The Libertarian Thread

[bell110]

Ok, someone suggested it, so here it is.

How many libertarians are here. How come this common sense approach to life isn't more, well, common?

[Mr Sparkle]

Ok, someone suggested it, so here it is.

How many libertarians are here. How come this common sense approach to life isn't more, well, common?

because everyone thinks THEIR approach to life is based on common sense.

[SuBe]

I believe that your rights end right where mine begins.

I belive that the Government doesn't Grant Rights, people grant powers to Government.

I believe the Constitution is there to Limit Government, not Empower it.

I believe that Personal Responisibilty is the key to success.

I Believe that Government Welfare envokes Laziness.

[DeaDheaD]

Is that what being a Libertarian means?

[SuBe]

Is that what being a Libertarian means?
Pretty Much.

Libertarians believe that you have unlimited freedoms until you oppose the freedom of someone else.

[Steve Rogers]

Pretty Much.

Libertarians believe that you have unlimited freedoms until you oppose the freedom of someone else.The funny thing is is that liberatarinism seems closer to the principals that the US was founded on than anything being practiced here today. And yet it is compared to communism and anarchism. Weird.

[SuBe]

The funny thing is is that liberatarinism seems closer to the principals that the US was founded on than anything being practiced here today. And yet it is compared to communism and anarchism. Weird.
Modern Libertarianism is based on Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican ideals. It is exactly what this country was founded on.

[Erzengel]

I'm a fan of the Dewey Decimal System. :) :up:

[Aristotle]

I belive that the Government doesn't Grant Rights, people grant powers to Government.Ain't you a naive one?

I believe the Constitution is there to Limit Government, not Empower it.The Constitution CREATED government, son, which is the ultimate empowerment of government. Furthermore, the Constitution was created because the previous Articles of Confederation, which had established a very limited government, had abjectly FAILED.

I believe that Personal Responisibilty is the key to success.Even though all research suggests that personal responsibility and "hard work" really can't do much in the way of upward mobility, except for a few outliers and exceptions that prove the rule.

I Believe that Government Welfare envokes Laziness.Again, flying in the face of all credible sociological research.

[Aristotle]

The funny thing is is that liberatarinism seems closer to the principals that the US was founded on than anything being practiced here today. And yet it is compared to communism and anarchism. Weird.Know what else we used to do when the country was founded? Slavery and institutionalized patriarchy.

Furthermore, any real US historian will tell you that it's intellectually dishonest to talk about "the principles the US was founded on" because the Founding Fathers were, ideologically, VERY disparate. There were three main strands of what our republic should look like, ranging from proto-fascism, to the barely-restrained capitalism and self-centeredness model that eventually prevailed, all the way to the proto-socialism favored by Thomas "Common Sense" Paine. You really can't talk about what the Founding Fathers thought, or what this country was founded upon. This country was founded upon a vague document called the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers disagreed about more than they agreed on.

So, conservatives and libertarians, quit trying to invoke the ghosts of the past to support yourselves. Today is today, not yesterday. It's time to look forward and make progress, not point to the way it used to be, because the way it used to be was not as good as the way it is today in many cases, and in most other cases, the way it used to be is pretty hard to nail down.

[Aristotle]

Modern Libertarianism is based on Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican ideals. It is exactly what this country was founded on.It was Hamilton's vision of a republic that actually won out. The current US system of unbridled capitalism, unfettered self-centeredness and individualism, no regard for community or responsibility to others, and thoroughly entrenched economic classism, is all Alexander Hamilton.

[Steve Rogers]

Know what else we used to do when the country was founded? Slavery and institutionalized patriarchy.You left out greed, corruption, war, unwillingness to pay taxes and genocide. What's your point? That the US isn't perfect? Well guess what? I never said it was.

Furthermore, any real US historian will tell you that it's intellectually dishonest to talk about "the principles the US was founded on" because the Founding Fathers were, ideologically, VERY disparate. Sensational! That would really mean something to me if I were a US historian, but sense I'm not, I really don't give two s**its what is considered dishonest to say about a government that protects my rights to say it.There were three main strands of what our republic should look like, ranging from proto-fascism, to the barely-restrained capitalism and self-centeredness model that eventually prevailed, all the way to the proto-socialism favored by Thomas "Common Sense" Paine. Again, fascinating. Did I say otherwise?
You really can't talk about what the Founding Fathers thought, or what this country was founded upon. This country was founded upon a vague document called the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers disagreed about more than they agreed on.Actually, and here's the fun part, I CAN talk about what this country is founded on. But, you don't HAVE to reply pr even read what I just said if you don't agree with it.

So, conservatives and libertarians, quit trying to invoke the ghosts of the past to support yourselves. Today is today, not yesterday. Who said I am conservative or libertarian. I never said that. Oh it was you who said it! You know me better than I know me. Well, let's continue. What are my other political stances?
It's time to look forward and make progress, not point to the way it used to be, because the way it used to be was not as good as the way it is todayI know, because the nation is in such wonderful shape today. In fact, I have nothing to complain about. Global Warming, economy in the toilet, big government destroying the consititution and a president who can't pronounce the word nuclear. Yeah, everything is peachy. And since history never repeats itself, yeah, to hell with looking at our past faults. I bet you are one of those people who advocate taking slavery out of our history books.

[Aristotle]

You left out greed, corruption, war, unwillingness to pay taxes and genocide. What's your point? That the US isn't perfect? Well guess what? I never said it was.No, my point is that it doesn't make sense to recall the golden age of the US, because that golden age doesn't exist.

Sensational! That would really mean something to me if I were a US historian, but sense I'm not, I really don't give two s**its what is considered dishonest to say about a government that protects my rights to say it.Oh, don't be one of those. Those guys where you can't disagree with them without them acting like you're trying to infringe on their rights.

Actually, and here's the fun part, I CAN talk about what this country is founded on.No, you MAY talk about it, as is your right. But you really CAN'T talk about it, in the sense, that "it" doesn't really exist.

Who said I am conservative or libertarian. I never said that. Oh it was you who said it! You know me better than I know me. Well, let's continue. What are my other political stances?You're so high-strung it's funny. I was talking to SupermanBeyond as much as to you. But it sounds like you have a soft spot for libertarianism, at the very least.

I know, because the nation is in such wonderful shape today. In fact, I have nothing to complain about. Global Warming, economy in the toilet, big government destroying the consititution and a president who can't pronounce the word nuclear. Yeah, everything is peachy. And since history never repeats itself, yeah, to hell with looking at our past faults. I bet you are one of those people who advocate taking slavery out of our history books.Never said everything is peachy, actually. I also never said that understanding history is bad--you're the one who said you don't give two ****s about history. But trying to go back to what we used to be, THAT'S what's a bad idea.

[Steve Rogers]

No, my point is that it doesn't make sense to recall the golden age of the US, because that golden age doesn't exist.I'm not the one using the term golden age to describe what I called earlier a period of war, greed, corruption, unwillingness to pay taxes and genocide. All I said is liberataranism is closer to the founding principals of this nation.

Oh, don't be one of those. Those guys where you can't disagree with them without them acting like you're trying to infringe on their rights.I wasn't. I was pointing out the irony of it all in a witty way.

No, you MAY talk about it, as is your right. But you really CAN'T talk about it, in the sense, that "it" doesn't really exist.What is this it that you refer too? And when did I talk about it? And if it doesn't exsist, then how did I talk about it?

You're so high-strung it's funny. I was talking to SupermanBeyond as much as to you. But it sounds like you have a soft spot for libertarianism, at the very least.Actually, I don't have a soft spot for liberarianism. Swing and a miss.

Never said everything is peachy, actually. I also never said that understanding history is bad--you're the one who said you don't give two ****s about history. But trying to go back to what we used to be, THAT'S what's a bad idea.Dude, I will give you a million dollars if you can point out where I actually said I don't give two s**ts about history.

[bell110]

Originally Posted by SupermanBeyond
I believe that Personal Responisibilty is the key to success.
Even though all research suggests that personal responsibility and "hard work" really can't do much in the way of upward mobility, except for a few outliers and exceptions that prove the rule.

So...:huh: is personal responsibility not a good thing?

[SuBe]

So...:huh: is personal responsibility not a good thing?
No, Personal Responsbility is a great thing. If you can't depend on yourself, what can you depend on?

[SuBe]

I'm not the one using the term golden age to describe what I called earlier a period of war, greed, corruption, unwillingness to pay taxes and genocide. All I said is liberataranism is closer to the founding principals of this nation.

I wasn't. I was pointing out the irony of it all in a witty way.

What is this it that you refer too? And when did I talk about it? And if it doesn't exsist, then how did I talk about it?

Actually, I don't have a soft spot for liberarianism. Swing and a miss.

Dude, I will give you a million dollars if you can point out where I actually said I don't give two s**ts about history.
Don't try to argue with that guy. He doesn't want to truly debate the issue. But, it is his right to say these things, it doesn't mean that he is correct.

Libertarianism is all about Liberty, you can't debate with someone that isn't willing to listen.

[Eggyman]

I was thinking of making The Official Agnostic Thread, but realised that it wouldn't work -- just a load of people saying, 'Yeah, whatever.' :oldrazz:

[SuBe]

I was thinking of making The Official Agnostic Thread, but realised that it wouldn't work -- just a load of people saying, 'Yeah, whatever.' :oldrazz:
"Yeah, Whatever"




:yay:

[Aristotle]

So...:huh: is personal responsibility not a good thing?No, but acting as if it's all a person needs to achieve success is naive and incorrect.

Don't try to argue with that guy. He doesn't want to truly debate the issue. But, it is his right to say these things, it doesn't mean that he is correct.How could you possibly be able to say that? You haven't engaged me on the merits of the argument. Meanwhile, I'm talking about actual substantive arguments, while you're just spouting slogans. So who's not debating the issue?

[teseract]

I believe that your rights end right where mine begins.

I belive that the Government doesn't Grant Rights, people grant powers to Government.

I believe the Constitution is there to Limit Government, not Empower it.

I believe that Personal Responisibilty is the key to success.

I Believe that Government Welfare envokes Laziness.

While it is a nice utopian ideal it's sadly not practical at all.

[SuBe]

While it is a nice utopian ideal it's sadly not practical at all.
It is practical, just not practiced. It is easier to give the Government more power, more money in the excuse of making lives easier. But is it right? I say no. The old adage: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." holds true. That is the same for Welfare, Personal Responsibility will get you out of any situation. The Goverment has no rights. The Government is the representive of the People, all rights begin there.

[bell110]

While it is a nice utopian ideal it's sadly not practical at all.

Of course it's practical. It's better than we got now.

[bell110]

No, but acting as if it's all a person needs to achieve success is naive and incorrect.

I guess it depends on how you view success. But, personal responsibility is much better than the government being responsible for you.

[SuBe]

I guess it depends on how you view success. But, personal responsibility is much better than the government being responsible for you.
Here Here!

[Steve Rogers]

I guess it depends on how you view success. But, personal responsibility is much better than the government being responsible for you.So do you believe in any social support from the government at all?

[SuBe]

So do you believe in any social support from the government at all?
True Libertarians would say no. I believe that if the circumstances warrent it, so be it. But, you can't give Government Money (be cause the its not Government Money, it's taxpayer money) to someone too lazy to get a job. If that person has a disability, sure.

[bored]

It is practical, just not practiced. It is easier to give the Government more power, more money in the excuse of making lives easier. But is it right? I say no. The old adage: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." holds true. That is the same for Welfare, Personal Responsibility will get you out of any situation. The Goverment has no rights. The Government is the representive of the People, all rights begin there.


Know why that analogy doesn't fit? Any libertarian I've ever known (and there have been many) would tell you that it ain't the government's responsibility to even teach that man to fish.

[Steve Rogers]

True Libertarians would say no. I believe that if the circumstances warrent it, so be it. But, you can't give Government Money (be cause the its not Government Money, it's taxpayer money) to someone too lazy to get a job. If that person has a disability, sure.
Which is precisely why I don't support libertarianism. It's a lot like Social Darwinism. Sink or swim. I mean, giving handouts to lazy people? I agree with that being bad, but I don't think doing away with social programs such as welfare would be smart either.

[bored]

The issue there is what makes a person lazy? Welfare checks aren't handed out to everyone who doesn't feel like getting a job, like the opponents of the system would have you believe.

[Steve Rogers]

The issue there is what makes a person lazy? Welfare checks aren't handed out to everyone who doesn't feel like getting a job, like the opponents of the system would have you believe.Not too mention, take away welfare from people who have nothing but welfare and what do you have? People with nothing. And what will people with nothing do to survive? Anything. Scary.

[bell110]

So do you believe in any social support from the government at all?

Very limited amount. Schooling is important. Even though our school system isn't the best (understatement), a free education is important for kids.

[Steve Rogers]

Very limited amount. Schooling is important. Even though our school system isn't the best (understatement), a free education is important for kids.Does that include higher education? College and whatnot?

[bell110]

Does that include higher education? College and whatnot?

No, college should remain private. Many people get a degree and don't do anything with it anyways. Waste of money. Well, maybe not.

[teseract]

It is practical, just not practiced. It is easier to give the Government more power, more money in the excuse of making lives easier. But is it right? I say no. The old adage: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." holds true. That is the same for Welfare, Personal Responsibility will get you out of any situation. The Goverment has no rights. The Government is the representive of the People, all rights begin there.
Like I said, very nice idea, but solely impractical and even something that would not be favorable.

[Steve Rogers]

No, college should remain private. Many people get a degree and don't do anything with it anyways. Waste of money. Well, maybe not.But not all colleges are private. Let me clarify...do you think that students who cannot afford to go to school should get federal loans and grants to attend? Or do you think that people should have to pay out of their own pockets?

[bell110]

Loans and grants are fine. But college shouldn't be funded by the government for everybody to attend.

What about you? What do you think about public schooling?

[Steve Rogers]

Loans and grants are fine. But college shouldn't be funded by the government for everybody to attend.

What about you? What do you think about public schooling?Yes, I think education should be available to all who want it.

[ShadowBoxing]

The funny thing is is that liberatarinism seems closer to the principals that the US was founded on than anything being practiced here today. And yet it is compared to communism and anarchism. Weird.Probably because they simply aren't applicable today. The Jeffersonian America was homogeneous, rather agricultural society that's constitution only applied to white males who owned land. It's a lot easier to say "you can do essentially what you want as long as you don't invade the rights of others, including drugs, prostitutes, polluting" when you're group is that similar.

The words "life", "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" are vague enough that each generation can redefine them to fit the times and place we live in.

[CorpusBlack]

The Libertarians need to create a stronger more viable 3rd party. I'm sick of the same old sh-t between Republicans and Democrats.

[bored]

No, college should remain private. Many people get a degree and don't do anything with it anyways. Waste of money. Well, maybe not.


But, as a Libertarian, shouldn't you believe it is somebody's right to waste that money however they please?

[bell110]

But, as a Libertarian, shouldn't you believe it is somebody's right to waste that money however they please?

Yes, you can waste YOUR money. Don't waste the money I put up through taxes.

[SuBe]

Yes, you can waste YOUR money. Don't waste the money I put up through taxes.
Agreed!

[CorpusBlack]

Yes, you can waste YOUR money. Don't waste the money I put up through taxes.

Here here.

[bored]

Yes, you can waste YOUR money. Don't waste the money I put up through taxes.

If somebody is serious enough about college that they will seek out grants/loans, I doubt they're going to be wasting the experience.

[CorpusBlack]

If somebody is serious enough about college that they will seek out grants/loans, I doubt they're going to be wasting the experience.

Pretty much every kid I went to high school got grants and loans and went to college. Most of them are bartenders/waiters and retail sales clerks now. One is a projectionist at the local cinema.

[bored]

Pretty much every kid I went to high school got grants and loans and went to college. Most of them are bartenders/waiters and retail sales clerks now. One is a projectionist at the local cinema.


That's their own fault. I know enough people who legitimately care about higher education who rely on those kinds of things to buy into the idea that they are a waste of money.

[MadHatterJones]

Curious: what's the Libertarian stance on immigration?

[CorpusBlack]

If somebody is serious enough about college that they will seek out grants/loans, I doubt they're going to be wasting the experience.

That's their own fault. I know enough people who legitimately care about higher education who rely on those kinds of things to buy into the idea that they are a waste of money.

Yes, but according to your own quote above, you said you doubt if they are serious that they will waste their experience. From what I see on a daily basis, more people waste their experience than those who don't. I can't even begin to name the people I know who were serious and did everything to better themselves and when they got out of college, their situation changed or the field they were trying to get in completely changed or some other variable. People themselves change too. I'd like to see the actual statistic of what percent of people who go to college for something specific that actually do that as their career. I'm sure it's very low.

[MadHatterJones]

I'd like to see the actual statistic of what percent of people who go to college for something specific that actually do that as their career. I'm sure it's very low.

I'm sure it is. I know a lot of people across the whole country actually that went to school, busted their @$$ and are now wasting their degree.

[CorpusBlack]

Curious: what's the Libertarian stance on immigration?

According to Wiki, so take that for what it's worth. :cwink: Someone with a bit more knowledge on here can probably elaborate more.

"Libertarians of the Natural Law variety generally support freedom of movement, but other libertarians argue that open borders amount to legalized trespassing. The debate often centers on self-ownership of bodies and whether we have the freedom to hire anyone without the federal government's permission. Other times, the debate centers on immigrants abusing tax-funded government resources. "Consequentialist libertarians" may decide the issue in terms of what is best for the economy. Ideally for a libertarian, there would be minimal government involvement in various social programs, thus virtually no increased tax burden of immigration."

[dnno1]

This is what would happen if Libertarians had their way:

7QDv4sYwjO0

[SuBe]

Wow, this is an old thread. And, you were able to prove you don't understand what Libertarianism is all in one post. Congratulations.

[StorminNorman]

Bell110 made this thread?!

[SuBe]

Wow, there was some great stuff posted back then.

[VampElvis]

Wow, this is an old thread. And, you were able to prove you don't understand what Libertarianism is all in one post. Congratulations.

That may be true - but still the video was funny.

"Now you've got cholera!"

[SuBe]

Libertarianism is not the Absence of Government, that would be Anarchy.

[dnno1]

Wow, this is an old thread. And, you were able to prove you don't understand what Libertarianism is all in one post. Congratulations.

That may be true - but still the video was funny.

"Now you've got cholera!"

:up:

And if I have to think that hard to understand what Libertarianism is, I don't want to be one.

[StorminNorman]

:up:

And if I have to think that hard to understand what Libertarianism is, I don't want to be one.

:lmao: You are opening yourself up for jokes.

[C.F. Kane]

This is what would happen if Libertarians had their way:

7QDv4sYwjO0

Damn. I just posted that in the Satire thread.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

So...basically, Libertarians want to see the world turn into that of The Road Warrior?

that's...kinda cool.

[dnno1]

Libertarianism is not the Absence of Government, that would be Anarchy.

Anarchy is a state of lawlessness as a result of a failure of government. It doesn't mean that there is no government. Case in point, Somalia actually has a government, but yet it is in a state of what would be preceived to be anarchy. The general definition of Libertarianism is the philosophy that individual liberties should be increased while the role of goverment is minimized or abolished. When goverment is weakened, you approach the situation that you have in Somalia, Afganistan, and other parts of the world. You even open yourself up for military coups and dictatorships. Heck, this previous administration arguably weakend goverment and look where we are now? If this is not what Libertarians mean then they are not being very clear in the definition of their stance (which I doubt is the case). Like I said before if it is that hard to understan Libertarianism, then I don't think I want to join that party.

[marcofthebeast]

Your definition of Anarchy is incorrect. Anarchy purely means no government, "Not a state of lawlessness". That is one of the Libertarian beliefs law exist without government because of the Classical Liberal belief of natural rights. The right to Life, Liberty, and Property (changed to the pursuit of happiness)
If someone violates your right of life its murder, If someone violates your liberty its slavery or tyranny, is someone violates your property its theft. A libertarian believes that these rules exist outside of government because these rights exist in man and are unalienable meaning you cannot separate yourself from those rights.

And a place like Somali is not a Libertarian Paradise because although there government is weak they do not respect a human's natural rights.

Lawlessness does not equal Anarchy.
Lawlessness does not equal Libertarianism.

[Scarlet spidey]

:up:

And if I have to think that hard to understand what Libertarianism is, I don't want to be one.
"Thinking makes my head hurt. I think I'll join the Democratic or Republican Party."

-Dnno1

[dnno1]

Your definition of Anarchy is incorrect. Anarchy purely means no government, "Not a state of lawlessness". That is one of the Libertarian beliefs law exist without government because of the Classical Liberal belief of natural rights. The right to Life, Liberty, and Property (changed to the pursuit of happiness)
If someone violates your right of life its murder, If someone violates your liberty its slavery or tyranny, is someone violates your property its theft. A libertarian believes that these rules exist outside of government because these rights exist in man and are unalienable meaning you cannot separate yourself from those rights.

