Arguing with Libertarians ultimately makes u look like u like the government.

[R_P_A_S]

I always seem to fall into this damn hole!

Unfortunately, many revolutrionary leftist have told me (including you guys) To NOT bother getting into debates with Libertarians. However I think I'm addicted to this. Have you guys ever found your self sorta 'sticking up' for the current government and it's institutions in attempts to argue against these dudes?

For example I feel like I'm defending "The Fed" most of the time and they always try to run with it. Saying that we love "Big Government".. since I stick up for social services such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits etc. It makes me look like a damn Democrat and it's hard for me to recover and bring the conversation back to revolution and working class take over.

:(:mad:

[Rafiq]

arguing with reactionaries, does it signify you support the current state of affairs? As opposed to what? That is the question.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I always seem to fall into this damn hole!

Unfortunately, many revolutrionary leftist have told me (including you guys) To NOT bother getting into debates with Libertarians. However I think I'm addicted to this. Have you guys ever found your self sorta 'sticking up' for the current government and it's institutions in attempts to argue against these dudes?

For example I feel like I'm defending "The Fed" most of the time and they always try to run with it. Saying that we love "Big Government".. since I stick up for social services such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits etc. It makes me look like a damn Democrat and it's hard for me to recover and bring the conversation back to revolution and working class take over.

:(:mad:LOL, don't worry about it. In this kind of debate you want to talk about what is the best way for a plane to fly, but there siting there saying, "the sky is made of jello and that's why the Hindenburg crashed". Consequentially you have to backtrack and explain how the Hindenburg was sound in some ways, but structurally doomed for this kind of massive explosion. But they keep insiting that the ship could never have flown and so you end up denfending the Hindenberg even if you think blimps are a stupid way to fly.

Ok, that analogy got away from me... I hope it made some sense though.

I find myself hating to have to actually correct these people on Obama because they are so removed from reality that you are in a position of having to say, "No, Obama doesn't actually want to kill your grandma - at least not through healthcare."

So people this far off really aren't worth debating because there's little common ground - people like Objectivists glorify and idolize aspects of society that all radicals are opposed to and most regular people find repugnant as well. With liberals and some conservatives even it's possible to find the common ground: "OK the environment is shit, but here's why your argument that changing light-bulbs and eating only kale won't do anything about the problem."

[PC LOAD LETTER]

LOL, don't worry about it. In this kind of debate you want to talk about what is the best way for a plane to fly, but there siting there saying, "the sky is made of jello and that's why the Hindenburg crashed". Consequentially you have to backtrack and explain how the Hindenburg was sound in some ways, but structurally doomed for this kind of massive explosion. But they keep insiting that the ship could never have flown and so you end up denfending the Hindenberg even if you think blimps are a stupid way to fly.

Ok, that analogy got away from me... I hope it made some sense though.

I find myself hating to have to actually correct these people on Obama because they are so removed from reality that you are in a position of having to say, "No, Obama doesn't actually want to kill your grandma - at least not through healthcare."

So people this far off really aren't worth debating because there's little common ground - people like Objectivists glorify and idolize aspects of society that all radicals are opposed to and most regular people find repugnant as well. With liberals and some conservatives even it's possible to find the common ground: "OK the environment is shit, but here's why your argument that changing light-bulbs and eating only kale won't do anything about the problem."
That's an awesome analogy. It really captures the essence of the libertarian 'debate' experience.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I always seem to fall into this damn hole!

Unfortunately, many revolutrionary leftist have told me (including you guys) To NOT bother getting into debates with Libertarians. However I think I'm addicted to this. Have you guys ever found your self sorta 'sticking up' for the current government and it's institutions in attempts to argue against these dudes?

For example I feel like I'm defending "The Fed" most of the time and they always try to run with it. Saying that we love "Big Government".. since I stick up for social services such as welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits etc. It makes me look like a damn Democrat and it's hard for me to recover and bring the conversation back to revolution and working class take over.

:(:mad:

Who cares what you look like? You're arguing with a libertarian so you automatically win.

[RedSonRising]

Just make the point that industrial capitalism has always depended upon a state to protect the hierarchical property laws necessary for its survival. Then point out that you don't like current institutions as they exist because they are undemocratic. From there, you can agree on certain philosophical points, such as how individuals should be free from coercion and power should be decentralized, but emphasize that that can only happen through a destruction of the class system, not a fairy-tail vision of private enterprise where unregulated profiteering ownership somehow finds its way back into the working population and establishes a perfect meritocracy regardless of historical inequalities.