And This Is Why I Can't Embrace Libertarianism

[FArchivist]

The Onion posts satire about how Republicans vote to repeal Obama-backed bill that would destroy asteroid headed for Earth.

And the response of noted libertarian Sasha Volokh?

I think there’s a good case to be made that taxing people to protect the Earth from an asteroid, while within Congress’s powers, is an illegitimate function of government from a moral perspective.....On the other hand, if you could show that, once the impending asteroid impact became known, all hell would break loose and lots of rights be violated by looters et al. during the ensuing anarchy, I could justify the taxation as a way of preventing those rights violations; but this wouldn’t apply if, say, the asteroid impact were unknown to the public.

Yeah, fuck you, Sasha. Tell you what, we'll let the government save us in a government-sponsored moonbase or something and you can just stay on Earth and enjoy the die-off. We're all going to die but MAH LIBERTY and MAH TAX DOLLARS!

[HYHYBT]

Anything can be taken too far...

[Boozy]

I could never support libertarianism because the movement's golden boy, Ron Paul, is in favour of a return to the gold standard.

This shows a startling lack of understanding about basic economics and how the world works. I could never take anything they propose seriously.

[Rageaholic]

IDK, but that sounds like a more extreme version of liberatarianism.

Myself, I hold a liberatarian philosophy, but lean toward the left. You should be free to make choices without others interfering, but the choices you make shouldn't make choices for others (why rape and murder are bad). I think that's where the government should step in. There needs to be checks and balances, especially with regards to the economy. I don't want to government to have too much power, but I especially don't want corporations having too much power. At least with government, we have voting rights.

[Andara Bledin]

First off, as someone with libertarian ideals, it would really be nice if you would not confuse libertarianism with the Libertarian Party.

Even I can't get properly behind the Libertarian Party due to the continuing parade of honestly bizarre candidates and spokespeople.

Some of the worst of which go so far to the side of not interfering with others' lives that they start actively doing so themselves in the name of "protecting" others.

^-.-^

[FArchivist]

First off, as someone with libertarian ideals, it would really be nice if you would not confuse libertarianism with the Libertarian Party.

I don't. Professor Volokh is not just a member of the Libertarian Party, but is also one of the leading members of libertarian political philosophy today, the heir of Von Mises and Rothbard.

Some of the worst of which go so far to the side of not interfering with others' lives that they start actively doing so themselves in the name of "protecting" others.

So which type of libertarian are you? Minarchist libertarian? Anarcho-capitalist style? Conservative libertarian? Libertarian socialist?

[Hyena Dandy]

I love libertarianism, but corr, we do have a lot of loonies, don't we?

That said, saying someone is a leader in a movement doesn't mean they speak for everyone. Michelle Bachman is a leader in the Republican Party, but I don't think she speaks for Scott Brown any more than Scott Brown speaks for Michelle Bachman. Both prominent Republicans, but very different views.

[FArchivist]

I love libertarianism, but corr, we do have a lot of loonies, don't we?

To be honest, I also can't embrace libertarianism because of the following assumptions it makes:
- Austrian economics is correct because you cannot empirically measure economic activity
- that all people are rational actors in economics
- that more freedom is always good