Something Awful makes fun of libertarians

Tell me, what have the libertarians actually accomplished? Anything, anything at all?

Capital L, not much directly. Small el, quite a lot. Alan Greenspan has a chapter or two about money in one of Ayn Rand's books, and she looked somewhat favorably on Ronald Reagan while he was in California.

Those two are pretty much the core of the biggest economic changes in the last 30 years.

Many in the Republican party are libertarian leaning, indeed it's two main coalitions are the religious conservatives and the libertarian-leaners. Many of the latter support partial or full drug legalization.
 
Look at the etymology of the word, and its use elsewhere in the world.

Oh bwa-ha-ha-ha, argument from etymology. :D

Look at the etymology of the word "villain". Now try telling me that therefore nowadays it means "peasant" and not "miscreant".

What utterly impoverished bollocks of a pseudo-argument is this? Argument from etymology is a no-go from the very start, since hundreds of words in English now have meanings at odds with their etymology.


No, there wasn't a Libertarian Party, then. But they were libertarians.

Bollocks.
 
This is pure rubbish; "liberal" does not equal "libertarian".

Jerome's efforts here remind me of when the Russian Soviets tried repeatedly claiming that all major technological inventions had been first invented by the Soviets, or at least by Russians, way before anyone else.

Jerome The Gnome, the Founding Fathers were not libertarians. Get over it, and get on with life.


You are aware that the meanings of words change over time, are you not?

Do you think the word liberal means the same thing today as it did 200 years ago? In fact, in America at least, it means quite the opposite.
 
Oh bwa-ha-ha-ha, argument from etymology. :D

Words are how ideas are expressed through writing. Understanding the meanings of the words used in necessary to understand the meanings of the ideas presented. If you are going to choose what others intention are when they use words, ignoring explanations of such, you are expressing that you have zero desire to think beyond your own thoughts.
 
Words are how ideas are expressed through writing. Understanding the meanings of the words used in necessary to understand the meanings of the ideas presented.

However, the meanings of words are not their histories, and vice versa.

The words "loyal" and "legal," for example, are not synonyms despite nearly identical etymology. Almost none of the "nurses" working in a hospital today are currently lactating, and "calculus" is a branch of mathematics, not a small stone.

And "liberals" are not "libertarians" and never have been. In fact, the fundamental liberal idea that the government should act as an agent to protect the basic rights of humanity is absolutely anathema to the Libertarians, who recognize no rights but Property.


If you are going to choose what others intention are when they use words, ignoring explanations of such, you are expressing that you have zero desire to think beyond your own thoughts.

And if you are going to chose your words to mean something that no other speaker of the language understands them to mean, you are expressing that you have zero desire to tell the truth.

Which is, unfortunately, also a fairly common Libertarian trait.
 
Last edited:
However, the meanings of words are not their histories, and vice versa.

There are when talking about history.


And "liberals" are not "libertarians" and never have been. In fact, the fundamental liberal idea that the government should act as an agent to protect the basic rights of humanity is absolutely anathema to the Libertarians, who recognize no rights but Property.

You seem to be confusing libertarian with anarchy.

From Webster:

libertarian: an advocate of the doctrine of free will

anarchy: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
 
Look at the etymology of the word "villain". Now try telling me that therefore nowadays it means "peasant" and not "miscreant".
Bad analogy. Libertarian does in fact have a number of different usages and meanings. Villain doesn't. Peasant would be an archaic use of the word.

Libertarianism is a broad spectrum of political philosophies, each sharing the common overall priority of maximum limitation of government combined with optimum possible individual liberty. Its goals, though often varied in detail, prioritize freedom of speech and assembly, freedom to bear arms, freedom of and from religion, Press freedom, economic freedom, and freedom of ownership. Libertarianism rejects the compulsions of socialism and communism, upholding, by contrast, private property, whether held on an individual or group basis. It promotes personal responsibility and private charity, as opposed to welfare statism.
Sounds famliar. :)

Short Definitions of Libertarianism
 
Last edited:
This is beginning to sound like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy in which unless the person in question has never compromised libertarian values in any way shape or form, they aren't really a libertarian and thus libertarianism has accomplished nothing.

In the same fashion, some people like to claim that there's never been a communist government.
 
This is beginning to sound like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy in which unless the person in question has never compromised libertarian values in any way shape or form, they aren't really a libertarian and thus libertarianism has accomplished nothing.

In the same fashion, some people like to claim that there's never been a communist government.

Spot on.
 
Words are how ideas are expressed through writing.
Whatever happened to speech?

Understanding the meanings of the words used in necessary to understand the meanings of the ideas presented.
D'oh
If you are going to choose what others intention are when they use words, ignoring explanations of such, you are expressing that you have zero desire to think beyond your own thoughts.
More bollocks. The English language is the English language is the English language, no matter what kind of Doublespeak libbies may want to try on.
 
