That is hysterical. I've equated libertarianism with plutocracy, though most of the libertarians aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to realize where it leads.
Thanks, Davi, that's not bad. Did you make that, or did someone else? Regardless, do you endorse its views? Or does the "About" tab of the "Free Action Network" fairly represent your views?
Like I said, it's not bad, but judging it also depends on how seriously one takes the original and the revamp. It's not really a "rebuttal," since as Tristero's put it, pretty much everything good about libertarianism already exists in liberalism, and liberals oppose both authoritarianism and the more idiotic strains of libertarianism. Many of the revamped panels express views already satirized in the original – and the revamped panels often don't address the issues raised in the original. For instance, what is the libertarian solution for unsafe or poisonous food, products, pollution, etc.? (Raised by the "Caveat Emptor" panel in the original.) The "Nanny Stater" revamp attacks an outright ban on smoking, which doesn't exist in America, while not addressing warning labels or secondhand smoke. What is the libertarian solution for exploitation and/or discrimination by "private" entities – or is there none? (Raised in part by the "Whitey" panel in the original, and the question Rand Paul didn't want to answer.) Do you believe that taxation is theft, as the revamp suggests in several panels, or only taxation that relates to social spending, basic prosperity and public goods/works? (Raised by "The Island" in the original, among others.)
Some self-described libertarians, such as Glenn Reynolds, are authoritarians, and many others are pretty garden variety conservatives who like to be seen as independents, and independent thinkers. Others exist who are more sincere. Many adore Ayn Rand, some accept part of her views, and a small number reject her. (Then there's the breakdown on Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg.) The more thoughtful view Hayek as a useful gadfly in small doses, even he got many important issues "stunningly wrong" (but was nonetheless more liberal than many of his devotees). If you have an essay/post describing your world view/political philosophy, feel free to link it and I'll try to check it out. But Michael Tomasky does a pretty good job of explaining the limited value - and the extreme limitations - of libertarianism as it's usually practiced. There's also Belle Waring's classic "If Wishes Were Horses, Beggars Would Ride -- A Pony!" and "Libertarian Paradise" video. Thanks for stopping by.
3 comments:
It's funny cause it's true.
That is hysterical. I've equated libertarianism with plutocracy, though most of the libertarians aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to realize where it leads.
Thanks, Davi, that's not bad. Did you make that, or did someone else? Regardless, do you endorse its views? Or does the "About" tab of the "Free Action Network" fairly represent your views?
Like I said, it's not bad, but judging it also depends on how seriously one takes the original and the revamp. It's not really a "rebuttal," since as Tristero's put it, pretty much everything good about libertarianism already exists in liberalism, and liberals oppose both authoritarianism and the more idiotic strains of libertarianism. Many of the revamped panels express views already satirized in the original – and the revamped panels often don't address the issues raised in the original. For instance, what is the libertarian solution for unsafe or poisonous food, products, pollution, etc.? (Raised by the "Caveat Emptor" panel in the original.) The "Nanny Stater" revamp attacks an outright ban on smoking, which doesn't exist in America, while not addressing warning labels or secondhand smoke. What is the libertarian solution for exploitation and/or discrimination by "private" entities – or is there none? (Raised in part by the "Whitey" panel in the original, and the question Rand Paul didn't want to answer.) Do you believe that taxation is theft, as the revamp suggests in several panels, or only taxation that relates to social spending, basic prosperity and public goods/works? (Raised by "The Island" in the original, among others.)
Some self-described libertarians, such as Glenn Reynolds, are authoritarians, and many others are pretty garden variety conservatives who like to be seen as independents, and independent thinkers. Others exist who are more sincere. Many adore Ayn Rand, some accept part of her views, and a small number reject her. (Then there's the breakdown on Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg.) The more thoughtful view Hayek as a useful gadfly in small doses, even he got many important issues "stunningly wrong" (but was nonetheless more liberal than many of his devotees). If you have an essay/post describing your world view/political philosophy, feel free to link it and I'll try to check it out. But Michael Tomasky does a pretty good job of explaining the limited value - and the extreme limitations - of libertarianism as it's usually practiced. There's also Belle Waring's classic "If Wishes Were Horses, Beggars Would Ride -- A Pony!" and "Libertarian Paradise" video. Thanks for stopping by.
Post a Comment