And a place like Somali is not a Libertarian Paradise because although there government is weak they do not respect a human's natural rights.

Lawlessness does not equal Anarchy.
Lawlessness does not equal Libertarianism.

You can still have a governmen and yet have anarchy. It is when the government fails to govern, that there is this state of lawlessness that serves as a condition for anarchy ("no rule", which is what anarchy literally translates to from Greek). I never said that Lawlessness equates to anarchy, but it is a necessary condition for it to exist. The Libertarian premise that there should be less government and more liberties to the people as well as the false notion that the law exists without government due to natural rights is what will lead you to anarchy pretty fast. It was James Madison who wrote in the Federalist #51 the following:


If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.


Certainy men are not angels, so they should be governed lest we would live a society no better than those of the Wild Wild West, or the barbaric tribes of Medevil Europe. People don't do things because it is either a natural reaction or right or law, they do so because they either want to or need to without any restrictions. The only thing keeping most people from killing is the fact that there is a law with some enforcement behind it, and that enforcement comes from a government of some type. Having less of that would only lead to anarchy, which is where Somalia is at right now.

[StorminNorman]

You can still have a governmen and yet have anarchy. It is when the government fails to govern, that there is this state of lawlessness that serves as a condition for anarchy ("no rule", which is what anarchy literally translates to from Greek). I never said that Lawlessness equates to anarchy, but it is a necessary condition for it to exist. The Libertarian premise that there should be less government and more liberties to the people as well as the false notion that the law exists without government due to natural rights is what will lead you to anarchy pretty fast. It was James Madison who wrote in the Federalist #51 the following:



Certainy men are not angels, so they should be governed lest we would live a society no better than those of the Wild Wild West, or the barbaric tribes of Medevil Europe. People don't do things because it is either a natural reaction or right or law, they do so because they either want to or need to without any restrictions. The only thing keeping most people from killing is the fact that there is a law with some enforcement behind it, and that enforcement comes from a government of some type. Having less of that would only lead to anarchy, which is where Somalia is at right now.

There is nothing that Madison said that counters Libertarian philosophy.

[dnno1]

"Thinking makes my head hurt. I think I'll join the Democratic or Republican Party."

-[edit]an incorrect paraphrase by Scarlet Spidey[edit]

I won't take credit for that quote since those aren't my exact words. I really meant what I originally said since on the surface the Libertarian stance means one thing, but yet those of you who support it seem to be saying it doesn't, and then your explanations sound rediculous. I am not buying this at all.

[dnno1]

There is nothing that Madison said that counters Libertarian philosophy.

How so? According to marcofthebeast, the Libertarian belief is that law exists without goverment because of the natural rights of men. I don't see how that could be if there was no one (namely a government) there to enforce it, but if it were, then men would have to be angels, right? Of course, that is not true since history has proven that there is lawlessness without govenment rule. Hence, what has been proposed thus far is contrary to the philosopy of Madison and your statement is false.

[marcofthebeast]

The Libertarian premise that there should be less government and more liberties to the people as well as the false notion that the law exists without government due to natural rights is what will lead you to anarchy pretty fast. It was James Madison who wrote in the Federalist #51 the following:

Certainy men are not angels, so they should be governed lest we would live a society no better than those of the Wild Wild West, or the barbaric tribes of Medevil Europe. People don't do things because it is either a natural reaction or right or law, they do so because they either want to or need to without any restrictions. The only thing keeping most people from killing is the fact that there is a law with some enforcement behind it, and that enforcement comes from a government of some type. Having less of that would only lead to anarchy, which is where Somalia is at right now.

So lets imagine an actual Libertarian society where the governments only task is to enforce law (Police and Courts) and control an army. Everything else would be handled in the free market. What in that scenario will lead
us into anarchy. The past has shown whenever a government has even a small footing it will grow larger not smaller.

And you are to tell me that the governments whim should be law, which means its fine to restrict marriage for gays, its okay for non violent drug offenders to be thrown in jail, Its okay to throw two consenting adults in jail for an exchange of money. Its okay to violate human rights because government gives us rights not the fact that we can think, perceive, and create.

The reason why the Old West was wild was the lack of respect for property. Robbing a bank is not wrong because a government says it is but because it is immoral to take what some one else has worked for. If tomorrow the government was gone and I decided to kill someone does that make it okay, because there isn't a public entity to decide if it's legal or not? If i stole something from someone when they weren't looking and there was no way the police could find out does that make it moral?

We have delegated certain powers to our government. The government is not designed to restrict our rights, its designed to protect them. People have gotten to comfortable with the former that they have forgotten the latter.

[Malice]

I officially have elected myself Libertarian

[SuBe]

I'm a Libertarian also, and I don't think I have the patience to set Dnno1 straight. If he wants to believe that his "interpretation" of what a Libertarian is is correct, and if it makes him feel better, whatever...

[redfirebird2008]

CorpusBlack's avatar is full of "epic win." :woot:

[SuBe]

I know, I should ask him if I can borrow it since he never logs on anymore.

[StorminNorman]

CorpusBlack's avatar needs a Bailout. Don't ask him if you can borrow it - threaten his reputation and simply take it.

[StorminNorman]

I'm a Libertarian also, and I don't think I have the patience to set Dnno1 straight. If he wants to believe that his "interpretation" of what a Libertarian is is correct, and if it makes him feel better, whatever...