This is beginning to sound like a "No True Scotsman" fallacy in which unless the person in question has never compromised libertarian values in any way shape or form, they aren't really a libertarian and thus libertarianism has accomplished nothing.

Not at all. It is saying that unless a person is a libbie to a significant degree, then it's sheer nonsense to try claiming that they are a Libertarian.

The only good example given so far is Greenspan, who is quite libertarian in his thoughts though not his actions. Reagan, for all his propaganda, was not a libbie at all, and the Founding Fathers were very far from being libbies. It's completely crap to try claiming the Founding Fathers were libertarian, and only points to the impoverishment of accomplishment of libertarians; the fact they have acheived absolutely nothing (Greenspan never acted on libertarian values, he only spouted them) has led to the libbies trying desperately to claim some sort of legitimacy for themselves by stealing the cloak of the Founding Fathers. It's pathetic.
 
Oh bwa-ha-ha-ha, argument from etymology. :D

Look at the etymology of the word "villain". Now try telling me that therefore nowadays it means "peasant" and not "miscreant".

I wasn't talking about "nowadays". I was talking about then.

What utterly impoverished bollocks of a pseudo-argument is this? Argument from etymology is a no-go from the very start, since hundreds of words in English now have meanings at odds with their etymology.

If villain meant peasant at some point in time, then the etymology is quite relevant to discussions about that time period.


Bollocks.
How about a neologism for your last "argument"?: Argumentum ad Glutaeus

The etymology will be quite relevant here.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't talking about "nowadays". I was talking about then. .... The etymology will be quite relevant here.

Tell me, did the Founding Fathers ever claim to be libertarians or to represent libertarian philosophy?

If they did, you have a point.

If they didn't, it's utter bollocks yet again.
 
And more:

Of the Founding Fathers, Franklin freed his slaves and later became an abolitionist, which makes him a hell of a lot more moral than the libertarians, who in a stunning example of Doublespeak often defend slavery -- both today and in the past as with the odious Stephen A. Douglas.
 
Last edited:
Tell me, did the Founding Fathers ever claim to be libertarians or to represent libertarian philosophy?

If they did, you have a point.

If they didn't, it's utter bollocks yet again.

Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery. The considerable investment of Southern Founders in slave-based staple agriculture, combined with their deep-seated racial prejudice, posed additional obstacles to emancipation."

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9437376/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery

Online Etymology Dictionary:

"liberal (adj.)
c.1375, from O.Fr. liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous," from L. liberalis "noble, generous," lit. "pertaining to a free man," from liber "free," from PIE base *leudheros (cf. Gk. eleutheros "free"), probably originally "belonging to the people" (though the precise semantic development is obscure), from *leudho- "people" (cf. O.C.S. ljudu, Lith. liaudis, O.E. leod, Ger. Leute "nation, people"). Earliest reference in Eng. is to the liberal arts (L. artes liberales; see art (n.)), the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical). Sense of "free in bestowing" is from 1387. With a meaning "free from restraint in speech or action" (1490) liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. Purely in ref. to political opinion, "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" it dates from c.1801, from Fr. libéral, originally applied in Eng. by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823."

"http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberal"

Liberalism, Wikipedia:

"The American War of Independence established the first nation to craft a constitution based on the concept of liberal government, especially the idea that governments rule by the consent of the governed. The more moderate bourgeois elements of the French Revolution tried to establish a government based on liberal principles. Economists such as Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), enunciated the liberal principles of free trade. The editors of the Spanish Constitution of 1812, drafted in Cádiz, may have been the first to use the word liberal in a political sense as a noun. They named themselves the Liberales, to express their opposition to the absolutist power of the Spanish monarchy."


More importantly, I invite you to look up Classical Liberalism or traditional liberalism, which is what the majority of the founding fathers were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

"Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3] Montesquieu, Voltaire,[4] Thomas Paine and others."
 
"George Bush is not a Libertarian and has never presented himself as anything of the like."

The founding fathers did not act against enforced slavery. Regardless of circumstances, this directly contradicts the entire Libertarian philosophy of free will and individual liberty.

The founding fathers were not Libertarians.
Wrong, somewhat. First off the D of I nearly was not agreed thanks to the disagreement about slavery. Secondly, the non slave states had different laws in re slavery than the slave states once the Constitution was signed. Founding Fathers, which were an eclectic group, compromised on slavery to get a nation off the track, and where they could, in some states, hardly supported it.

Minor nitpick complete.

DR
 
And more:

Of the Founding Fathers, Franklin freed his slaves and later became an abolitionist, which makes him a hell of a lot more moral than the libertarians, who in a stunning example of Doublespeak often defend slavery -- both today and in the past as with the odious Stephen A. Douglas.

Abolitionist and libertarian are not mutually exclusive terms.

What makes you think Stephen Douglas is a libertarian, or even a Founding Father?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom