Why all the Libertarian hate?

[Witchyjoshy]

The reason there's a lot of Libertarian hate is because American Libertarians are basically the worst of the right and several aspects of the worst of the left, all rolled into one little party of worseness.

I don't know much about foreign libertarians because I'm having a hard enough time being frustrated with my own country's politics, I don't have enough emotional energy to get frustrated with other country's politics.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

I think it's not just what libertarian has come to mean in American domestic politics but that "libertarian" has also come to be a byword for a certain "type" of internet user.

[RavynousHunter]

I'll just leave this here...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0</a>

[MadmanJohnson]

I'll just leave this here...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0</a>

Funniest..thing...about...Somalia...EVER!

[nickiknack]

I identify as left-libertarian and think libertarianism in general has its good points. A lack of overreaching regulations can be good for a lot of things, but that only goes so far. However, many American libertarians today oppose certain government actions and programs not because they have any strong reasons to suggest they are unnecessary or ineffective, but simply to be difficult and oppositional. Many (see: Ron Paul) also value economic freedom far above political freedom, or states' rights above individual rights. For instance, there are libertarians who would balk at a federal ban of GMO foods or a federal civilian surveillance program, but would have no problem with a state deciding to make "sodomy" a criminal offense or mandating Christian prayer in public schools. To these people, states and corporations have rights, but not individuals. Many of them are also opposed to the 14th Amendment.

This. I'm very much a left-libertarian, the problem is that libertarianism in the American sense has been taken over by anarcho-capitalists who think EVERYTHING needs to be made a profit of.

[Sour Grapes]

I identify as left-libertarian and think libertarianism in general has its good points. A lack of overreaching regulations can be good for a lot of things, but that only goes so far. However, many American libertarians today oppose certain government actions and programs not because they have any strong reasons to suggest they are unnecessary or ineffective, but simply to be difficult and oppositional. Many (see: Ron Paul) also value economic freedom far above political freedom, or states' rights above individual rights. For instance, there are libertarians who would balk at a federal ban of GMO foods or a federal civilian surveillance program, but would have no problem with a state deciding to make "sodomy" a criminal offense or mandating Christian prayer in public schools. To these people, states and corporations have rights, but not individuals. Many of them are also opposed to the 14th Amendment.

This. I'm very much a left-libertarian, the problem is that libertarianism in the American sense has been taken over by anarcho-capitalists who think EVERYTHING needs to be made a profit of.

To these people Andrew Ryan is a role model?

[mythbuster43]

I identify as left-libertarian and think libertarianism in general has its good points. A lack of overreaching regulations can be good for a lot of things, but that only goes so far. However, many American libertarians today oppose certain government actions and programs not because they have any strong reasons to suggest they are unnecessary or ineffective, but simply to be difficult and oppositional. Many (see: Ron Paul) also value economic freedom far above political freedom, or states' rights above individual rights. For instance, there are libertarians who would balk at a federal ban of GMO foods or a federal civilian surveillance program, but would have no problem with a state deciding to make "sodomy" a criminal offense or mandating Christian prayer in public schools. To these people, states and corporations have rights, but not individuals. Many of them are also opposed to the 14th Amendment.

This. I'm very much a left-libertarian, the problem is that libertarianism in the American sense has been taken over by anarcho-capitalists who think EVERYTHING needs to be made a profit of.

To these people Andrew Ryan is a role model?

More like Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises are the role models of the anarcho-capitalists.

[Lt. Fred]

I identify as left-libertarian and think libertarianism in general has its good points. A lack of overreaching regulations can be good for a lot of things, but that only goes so far. However, many American libertarians today oppose certain government actions and programs not because they have any strong reasons to suggest they are unnecessary or ineffective, but simply to be difficult and oppositional. Many (see: Ron Paul) also value economic freedom far above political freedom, or states' rights above individual rights. For instance, there are libertarians who would balk at a federal ban of GMO foods or a federal civilian surveillance program, but would have no problem with a state deciding to make "sodomy" a criminal offense or mandating Christian prayer in public schools. To these people, states and corporations have rights, but not individuals. Many of them are also opposed to the 14th Amendment.

This. I'm very much a left-libertarian, the problem is that libertarianism in the American sense has been taken over by anarcho-capitalists who think EVERYTHING needs to be made a profit of.

To these people Andrew Ryan is a role model?

More like Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises are the role models of the anarcho-capitalists.

I actually have a lot of time for Murray Rothbard. He was quite a good historian, reasonably objective and fair, and he researched stuff that not a lot of people would (like the anarchist structures in Republican Spain). He was completely wrong about everything, of course.

[Knight of Liberty]

My major gripe with American "Libertarians" is how they want to deregulate the holy fuck out of everything, yet ironically they want "sluts" and "studs" to stop having sex for fun and before marriage, the LGBT from "sodomizing" each other, the "baby killing" (abortion, for people who know biology, and that fetuses are not viable until 23 weeks), "those niggers an' spics an' mooslems from votin' those libruls in office an' takin' er' jerbs," and other anti-social, undemocratic philosophies.

And this is why, for an industrialized society, we have some of the worst human rights on record (though, realistically speaking, there are countries who have it worse, like China or Russia). And this is because the American Glibertarians want nothing more than money, their firearm collection and religious scripture and iconography, and are fuck-all with freedom of speech, human rights and rule of law. They just don't care about anyone, just themselves.

Wait, what?  You must be hanging around the wrong libertarians—the libertarian-leaning sites I follow all routinely raise Cain about free speech, human rights and the rule of law.  The libertarian notion of the contents, so to speak, of human rights may be both broader and narrower than that proposed by leftists, but in terms of their own morality, libertarians care very much about human rights.  The other issues you mentioned are case-by-case—some libertarians may well hold those views, but it isn't anywhere near universal and they don't want the state backing up their views regardless.

[Lt. Fred]

What substantive policy insight does libertarian thought have that liberalism doesn't already contain?

[Canadian Mojo]

What substantive policy insight does libertarian thought have that liberalism doesn't already contain?

That the tragedy of the commons can best be avoided by making sure that absolutely everything is owned by somebody (and that governments holding it in trust for its citizens somehow isn't essentially the same as a corporation/share holders type arrangement and therefore not the way to go about it).

[Lt. Fred]

What substantive policy insight does libertarian thought have that liberalism doesn't already contain?

That the tragedy of the commons can best be avoided by making sure that absolutely everything is owned by somebody (and that governments holding it in trust for its citizens somehow isn't essentially the same as a corporation/share holders type arrangement and therefore not the way to go about it).

That would create a tragedy of the commons, surely?

[Canadian Mojo]

What substantive policy insight does libertarian thought have that liberalism doesn't already contain?

That the tragedy of the commons can best be avoided by making sure that absolutely everything is owned by somebody (and that governments holding it in trust for its citizens somehow isn't essentially the same as a corporation/share holders type arrangement and therefore not the way to go about it).

That would create a tragedy of the commons, surely?

Technically no because an actual owner can limit access and usage of their property whereas if nobody owns it everybody can exploit it as much as they are able until the resource is depleted. Also, because it is property, it falls under the protection of the legal system (i.e. you can sue somebody's pants off if you own it and they mess it up).