Are you a registered libertarian?

The temptation for me to register is great...I just don't want to be unable to vote in the GOP primaries. :csad:

[redfirebird2008]

CorpusBlack's avatar needs a Bailout. Don't ask him if you can borrow it - threaten his reputation and simply take it.

:hehe:

[SuBe]

Why would I do that? He works with me....Go lay down Normie...

[SuBe]

Are you a registered libertarian?

The temptation for me to register is great...I just don't want to be unable to vote in the GOP primaries. :csad:
The Day we have Open Primaries. Boy Howdy am I going to register so hard...!

[redfirebird2008]

I think SuBe needs to use this Doc Ock line against CorpusBlack: "The power of the sun in the palm of my hand...now bend over beyotch!" OK so I made up the bend over beyotch part, but I think it works. :p

[Scarlet spidey]

Are you a registered libertarian?

The temptation for me to register is great...I just don't want to be unable to vote in the GOP primaries. :csad:
Which is the one of two reasons I'm not a registered Libertarian. The other is Bob Barr. :o

[StorminNorman]

How did Bob Barr get the Libertarian nomination? The Libertarian Party were running ads AGAINST him during his time as a congressman.

[marcofthebeast]

It seems that the Libertarian party was desperate to nominate someone that was recognizable, and that was a mistake. Bob Barr could have had a total change of heart and become the most libertarian person in the world, but he still would have been the wrong candidate because he lacks any type of leadership qualities.

[Scarlet spidey]

How did Bob Barr get the Libertarian nomination? The Libertarian Party were running ads AGAINST him during his time as a congressman.
Barr sucked. I don't know what the LP was thinking when they got him, but they were wrong.
If they make another big mistake in 2012 I'm going to have to join the Constitution Party instead.:(

[StorminNorman]

Penn Jillette: Why I’m a Libertarian Nut Instead of Just a Nut

I don’t speak for all Libertarians any more than Sean Penn speaks for all Democrats. I’m not even sure my LP membership card is up to date. I’ve voted Libertarian as long as I can remember but I don’t really remember much before the Clintons and the Bushes. Those clans made a lot of us bugnutty. When I go on Glenn’s show he calls me a Libertarian, I think that’s my only real credential. There are historical reasons and pragmatic reasons to be a Libertarian, but there are historic and pragmatic reasons to be a Democrat, a Republican or a Socialist. I don’t know if everyone would be better off under a Libertarian government. I don’t know what would be best for anyone. I don’t even know what’s best for me. What makes me Libertarian is I don’t think anyone else really knows what’s best for anyone. My argument for Libertarianism is simple - personal morality.

I start with the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” So, essentially our government does what they do with my consent.

I know barely enough about Max Weber to type his name into Google, but it seems he’s credited with asserting the idea that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. I put those two ideas together (my consent and use of physical force) and figure we all give our government the right to use force. So, the way I figure, it’s not okay for our government to use force in any situation where I personally wouldn’t use force.

For example, if I’m not willing to kill a cute cow, I shouldn’t eat steak. I don’t have to kill Bessy right now with my bare hands, but I have to be willing to snuff her if I want to chow down on a T-bone. If it’s not okay for me, it’s not okay for a slaughterhouse. Asking someone else to do something immoral is immoral. If it’s not okay for me to break David Blaine’s hands so my magic show has less competition, it’s not okay for me to ask someone else to beat him up. Someone else doing your dirty work is still your dirty work.

If I had a gun, and I knew a murder was happening, (we’re speaking hypothetically here, I’m not asking you to believe that I could accurately tell a murder from aggressive CPR), I would use that gun to stop that murder. I might be too much of a coward to use a gun myself to stop a murder or rape or robbery, but I think the use of a gun is justified. I’m even okay with using force to enforce voluntary contracts. If I were a hero, I would use a gun to protect the people who choose to live under this free system and to stop another country from attacking America. But I wouldn’t use a gun to force someone to love something like say…a library.

Look, I love libraries. I spent a lot of time in the Greenfield Public Library when I was a child. I would give money to build a library. I would ask you to give money to build a library. But, if for some reason you were crazy enough to think you had a better idea for your money than building my library, I wouldn’t pull a gun on you. I wouldn’t use a gun to build an art museum, look at the wonders of the universe through a big telescope, or even find a cure for cancer.

The fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, it’s not really a very good idea. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It’s just ganging up on the weird kid, and I’m always the weird kid.

People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment though -- suggesting someone not pay their taxes is probably a federal offense, and while I may be a nut, I’m not crazy.) When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force.

It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.

I’m a Libertarian nut because I don’t want my government to do anything in my name that I wouldn’t do myself.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/25575/

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I dunno, with Ron Paul yesterday claiming that we shouldn't have an education system or agriculture defense...I dunno.

I mean, the Mad Max Wasteland is awesome and all. But c'mon.

[marcofthebeast]

I dunno, with Ron Paul yesterday claiming that we shouldn't have an education system or agriculture defense...I dunno.

I mean, the Mad Max Wasteland is awesome and all. But c'mon.

Just because education isn't publicly funded doesn't mean it disappears out of existence. Private schools have been in existence before public schools and work fine. The very fact that a private school can exist when government offers "free" schooling shows you how effective public education is.

