1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Against Libertarianism

Discussion in 'Other' started by fschmidt, May 28, 2017.

  1. Reewier

    Reewier Member

    It's usually people who never had to save that have cynical responses like that. Your evil modern culture allows you to be like that.
     
  2. Hailey

    Hailey Member

    At first libertarianism appealed to me. I always thought it would be nice to live in a world of personal freedom and social mobility for those with merit. At the start of America this was the case.

    I have since changed my position however. In protecting the rights of the people to earn what little they due compared to the elites in order to pass that down to their children. Well in doing that, they also protect the liberty of the elites to do the same thing... to pass on their dynasties generation after generation. If a poor person is born with good character and say 160 iq, this person will still not have a chance to become as powerful as say the current rothschild who holds the most power and money. Even if the Rothschild commits crimes against humanity. Even if the 160 iq person with good character makes discoveries that change the world (or would had they not been supressed). Democracy can not exist in a capitalist oligarchy. The steeple aren't really getting a vote, they just think they are. :mad:

    The oligarchy of capitalist democracy of the American republic is flawed, or this tragedy of rule by the few at the expense of most could not exist at all. Libertarianism supports the negative liberty that makes this scenario possible at the expense of the positive liberty that stands against it. The negative liberty is getting the right to make unlimited money and pass it down to your kids, and not have the government in your business even though you have all that money and therefore power. Positive liberty is giving everyone an equal shot. Only getting rich based on your merits rather then inheritance. Having oversight over everyone because 'everyone' would include the elites too.

    Hey don't get me wrong. I'm no liberal or communist. I see the flaws in every system out there and I'm just pointing out a few in libertarianism. You've got to give it to the communists though, the rothschilds, Rockefellers and the like have no power in say, China or Korea.
     
  3. Ruryse

    Ruryse Active Member Staff Member

    Rothschilds and the likes have become rich exactly because they had high enough intelligence, but not too high, so they're within the communication range with the people they control. A person with genius level intelligence will always suffer in such situations, it's the "proof of the pudding".

    Things are the way they are because they are on the path of the highest probabilities. When something feels flawed to me and I try to change it to my likings and I succeed, I added to that path of highest probabilities. The oligarchy and everyone else did so, too.

    I get what you're saying, but it rarely gets pointed out that being able to get rich, getting into power or acting like unreasonable assholes are all merits themselves. The upper part of the majority is the one that usually gets into positions like that, if we check it on the scale of general intelligence.

    They have their own list of such people, they're just not so well known.
     

Share This Page