Debunking Libertarian bullshit?

[Hexen]

I was talking to a self proclaimed Right Wing Libertarian (as he admits himself) the other night as I remember telling him that "Libertarianism is basically anarchy for rich people" and he tells me "no it's for everyone", and he then goes on complaining about the "government" taking half everyone's money (taxes) and such. Not to mention I also remember him saying he doesn't want a revolution but "change" and I also remember him saying that Obama was a "socialist" when he was talking to some other people and not to mention one of the guys said "Fuck the Government" when their talking about house keys although I don't remember much...(Well should it be more like "Fuck the Bourgeoisie" instead? Or maybe it demonstrates the (maybe psueo)individualist nature of US society?).

Basically is there anyway to rebuttal this especially the "Libertarianism is for everyone" claim? I think he's obviously delusional. Not to mention he also loves Ayn Rand and even calls himself a objecivist as well..

[syndicat]

It's best to focus on the tryannical nature of the capitalist workplace, when replying to these dudes. being forced to work for them, to do what they say, the bloated management bureaucracy makes the decisions and imposes them on us, etc. if they say we get compensated for our "productivity" you can point out that productivity has gone up 74 percent since the late '60s but real wages have gone down. and so on.

[x371322]

First I would simply ask him to explain just how Libertarianism benefits everyone.

[RED DAVE]

It's best to focus on the tryannical nature of the capitalist workplace, when replying to these dudes. being forced to work for them, to do what they say, the bloated management bureaucracy makes the decisions and imposes them on us, etc. if they say we get compensated for our "productivity" you can point out that productivity has gone up 74 percent since the late '60s but real wages have gone down. and so on.My experience with this argument, which I think is a good one, is that the Libs reply with something like: (1) "Well, you have the choice to take another job," or (2) "If you don't like it, you can start your own business."

The answer to (1) involves pointing out that the same tyranny exists in all workplaces. The answer to (2) is that the only choice they seem to be presenting is to be a tyrant or subject to tyranny.

RED DAVE

[CartCollector]

The answer to (2) is that the only choice they seem to be presenting is to be a tyrant or subject to tyranny.There's another answer, one that I think is better and more materially backed instead of being merely moral. Capital has a tendency to accumulate, and once it has accumulated, it can lock out any potential competitors, especially competitors that have to work for a wage and have very few assets or savings. The neoliberal desire to have the working poor be self employed has been tried with the whole microloan movement but it has done nothing to alleviate poverty. It has, however, benefited the microloaning banks greatly at the poor's expense. See http://www.revleft.com/vb/microloans-mega-profits-t129960/index.html . Much the same thing would happen to most wage workers if they ever tried to start their own business.

In other words, just because a piece of paper says you have a right to do something doesn't mean that you'll ever get to exercise it. I could write a paper that said that people have the right to fly through the air like Superman and travel back in time, and I could get it signed into law, but that doesn't mean that anyone will actually be able to exercise those rights.