[StorminNorman]

I dunno, with Ron Paul yesterday claiming that we shouldn't have an education system or agriculture defense...I dunno.

I mean, the Mad Max Wasteland is awesome and all. But c'mon.

Please point me to anything saying Ron Paul doesn't want an education system.

[StorminNorman]

Just because education isn't publicly funded doesn't mean it disappears out of existence. Private schools have been in existence before public schools and work fine. The very fact that a private school can exist when government offers "free" schooling shows you how effect public education is.

Ron Paul doesn't even want to end publicly funded education. Which is a good thing. While private school can be effective, I don't simply want those that can afford it to be educated, at least on some basic level.

[marcofthebeast]

Ron Paul doesn't even want to end publicly funded education. Which is a good thing. While private school can be effective, I don't simply want those that can afford it to be educated, at least on some basic level.

Well you can label me a strict libertarian. Just as Penn thinks its wrong to force people to give money to build a library. I think its wrong to force people to give money to fund a school. Especially considering how poorly our schools are functioning.

[StorminNorman]

You fix the schools.

You can't afford as a civilization to have a large portion of the populace uneducated. ESPECIALLY when that portion would already tend to be poor and underprivileged.

[Paradoxium]

You don't need "Department of Education" to have publically funded education, nor has it proven empirically on any level it (such a Department) "improves" anything (often quite the contrary). This is one of those instances where calibrating policies from bottom up might be helpful due to regional and demographic differences.

[Kel]

True dox, but you have to have consistency in areas of curriculum........if not then you have states that have strict, tough state tests like Texas looking like idiots to states like North Dakota that have nothing.....

I don't necessarily like state tests, but if written correctly like the Social Studies TAKS and the Social Studies Regency tests of Texas and New York, then you have tests that truly test WHAT the students should KNOW. Or, the EOC (End of Course Exams) that Texas is moving into in a few years. It keeps the students AND teachers accountable to what they should be learning and teaching. NOW, we have National Standards, but until states like California, North/South Dakota, Louisiana, etc starts actually setting their standards as high as other states, then the lists we get tell us nothing of the US as a whole.

[Paradoxium]

True dox, but you have to have consistency in areas of curriculum........if not then you have states that have strict, tough state tests like Texas looking like idiots to states like North Dakota that have nothing.....

I don't necessarily like state tests, but if written correctly like the Social Studies TAKS and the Social Studies Regency tests of Texas and New York, then you have tests that truly test WHAT the students should KNOW. Or, the EOC (End of Course Exams) that Texas is moving into in a few years. It keeps the students AND teachers accountable to what they should be learning and teaching. NOW, we have National Standards, but until states like California, North/South Dakota, Louisiana, etc starts actually setting their standards as high as other states, then the lists we get tell us nothing of the US as a whole.I agree :huh:

Do you mean you need a Department to institute these consistency of curriculum across the board, perhaps?

[Handsome Rob]

I agree :huh:

Do you mean you need a Department to institute these consistency of curriculum across the board, perhaps?

Why not let the states and the local school districts compete with each other to provide the best educational service to their students? After all, if Tennessee cranks out the best educated students, then the state of Tennessee wins with a better-educated populace, and the state of Kentucky can either work harder or risk losing out to their neighbor.

We need more competition, with each state establishing its own standards--trying to one-up the other states. I honestly believe this would have a better effect on education than a federal entity that has no real competition within US borders.

[Kel]

I agree :huh:

Do you mean you need a Department to institute these consistency of curriculum across the board, perhaps?

Not necessarily, but it does need to happen. I would also like better oversight of where Federal funds are being spent. Our district is very watchful of what Federal funds go to, and what State funds go to.......but there are some states and districts that do not have that strong of oversight. I'm not sure who would do that if we did not have a department within the government to do that....

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Ron Paul was on the Ed Show. He did clarify, saying he didn't want a PUBLIC school system. Because it sucks.

Which is fine, for all you people with money.

Should keep us poor people stupid. As if it wasn't hard enough already, let's just do that and seal the deal.

I'm sure Paul has a plan of sorts that he couldn't pan out enitrely, because it's a complicate problem. But what I watched made it look stupid.

[StorminNorman]

Ron Paul was on the Ed Show. He did clarify, saying he didn't want a PUBLIC school system. Because it sucks.

Which is fine, for all you people with money.

Should keep us poor people stupid. As if it wasn't hard enough already, let's just do that and seal the deal.

I'm sure Paul has a plan of sorts that he couldn't pan out enitrely, because it's a complicate problem. But what I watched made it look stupid.

Again, you don't understand Paul's education plan at all.

He thinks every child should get a 3000 school voucher and choose which school they go to.

Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system.A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend.
Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them?
A: No, I’m not. It’s not in my platform.
QWhen you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools.
A: I bet that’s a misquote. I do not recall that.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Okay. So explain it to me, Norm.

Is it for high schools, college? All throughout the education of a kid?

Paul made it sound like no public schools, because he clearly wants less government...but someone's gotta flip the bill, right?

[Paradoxium]

I don't understand how this is so hard to comprehend.

By enacting this system, demand for private school will rise, and companies looking to cash in on this new demand help grow the supply. The government would probably auction off all the public schools to private companies to speed things up. People also make the mistake of thinking about the cost of higher end private school to average ones.

I do have some problems, but for very different reasons from the progressives.

