Monday, July 18, 2016

REBUTTAL: Top Ten Libertarian Lies


I don't make blog based rebuttals often, but it seems like my good friend (sarcasm) Y2K wants to play. This is my rebuttal to his article: 


The libertarian movement has yet to falter, in fact the Libertarian Party is growing in membership and people who are identifying themselves as libertarians continues to grow consecutively. Hell, in 2012 the Libertarian Party broke ground for ALL third parties, as they've got the highest votes for a third party in modern history (yay for democracy? I figured you'd be noble enough to applaud that win for third parties, however you're not the slightest diplomatic, and claim I'm dogmatic, hilarious)

Donald Trump's rise was predictable, after all, the Republican Party seemed to love his rhetoric against Latinos and Muslims, and apparently capitalism, which hilariously, they totally ignored his support for single-payer, and his use of eminent domain so that the government cant unjustly seize property and give it to any business (and non-profit organizations) who garnered enough support (by the way since Bernie Sanders threw his support and endorsement to Hillary Clinton, maybe you should support Donald Trump too, since he's the farthest left you're going to get this election season, Y2K)

Bernie Sanders gained his support from waltzing into the Democratic Party, after his long run as an independent. It's quite difficult for reelecting the same party after the current party voters, who voted for Obama, have been getting a lot of scrutiny for Obama's actions. Not many democrats were up there to grab the torch this clown season; Bernie capitalized the dissent that Ron Paul garnered support from. Gary Johnson just happened to ride the wave all the way through.

Now let's get on with those lies... oh look at that, vagueness... "american libertarians"... hmm, this might be difficult. This is from my perspective as a Free Market Libertarian, and I'll maybe throw in some Statist rhetoric from positions of the Libertarian Party members.



#10 The Founding Fathers Were Libertarian

Many American mainstream Libertarians, or "Big 'L' Libertarians" hold close allegiances with the founding fathers of this nation. Quite frankly, if you were informed of the founders, the founders were completely and stunningly full of shit. They were slave owners, talked about freedom for all men except for blacks and other minorities, and let's not forget the ladies. They've even suggested that only the rich or those who owned property were allowed to vote. Let's call that our first American Lie...

The founders wanted to establish a new government, not to get rid of it entirely. As a free market libertarian, I support the abolition of government, I am not a minarchist, or any form of statist libertarian. 

The founding fathers themselves were classically liberal, just as some Libertarians (notice the big L) in the party claim to be. These Libertarians are aware of the support of taxation. It's illogical to state that Libertarians are completely against taxation when even Gary Johnson advocated to simplify the tax code by gutting the federal income tax completely and favoring a nationwide sales tax (with rebates, and exemptions on food and some essentials). Gary Johnson and many other members of the Libertarian Party and some republicans supported the FairTax.

America was never libertarian (little 'l') to begin with, and I personally haven't heard libertarians claim that the founders were libertarian, especially in my group of libertarian thinkers.

#9 The Problem Is Crony Capitalism, Not Capitalism

Crony capitalism is the problem. Capitalism and crony capitalism are two similar, but VERY distinctly different terms.

Capitalism, as defined by Merriam Webster, is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Crony Capitalism, as defined by Cambridge, is an economic system in which family members and friends of government officials and business leaders are given unfair advantages in the form of jobs, loans, etc.
As defined by Oxford Dictionaries, Crony Capitalism is an economic system characterized by close, mutually advantageous relationships between business leaders and government officials.
In a free market, government subsidies, grants, loans, tax breaks, eminent domain, etc. would not be permitted. That would go against competition in a free market, and using eminent domain, as an example would break the right to private ownership of property. You only highlighted deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, even though, overwhelmingly, Libertarians advocate to deregulate personal lives, social policy and to also give all people, regardless of their income, tax cuts. Free market libertarians advocate for no taxes period, thus not giving the opportunity for a government entity, which is given money through mandatory payment cycles that citizens must pay for, to give special favors to the well connected business leaders and union members.

Entirely different.

#8 Tax Cuts Trickle Down

If this 'lie' is more associated with conservatives rather than libertarians, then why even bring this up? Oh to prove an undying support of government, obviously. Yes, give us 60% taxes, raise our taxes more! Yes, a government with a long history of misusing money, not just for war, but for private-government partnerships like Solyndra, and Fisker Motors, etc. Revenue generation for a government who cannot even balance a balance sheet should not be supported, unless you have an undying faith to your government.

