Are libertarians mentally ill, evil, or just ignorant?
Libertarians literally promote anarchy; but not just anarchy , they want a corporatist society where corporations run the nation , there are no regulations of anything and everything is privatized. They essentially support the social Darwinist idea of “survival of the fittest” and think anyone who can’t become a millionaire or be independent should just die. In their world there would be child labor, unlimited work hours, no workplace safety regulations, no environmental regulations, no consumer protections, no labor rights, no unions, no government services. Police would be privatized if any, so would fire departments. Hospitals would be allowed to refuse treatment of patients who can’t pay, this letting the people die. Libertarians have a perverted view of the “free market”, they think the “freedom to die of starvation and poverty” is what should be the American dream.
How does this not fit the definition of a sociopath or of an evil person?
- Anonymous11 months agoFavorite Answer
- 11 months ago
Those are the right libertarians, and you're describing an Anarcho-Capitalist's views more than your average Bleeding Heart Libertarian's. Most libertarians just want less gov., less taxes, equality and liberty. Then of course you have your crazy "but what if the child consents?" AnCaps, but they are a small minority of the lib right.
However, if you assumed any of that of a left-leaning libertarian you'd be extraordinarily misinformed and probably would get yelled at. The left libertarians encompass the hippie, social democratic, Feel the Bern, average millennial type, but the lib left, like all other categories, contains the radicals, like the Anarcho-Communists.
However, I understand why you would think that libertarianism can easily be radicalized and is radicalized more often than some other ideologies. Libertarianism preaches that the individual is paramount to the nation or society as a whole, which might seem harmless, but it would make it entirely harder to keep order in a people when they believe that the government has no right to rule over them.
And to answer that last question, there are a lot of crazy people with crazy and insane ideas in politics. What might be a fine idea for a libertarian might be outrageous to an authoritarian. Point is, I have plenty of ideologies that I seriously don't agree with, like libertarianism, but it's all about getting used to the fact that we don't have thought police. Yet.
- Pearl LLv 711 months ago
depends on the person, everyone is different
- EisbärLv 711 months ago
Libertarians do NOT believe in anarchy. WTF? You don't even know what you're talking about and frankly, I am super sick of people like you attempting to pretend you know what a libertarian is, when you don't. And it's not just you far leftists, both far leftists and far rightists have corrupted the term, because of moronic ignorance.
Libertarianism was for hundreds of years called, "classical liberalism" however, the left then hijacked the term, and used it to describe having state controlled policies, which goes against the core principle philosophy of libertarianism, which supports decentralized power, egalitarianism (equal justice for all) and freedoms of thought, choice and non-interventionism in other people's business, including domestically and abroad.
It does not, however, support promotion of powerful private entities to violate the rights of others to be able to live freely, and not be able to have equal justice, freedom of thought, and freedom of choice. Your thought process is evidently too primitive to grasp that libertarians are against any form of having too much centralized power, regardless if this power is centralized to the government, or private sector.
We support laws that do not incentivize oppressing others, for self-gain, and instead promote fair civilized regulations that promote egalitarian opportunity for all, so it comes down to, more of a matter of your own hard work, and ambition, and choice, as opposed to not having such choice due to government or private corporate oppression.
Libertarians, and/or as previously called, "classical liberals" would include the likes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They did not support anarchy. They supported a well organized democracy, that promotes democracy, and encourages the fostering of an atmosphere allowing all who want to work hard and succeed to be able to, without stifling anybody else unfairly in the process.
For example, in modern context, libertarians believe that if you want to smoke pot and not harming anybody, then fine that's your choice, if you want to have an abortion, that's your choice, and we support that people have these choices, and not being barred by criminal laws from doing these things, as long as they do not burden others with their activities. Like, for abortion, have as many as you want, but don't be taxing others to pay for your abortion, and at a certain point, the baby is a baby capable of living outside the womb, and so should have its own rights being considered, that need to be looked after. So at least for me, having rights, are not indefinite. Your "rights" end when they begin to infringe on other people's "rights." In other words, you have "rights," but you do not have "rights" to harm others. And for vices, like using some illegal drugs, that are not inherently dangerous to use, like weed, smoke as much pot as you want, but don't be committing other crimes harming people due to your personal drug use. And even more dangerous drugs, although I don't support them being legalized, and certainly do not promote drug dealers taking advantage of people because of their addictive properties, I don't necessarily believe we should criminalize those that are using them, because most of the time, they're just sick, and its not something that should go through the courts. Those purposefully harming others trying to get people hooked, should be prosecuted, because they are oppressing people through personal greed, and directly harming others. But if just addicted, and using, that's something they need to address with medical intervention, not by the government as a punitive matter. So deregulation is not the same as anarchy, because we do support regulations when the said activity oppresses others unfairly, and especially when it then infringes on other people's freedoms of choice not to have to pay for your abortion, or be hit by a car, because somebody ran a red light, driving high on pot, etc. Make sense? Because if this does not make sense to you, then you obviously don't know what you're talking about, so need to stop acting like you know anything about it.Source(s): I'm a Libertarian for the reasons I specifically described
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- JeromeLv 611 months ago
Where the united survives without an identity but the individual dies with his dignity, I mean identity intact.
A selling or sacrifice of one's soul.
I am going with ill or evil. They are not ignorant. Indoctrinated maybe but not dumb.
- Anonymous11 months ago
The ignorance revealed here is all yours.
- PaladinLv 711 months ago
no, but thanks for caring enough to ask
- BobLv 711 months ago
Kinda interesting that this admin is deregulating everything and making rules for corporations so they can pollute more not less. Why do you people project everything the Republicans do onto the Democrats. You can't be so dumb you actually believe what you just wrote??