The Libertarian Philosophy Is a Utopian Fantasy

Reader Comments
Back to blog

"Socialist Government worshipers assume that we want to revert to caveman days"
Wow, hypocrite much, and in the same sentence even! I love how you assume someone arguing from the opposite perspective is a socialist government worshiper.
Oh the irony

gerry of CT 7:08PM January 02, 2011

Looks from the site many of the major improvements of the last generation came from Libertarian thinking and action. Another is http://isil.org where they're having student seminars in the former USSR. Keep up the good work!

jim of FL 12:45PM December 30, 2010

To claim voluntary action is utopian and unrealizable on a web site where we're voluntarily having a discussion is truly something! For actual information on how world Libertarians are making a difference in promoting more voluntary alternatives, please see: http://www.Libertarian-International.org

ral of HI 8:18AM December 29, 2010

I don't think you did grow up. Your comment is completely childish. I love how Socialist Government worshipers assume that we want to revert to caveman days. ridiculous and stupid. Technology would not disappear , in fact there would be no "help" from government therefore developing technology might actually move at a faster pace in a Libertarian society as Big brother would not be regulating all the competition away and protecting the corporations that paid them to do so. Freedom and security are not opposite, and those willing to trade one for the other will have neither. To argue from the viewpoint of Socialist Government is a losing battle, the philosophy just doesn't hold up.

paul of TX 8:13AM December 29, 2010

Oh, I really wasn't aware that Freedom of Expression and religion were now all suddenly considered fringe ideas. Guess I better move back to Kentucky!
http://apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm
http://mises.org/daily/4497
"For Rose and Peters are neoconservative political scientists, and as such they have a simplistic message on which they ring the changes almost endlessly. The message is that if the government tries to do too much — as it has in recent years — it will become "politically bankrupt," i.e., it will lose its "authority" among the public. And that, Rose and Peters believe, is about the very worst thing that could happen in the whole world.
At first, the message seems sensible enough, if scarcely original, but here it is handled with boring repetition. For surely governments should not try to take on more than they can accomplish, should not run up expenses that will prove unacceptable when it comes time to collect taxes or to incur the deficits necessary to pay for them, etc. In handing out benefits to the public — and to themselves — governments do tend to undervalue or not to examine the costs.
So words of caution, even if pretty banal and repetitious, are always useful, one would think. It is irritating, however, to see the authors bowdlerize the original Robert Heinlein phrase, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" (TANSTAAFL) to their own non-U motto, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." It is still more irritating for the authors to refer repeatedly to the "world recession of the 1970s" as making their message important, when that recession has been over for the past three years."
Not to mention principles like universal justice.
"Please keep taking care of my security and stop the big bad criminals & muslims, from cradle to grave like a good mother."
What a complete piece of hogwash!
Keep spinning your hole Vich, it appears that you just can't even contain your rage over the rise of freedom in America....

A Republic If YOu Can Keep It of UT 6:05AM December 29, 2010

Laissez-faire is no utopian fantasy. The original American system was very, very close to it. Exceptions: slavery (of course), compulsory taxation, eminent domain.
Contrary to the historical record of near-socialism--which is misery, stagnation and horror--near-capitalism produced happiness, unprecedented progress, and public safety.
The closer a system is to the socialist ideal, the more people flee it. The closer to laissez-faire capitalism, the more people try to move there.

Harry Binswanger of NY 10:57PM December 28, 2010

aggravating Libertarian purists... They wouldn't last a minute in a society such as they espouse. Club and fang isn't a pretty sight. Security and freedom are opposites - one must give up some of one for the other. It is maintaining the balance that becomes tricky.
I once had a boat named, "John Galt" - before I grew up.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 9:50PM December 28, 2010

Anyone actually interested in what Rand had to say should read the relevant essay. Contrary to one poster's comment, Rand did not regard compassion (read benevolence) or charity as a weakness or a vice.
Again, don't take my word for it; discover for yourself Ms. Rand wrote.

Dan of TX 7:39PM December 28, 2010

If you take my money without my permission for any reason whatsoever, you are stealing it. It makes zero difference whether you are a street mugger or the government (albeit they would have different motives). Theft is theft. No amount of posturing, politicizng, name calling, or anythng else can change that simple fact. I will give to whomever I chose to, support whatever sharities I chose to, and help others whenever I can. But I will not allow this government to steal my hard-earned money to give out like candy for any reason they deem "necessary" or "for the good of society".

DrJoel1 of OH 7:05PM December 28, 2010

R.L. Shaefer of CA this is mainly directed towards you. You resulted to both ad-hominem and straw man logical fallacies in order to attempt to discredit libertarianism you have only discredited yourself and your argument.
First of all, Ayn Rand is NOT the high priestess of libertarianism, she's the high priestess of objectivism! There's an entire libertarian school of economics that broke away from Rand's teaching called the Austrian school.
Many of these libertarians don't see charity in the same light that Ayn Rand does and do partake in charitable donations when they see it fit. The thing that any libertarian will disagree with is the involuntary forced donation.
If you really believe that "sick, elderly, retarded, handicapped, poor and starving folks" need to be given wealth and resources which have been unwillingly plundered from people who do have such things (via welfare, socialized medicine etc) then you are immoral and a thief in the eyes of libertarians. I'm not charging you with such a belief but just saying exactly what it is about certain methods of "charity" and taking care of others that libertarians are opposed to.

Look4Rothbard of AZ 5:15PM December 28, 2010