In a serious tip, this is clearly ridiculous, and in fact the trickle down is not even accurately defined til this day. Yet for shits and giggles, government grants and tax breaks for green energy companies (which is the starting point of trickling down, to give corporations breaks) have resulted in accelerating the use of greener alternatives to help self sufficiency in poorer communities. So the adoption of such can and will help poor individuals in the long run financially, and possibly in their health.

I'll give you that argument, that some private-public partnerships can help, however if oil and coal was never subsidized we'd all be driving electric cars.

There is no better transfer to those in need than to lower taxes on the middle class, and upper lower classes who cannot receive social benefits. Let's also perhaps stop purposely inflating our currency so that this government can generate extra revenue through the inflation tax. Inflation hurts the poorest of Americans far more than it hurts the rich, maybe perhaps the US government should try and get inflation under control, before any more government spending is used to 'stimulate the economy', or to subsidize bad economic decisions.

"Inflation is a tax..." - Ben Bernanke

#7 The Rich Deserve To Be Rich and The Poor Deserve To be Poor

"This is perhaps the most revolting libertarian lie, that the rich 'earned' their wealth, and that the poor are just lazy." - Y2K

What... what prominent libertarian thinker of the modern age and present day ever said this specifically, please tell me who? Also if they did say this, did you cherry-pick their statements and didn't take into account any other arguments that they may have made regarding jobs, automation, supply and demand, etc.?

Wages remain stagnant because producing certain products became easier, or because there is too much supply (low-skilled, and low educated-workers) in the wage market. Automation has also a significant effect on both wages and job availability, basics of supply and demand. Why, in our right mind, should we be holding onto the same wages in those worthless jobs when those certain jobs are actually overly saturated with individuals looking for work? When minimum wage is increased to compensate for stagnation, many businesses either decided to cut hours, cut benefits, or fire the employee outright and replace them either with nothing, or a robot or a touchscreen device where customers can be their own cashier (as an example). Lets take into account the inflation tax in your other "lie".

Also let's take into account globalization and the fact that the USA's economy is slowing down and becoming less competitive in comparison to growing economies, and developing markets who are just now becoming a bigger impact on the global market and are increasing the wages for their lowest earners, like China, India, Chile, Brazil, etc. Economies do NOT function in a vacuum.

As for the gender pay gap, you'd probably enjoy this. Lets also throw this in here, women, statistically, have a higher liability than men do, you know... pregnancy and mandatory paid leave and all that, which is exclusive to women and the possibility of this occurring unplanned.

Welfare coupled with terrible economic policy, like the failed drug war, creates an under-market of buying and selling food stamp cards, while relying on black-market income to not have to pay any further taxes or file any income that may restrict any extra benefits to be given to certain people who do these exact practices. I personally know from experiencing this living in the slums of Hartford, CT (for some time, which is also my hometown) and spending my time in the ghettos here in Orlando, FL. Anecdotal, but yes this does happen, and it happens more often than people think.

#6 Government Is Tyrannical

Many individuals in my camp blame voters just as much as 'The Man' for allowing the politicians to create these laws which hamper both the poor and our own 'disgusting capitalist views', lets not forget reelection rates.

We've seen how well democracy plays out, if the majority are nothing but racists and low IQ voters, then we'll get racist policies, and worthless feelgood legislation to appease the majority who voted for the policy makers. What about the ideals of war, and media propaganda which manipulates the minds of the public to be in favor to coerce the minority (who are against war) to pay for a mandatory tax to fund said war. Is democracy really that amazing, especially knowing how impulsive and trigger happy American politicians are towards those holding different views in other countries?

Conflict will always exist, I agree, not everyone can be pleased, however allowing for the majority to dictate how an individual should walk, drive their car, choosing whether or not they should bake cakes for a movement they disagree with isn't what 'democracy' should be, but it is. It is immoral for anyone to be forced to do anything they do not want to do; coercion for taxes, fines, and the threat of kidnapping (imprisonment) should be condemned, especially for an individual simply saying no.

Property rights seems to be far more popular than no property rights... just saying.

Votes in "our system" can be dollars, but the true votes are the ultimate decisions of an individual in whom or what they support, not a collective. Individuals expose tyranny, the collective acts on the information and the actions of the individuals involved.

#5 Libertarians Are Against Big Government

What illogical drivel are you spewing here?

