies.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)"We must have a lot of libertarians on DU then ..."
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Go figure...
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I don't think so.
But I don't think the Democratic Party wants to leave anti-discrimination up to an individual business. His whole premise is incorrect. That business will not discriminate because it'll hurt their bottom line. We've seen with Chik-fil-A that people (ignorant, hateful people) go out of their way to patronize a place because they willfully discriminate against "the gays", which these hateful people approve of. I believe that without laws, people WILL actively discriminate, certainly in their hiring practices, if they could get away with it.
I will not mince words. I do think conservatives and libertarians are morons. Cold-hearted and selfish as well. Being nice never got us anywhere.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)de-regulation or any other kind of laissez-faire economic policy because the business model will do what's right has always been nonsensical. It's part of neo-liberalism, and, I'm sorry, but the prominent Democrats who get elected are neo-liberals. Whose watch will the TPP be shoved through on?
I don't need to mince words. If I want to express opinions about people, instead of facts about issues, I can be pretty harsh myself. I could spend all day ranting about other groups of people who disagree with my opinions.
What would be the point, though? Really? To make myself feel more important or powerful? What does putting others down achieve? If you disagree, why not go after the issue you disagree on, instead of indulging in masturbatory put-downs? Which is more likely to achieve something?
I don't really care about what group is currently served up for attack; I'm not going to attack nor defend "libertarians," but I'll confront them, and any other group, on specific issues when they're wrong. I think it's bad protocol, and indicates a weak position, to attack people as a group in a forum where they're not the intended audience. That's my opinion.
Here's the issue I'm posting about: civil discourse as protocol for open discussions, and hopefully having more maturity about expressing opinions and disagreements than a bunch of adolescent middle school cliques backstabbing each other. As a matter of fact, being a middle school teacher, I often see my students engaging each other more maturely than many "conversations" here at DU, and that is telling, considering the immature level of brain development the adolescent operates from.
At least they have a legitimate excuse.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)But wouldn't it also allow for discrimination against races if someone said for example they don't want to serve a black individual because their religious feelings or whatever.
former9thward
(32,123 posts)Sex orientation is not.
Arcanetrance
(2,670 posts)to all. You'd think if you ran a small business money would trump all else including your "religious beliefs"
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I don't think we even know what real "libertarianism" is in America. Whatever it is, I don't think it was ever supposed to mean a childishly simplistic view that somehow, if we did away with "government," we'd still have stability, infrastructure, and any semblance of justice or fair treatment ...because greed and an infant's short-term view of self interest is somehow the purest, most just human motivation.
Seems to me to be mostly a bunch of people who read Ayn Rand freshman year and have it pretty good because Daddy made a lot of money somewhere, who don't understand why we have to pay taxes and curb capitalism's tendency to dump mercury in the water supply and improve the bottom line by scheming new ways to exploit workers.
And this whole inversion of "religious freedom" as the right to discriminate against groups is a classic logical turd from the American Dumbgencia. It's an extension of the same zero-sum fallacy that rationalizes every kind of greed and cruelty. "If things are better for X, then by definition, they are worse for me."
They're panicking now because they fear if someone outside their tribe isn't on the bottom of the social heap, THEY might be the bottom.
Archae
(46,369 posts)"If you put a libertarian in a room alone, there will be an argument,
I like this cartoon:
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,250 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)Springslips
(533 posts)Is that I could swear to god that those types look just as depicted. Whoever did that nailed it!
hunter
(38,341 posts)Raping people too drunk to consent, posting "ex" pictures on the internet..., etc.
A fair number of "creepy libertarians" have posted on DU.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)the last one ... yep.
The_Commonist
(2,518 posts)The believe in magic and fairy tales.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts). . . and not much of a goal due to selective interpretation of their own tenets:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Libertarianism
Libertarian business structures greatly resemble government hierarchies, even military hierarchies in the case of Taylorism. It seems contradictory to opine that citizens do not need rulers while maintaining that workers need managers; libertarians claim this is fine because joining a business is voluntary, although some critics of libertarianism would point out that changing jobs is not always possible, and that this argument would only be applicable if there actually were an abundance of businesses without such hierarchies who are hiring,[13] and that resigning is not an option because (especially when there is no welfare state) it may result in them being unable to afford food, water, housing, etc. In other words, this type of "freedom" means "the freedom to choose one's own masters or to starve under a bridge."
(snip)
For similar reasons, libertarianism is a circular argument. Libertarians speak of "property" and "contract," as if these legal ideas somehow had meaning in the absence of law. In fact, property has always been the creation of a lawmaker, and therefore some sort of a government. Much valuable wealth in civilized countries takes the form of such things as publicly traded stock and "intellectual property," all of which were obviously called into being by law. The same holds true of contracts; the lawmaker gets to choose which agreements are enforceable by law and which are not.
Libertarians like to ignore certain periods of history such as the Gilded Age, where libertarian ideas were widespread and in effect ("No, it was crony capitalism!" or recast them as a golden age. This can lead to lots of lulz; like thinking Abraham Lincoln was the spawn of Satan.
The aforementioned "Non-Aggression Principle" isn't quite as clear as many libertarians make it sound. Libertarians support force to hold up a system of property, a system which required force to be created (ask any indigenous person) and requires force to be maintained. Take fraud, for example. If a man is found to have lied to his health insurance company about a pre-existing condition, the police (in libertarian parlance, "Men with Guns" will use force against him. Libertarians call this "retaliatory force" and frame the acts by the sick man as initiating force which makes for a nice game of mental gymnastics.[19] Note that you may not use the same rationalizations to frame racism, or sexism, or union-smashing as force, (and their solutions as retaliatory force) since those are things libertarians are apparently okay with.
What, exactly, is the goal? If maximizing individual freedom is what you're after, or even securing maximal protection for enumerated freedoms, you do realize that your boss is a bigger threat to your freedom of speech, or freedom to practice your religious faith, than the local police or your local government, don't you? Libertarianism is too selective in the freedoms it chooses to protect.
You are reading this page using something originally created by the big, bad gummint. And not only was ARPANET (the predecessor for the Internet) developed by and for the US military, but the first non-DOD Internet services were in two colleges, including the public UCLA. The HTTP and WWW protocols that make the Internet work? Yeah, that was developed by workers at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research), which is almost entirely funded by various governments. HTML, the language that most websites are scripted in (including this one) was also developed by CERN researchers.
Warpy
(111,418 posts)who are incapable of learning the very clear lessons of history, that businesses will discriminate against any group they've been given permission to.
I grew up in the Jim Crow south. I know what the reality of the situation is.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Most Libertarians are selfish hypocrites.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)But that word had a different meaning back then.
Ron Green
(9,823 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 23, 2014, 05:29 PM - Edit history (1)
idiosyncrasy, idiom), and you find that it means "in one's own world, disconnected from others," and so on.
So there you have it. It's an apt term.
MMcGuire
(121 posts)idendoit
(505 posts)Let alone a wider view of the world.
WhiteTara
(29,730 posts)they believe.
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)Because you disagree with them.
PoliticalPothead
(220 posts)Aren't libertarians supposed to be against the government? Who do they think is going to enforce these laws? If a gay person refuses to leave they'll have to call the big bad gubment to come get rid of them.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Especially a small business owner should be able to discriminate in any way they choose. They claim that otherwise the business owner's rights are being violated. They truly believe that crap.