Comments on: Paradox of Libertarianism

By: Bithead

Bithead — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:30:56 +0000

(Sigh) I'm not going to get into debating theology with you, here but, when you paraphrased, you changed the meaning. That to my mind, constitutes a misquote. Points in response, for the benefit of the remaining readers and clarity: *The comment was not about the rich being evil, and not getting into heaven while bring rich, it was about Priorities, in the context of "seek first the kindom of God" ....an adjacent phrase in that narative which most people with the worldview you apparently espouse, tend to ignore. * You go further astray on the specifics, when you seemingly equate the Rich giving up their riches, as having the snot taxed out of them, to support some moron's idea of 'the greater good'. Did Jesus say we should give all our money to the government? No, he drew a rather distinct line between the two saying 'give unto Ceaser which is Ceaser's, and unto God which is God's. Government isn't even remotely involved in the process he's speaking of. out.

By: fiskhus jim

fiskhus jim — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:07:03 +0000

Commenter in repeated violation of site policies deleted and banned.

By: fiskhus jim

fiskhus jim — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 17:18:01 +0000

Actually, I did NOT misquote Jesus - I paraphrased ( Portion of comment in violation of site policies deleted.) Jesus's advice to the rich, young ruler, where he actually said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven. And that comment was made in the context of Jesus's instruction to the RYR to give up his riches and follow Jesus. Clearly, the lesson to take away is that the rich must give up their riches in order to follow Jesus. Portion of comment in violation of site policies deleted. Editor's note: Future violations along these lines will result in the comment being deleted and the commenter banned.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 02:03:10 +0000

Not totally, James. Some of it is simply the luck of the draw.

And by the way... you're quite correct. Christ was misquoted.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:49:06 +0000

Or, as Jesus put it, the rich must give up their riches to the poor to ever gain entry to heaven. Not that I'd cite Jesus in a discussion about economics, but I'm pretty sure he said no such thing. More economic freedom for whom yields…more inequality for whom? Clearly, the two blanks cannot be filled in with the same answer and there lies the key to solving the paradox. I'm not sure I follow. Economic freedom in this formulation is societal, as is the resulting inequality.

By: The Gun Toting Liberal ™ » Blog Archive » Classical Liberals, Neoliberals, Populists And Endangered Moderates: Continue To Lament Or Has The Time Come To Unite?

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:44:51 +0000

[...] Other Opinions On This Topic (Courtesy of MemeOrandum): The Corner (National Review Online); EconLog (libertarian right); Outside The Beltway (right); Out Of The Crooked Timber (left) Technorati Tags: 2008, Big Brother, Bill Maher, blogosphere, Cato Institute, Civil Liberties, Classical Liberalism, Current Events, Data Mining, Democrats, Eavesdropping, Elections, Headline News, Headlines, Libertarian Left, Libertarianism, Libertarians, Nanny State, Neal Boortz, Neoliberals, Neolibertarians, News, News and Politics, Political Blogosphere, Politics, Populists, Republicans [...]

By: fiskhus jim

fiskhus jim — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:06:18 +0000

You say, "More economic freedom yields more economic growth at the macro level but also more inequality and disruption. " Not only is your comment "paradoxical", it is also oxymoronic and self-exclusionary. These erroros of logic can be remedied by using facts to convey information rather than merely to disseminate propaganda. I know that the one is too Democratic for you - but really, consider... More economic freedom for whom yields...more inequality for whom? Clearly, the two blanks cannot be filled in with the same answer and there lies the key to solving the paradox. Or, as Jesus put it, the rich must give up their riches to the poor to ever gain entry to heaven.

By: MikeT

MikeT — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:12:47 +0000

What bothers me as a libertarian is the positivity that many libertarians have toward the way things are going. The cultural libertarians at places like Reason, and especially in their comments section on their blog, often only see the trees, refusing to even acknowledge that a forest exists. It'll be "oh look, how free we are becoming, gay marriage is more acceptable!" When in reality America is marching headlong toward a future of unprecedented social control, surveillance, coercion from the state and a terrible power disparity between the weaponry wielded by the state and that of the population. To put it bluntly, we are moving toward a soft 1984, a world where social control can be managed through comfortable campaigns that make dissenters sound like paranoid lunatics. It is the sort of future where most people won't even know they're being controlled because their wealth will give them the illusion that they are free.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:07:08 +0000

The problem with all of this, it seems to me is that libertarians do not operate in a vaccum. To survive, some level of compromise is required. By definition, any degree of compromise on the part of libertarians, or anyone taking up a position against government growth, means some growth in the size and scope of government.

To suggest, therefore, that libertarians bear the blame for growth is a bit of a stretch.

By: Salon - The Blog Report - Home

Salon - The Blog Report - Home — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY Paradox of Libertarianism As part of this month’s exchange Cato Unbound, Tyler Cowen argues that libertarian ideas have, paradoxically, led to a substantial increase in the size and scope of the federal government.... I