Defending property rights can be legislated in a few simple texts, that is entirely different than taking someone else's property and funding someone else, and then taxing both of them to then fund a corporation, a pointless war, etc, and then inflating the currency to generate even more revenue to keep up with rising welfarism and pointless government expenditures. Big government is exactly this, small government is protecting the basic rights of man, of which an individual can and will always be capable of defending their own subjective rights in adherence to their ideals of natural rights. A centralized government is not necessary to defend property rights.

If you want to look at it from a totally purist sense, then sure, I agree. There is no government like no government. All governments are tyrannical in the purist moralist sense. Want to go with purism, then taxation is theft. Be consistent.

#4 Libertarians Are Against Aggression, Violence, and Force

Do you even N.A.P. bro?

If you actually understood the libertarian position about aggression then you wouldn't be writing this "Lie". Libertarians are against the initiation of force. If an IRS agent comes into my home without my approval they explicitly became a threat to me and the other members of the household. If they proceeded to take cash, then they explicitly stole money from my private quarters. If people steal anything, just as those living in the ghettos, they would be condemned, and if they were caught by gunmen or anything similar they will likely be shot or harmed. This is inherent in reality, stealing is wrong even if its used for a good cause.

If a lone thief stole my money just to pay for their mothers health problems, that is rightfully wrong, and I have every right to defend myself from threats, and I also have the right to defend my property.

How about, Y2K, I come to your house and take all your belongings and I take your phone and any electrical devices. I'll just take it without question, would that be wrong of me to do? Would you defend yourself with violence, litigation, etc.? I'm quite sure you'll choose a way to defend your property.

#3 Libertarians Are Moderates and Social Liberals

I don't consider myself fiscally conservative, and socially liberal (which is different than social liberalism), clearly as Gary Johnson explains what he means by this in many interviews he's had. Fiscal conservatism is about money management, lowering taxes, and balancing a balance sheet. When Gary Johnson states that he is "Socially Liberal", he is referring to social and personal policy (not specifically about finances and the redistribution of wealth, that is apparent if you'd actually pay attention to his statements instead of cherry-picking his generalizations), in other words, he supports the right for gays to get married, for polygamists to marry how many people they want, he supports that people should be free to use marijuana recreationally, etc.

#2 A Deregulated Market Helps The Poor And The Middle Class

The gilded age, oh goody. Well it is an utter fact that prior to the Gilded Age Americans, and the global citizens as a whole, were earning even LESS than the conditions during the gilded age which accelerated American production and increased American wages, while dramatically increasing the value of the American Currency (backed by gold) thus ensuring that America was the most productive nation the planet has seen and rising quickly in GDP, while lowering the costs of living; Majorly providing luxury goods like cars (which were built long before the 1900s) to poorer citizens (then the progressive era came, and with the help of a partly deregulated auto market, citizens were able to buy more luxury goods more often because of Henry Ford's assembly line).

The industrial workers were valued at 2$/hr you say, well since the gold back currency of the time was backed by 25.8 grains of gold (1.6718 grams), or roughly 1/20th (.05897 Ounces accurate to grains) of an ounce, then the industrial workers would be valued today at a very generous rate of around $78.50/hr.

The long depression is actually a mixed bag, deregulation was not the cause of the long depression, in fact there were large private-government partnerships with the railway companies which increased speculation. There were also significant events in the USA and abroad which caused the panic of 1873 such as the losses of property in Chicago (1871), and the Boston Fires of 1872. Let's not forget Northern Germany's victory against the French in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 which greatly increased investment speculation for Austrian and German businesses respectively. The Vienna stock exchange crashed in 1873 which sent a rippling effect throughout the western world.

The New Deal, coming full circle I see from our past conversation on the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era. We all know that the standard of living for all Americans were increasing from the beginning of the Gilded age to the rise of the Progressive Era. There's a key detail of poverty and GDP growth which is not (unsurprisingly) included with your entire thesis: Military Keynesian practices which coincidentally enough decreased unemployment, increased women employment, and dramatically increased GDP growth, this is an inherent truth. From the start of World War 1, to the end of the Progressive Era, the US government exponentially grew its military force and expanded funding for military research and proceeded  further invasions of small third world countries.

The Marginal tax rates during the progressive era were never paid in such a high rate due to many tax breaks and credits that were in place, the effective tax rate of the progressive era was significantly lower, and today the tax burden on the rich has increased. The marginal tax rate is always a key element of talking points, but I think the effective rate, and the burden of tax payment is far more significant.

Also the Scandinavian countries are doing quite successful because of ease of trade, not because of taxes and revenue generation. Switzerland for example (as a European nation) has more economic freedom than the USA. Lets also note that in many Scandinavian countries they are not diverse with many different cultures of people, in fact it's quite the opposite. Luxury goods within some of those nations are vastly over priced, and would be a scandal here in the USA.

In those Scandinavian countries, like Norway, it seems to be that they would much rather control what you do by manipulating the prices of goods, and to ensure those who are outsiders cannot enjoy a simple vacation in the Norwegian lands without spending a few hundred thousand dollars just to inflate the governments financial holdings. Norway is no vacation spot, or a desirable (financially reasonable) place to visit unless you have millions of dollars in your bank account.

#1 Libertarians Love Freedom

In the purist sense of the meaning, sure I'll give you that we say we love freedom but don't agree with all of it. Obviously, having the freedom to kill someone unjustly is entirely against our beliefs (going back to the initiation of force spin you tried to promote as fact).

If you say that a woman, who has a full time job, cannot afford to pay groceries, thus she has no freedom, then that is rather a slippery slope; In FACT, the woman can have the option to grow food within her own household, or raise livestock and become self sufficient. There are options in the marketplace, which many people don't really want to do, even if they are poor, and that is an inherent choice by those living in poverty. She also has another option of becoming an artist, or a creator of something and sell her work and creations to the public to any lucky buyer, in order to generate extra revenue for any investments, or necessities she would want. She has choices, and those choices were always there. It is about responsibility and the drive to succeed and try something different to rise out of poverty. (How did my father get to America, from Peru, with little cash and ended up becoming a successful business owner in the construction field? By the way who builds roads? Me, my pops, our colleagues, hell we can build you an entire skyscraper with us and our associates.)

If there is a sick child, quite frankly, healthcare is not a right, we weren't born with the skills of rapid regeneration, we are not experiments, and not Deadpool, OK? Those born with physical disabilities, or mental problems can tell you this exact point, I was born with "Pectus Excavatum". They too have the option (in some degree of functional bodies) to seek for alternative forms of income. If someone is truly sick, we have the internet to grant them a bigger voice, and their friends can share the word to those who would invest in that child's future. A child being sick has a lot to do with how the parents take care of themselves, and how they take care of their own child (even prior to being born). I quite frankly do have family members with disabilities, and I would much rather keep my own money to assist them, or assist the family than to help some random child get healthcare. Does that make me an asshole? I think saving those who I know personally and can trust more is important. If I have money to spare after helping my family and friends, and also enjoying my own free-time with the money I earned, then perhaps I can donate money to whomever I choose. Which I do give the homeless cash, or feed them when I get a chance to (so I'm still greedy for wanting to keep my money)?

A private college is private. "I think race minorities should be able to attend any place they want to just because they are minorities?" basically a simplification to your argument not just exclusive to college. I myself am Latino, I explicitly do not want to associate with those who do not want to associate with me. Why is it important for a black man to go into a school system which hates him, and is forced to educate him just because hes black and he wants to go to that specific college. Why would he purposely put himself in a position where others are against him? Why are you advocating for this? Want tension between races? Want tension because you think the black man is entitled to be educated by a racist man? What is the point? Equality? Again, I ask, why would a black man choose to go into a school system that hates him, its illogical and quite frankly a reckless educational investment chosen by the black man. Why not choose a more liberal (traditional meaning) school which accepts him, his views, and his opinions? There are other options than the racist school. The freedom to associate is important, when you force people to associate with one another, that causes tension to increase, no matter how you spin it.

Mandated help is not needed, I again personally help others myself. I know where my money is going and thus choosing for myself where I think my investments or donations best go to. I think I have the right, as the one who sweat and bled for this money to ultimately choose for myself where it should go. In America, taxes go to pay off the interest rates of supposedly 'our' debt, to fund war programs, and imprison nonviolent drug offenders. Everything else is put on credit. Why would I support an unstable situation, when I can choose for myself who to donate to.

The one who should be embarrassed is you, I think you've embarrassed yourself enough, Y2K.


What revolution?
What you advocate is devolution of the market place back to more centralized oligopolies. You advocate for more corporate-government policies, while ironically enough railing against corporations. Your arguments are inconsistent with logic. I'm quite aware that you also support crony capitalism.

What makes your advocacy for the welfare system any different than the 'evil capitalists' who you oppose?