An example is people have this propensity to prefer higher socio-economic status school, as oppose to school of higher quality education. The two are often not the same thing (whilst there are some overlap), but it happens anyways. This is an instance of seemingly rational people making predictably irrational choices.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I dunno. Letting Corporations have a hand in our education...could be bad.

[Paradoxium]

How are the frailties of corporate types any different from those in government and bureaucratic structures? They are both human with their set of flaws.

The main utility would be: parents will (on some level but not entirely - location will be the issue) have the choice to choose schools of liking - curriculum they prefer.

So for an example, a Christian fundamentalist would of course now have the option to go with more churchy school that teaches say intelligent design. Whilst the athiest/agnostic types would prefer evolution. This is an instance of catering to market niche and profiting. So if a christian school sucks, another company opens up to capitalize on their fail with a superior school etc...

The government is than taken out of the equation in exercising what ideological bents the school ought and ought not have, because that control falls to the parents and market place. At most, I see this as an issue of people not content with what other people’s children are forced to learn (aka things they disagree with).

[Handsome Rob]

I dunno. Letting Corporations have a hand in our education...could be bad.

Or it could be good. Imagine the value of having Microsoft or Apple as one of your sponsoring corporations. Good computers, and you could have employees from them visiting the school and teaching the students "real world" experience in all aspects of work from time to time. If you had Cargill sponsoring a rural school, they could provide classes for students wanting to get into the farming business (the actual business side of it could be taught, as well). What kind of chemistry and biology tools could be provided with the might of GlaxoSmithKline behind a school?

I don't see any less of an "agenda" with a corporate sponsorship than I do with the oversight of a federal or state government. Contrary to the opinions of some, corporations =/= always evil and manipulative, and government (particularly federal) =/= always benevolent and non-biased.

[SentinelMind]

Why not let the states and the local school districts compete with each other to provide the best educational service to their students? After all, if Tennessee cranks out the best educated students, then the state of Tennessee wins with a better-educated populace, and the state of Kentucky can either work harder or risk losing out to their neighbor.

We need more competition, with each state establishing its own standards--trying to one-up the other states. I honestly believe this would have a better effect on education than a federal entity that has no real competition within US borders.

:up: I 100% agree.

[Kel]

Why not let the states and the local school districts compete with each other to provide the best educational service to their students? After all, if Tennessee cranks out the best educated students, then the state of Tennessee wins with a better-educated populace, and the state of Kentucky can either work harder or risk losing out to their neighbor.

We need more competition, with each state establishing its own standards--trying to one-up the other states. I honestly believe this would have a better effect on education than a federal entity that has no real competition within US borders.

What you are saying is what we already have....

What is going to be your criteria for which school is best? and worst? and inbetween?

What is going to keep states from doing what they are right now? Making their own standards? Of course those that want to be #1 will have lower standards to up their scores.....which is happening right now....

How are you going to compare states like North Dakota and their standards and scores where the demographic is extremely WASP, to those of urban areas? How are they going to compete with each other?

[Paradoxium]

The irrational choice would be to go by test scores. How close am I :woot:

[Kel]

The irrational choice would be to go by test scores. How close am I :woot:


Who's test, what test, what is on the test????? Is there a test? What do you test? When do you test?

[Paradoxium]

I meant average grade marks. :o

[Kel]

I meant average grade marks. :o


??????

[Paradoxium]

Are you talking about schools as it is, or in the theoretical case of an all out privatized non-college system?

[Kel]

I'm talking about what Handsome Rob is talking about, state and local school districts competing with each other....

[Paradoxium]

I keep thinking about it through different angles, but it's giving me a headache.

So I am going to opt for the most insane answer.

I say **** it and commit political suicide. Have some sort of nation wide standardized IQ test, and stratify schools on IQ tranches and stick your child in the most appropriate tranche. So if my kid is low IQ, he/she goes to remedial school, if above average... gifted school.

Is that an insane enough answer?

[Thirdworld]

Ok, someone suggested it, so here it is.

How many libertarians are here. How come this common sense approach to life isn't more, well, common?Firstly I think Libertarians (or classical liberal) are going to become more popular in our society when people realize the massive corruption in the other parties. As far as why more people aren't Libertarians I think it is just like why religion has stayed with us. People are mainly born into being either party and brought up with like minded people so they stay in that mindset. It's no secret that most states have been PERMA-Red or Blue and that what we are fed.

[Thirdworld]

"What it feels like to Be a Libertarian"
By: Reason Magazine

Being a libertarian means living with an almost unendurable level of frustration. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea. [...] Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek's insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision. [...]

If you'd like a taste of what it feels like to be a libertarian, try telling people that the incoming Obama Administration is advocating precisely those aspects of FDR's New Deal that prolonged the great depression for a decade; that propping up failed and failing ventures with government money in order to save jobs in the present merely shifts resources from relatively more to relatively less productive uses, impedes the corrective process, undermines the economic growth necessary for recovery, and increases unemployment in the long term; and that any "economic" stimulus package will inexorably be made to serve political rather than economic ends, and see what kind of reaction you get. And trust me, it won't feel any better five or ten years from now when everything you have just said has been proven true and Obama, like FDR, is nonetheless revered as the savior of the country.

[Backdrifter]

Firstly I think Libertarians (or classical liberal) are going to become more popular in our society when people realize the massive corruption in the other parties. As far as why more people aren't Libertarians I think it is just like why religion has stayed with us. People are mainly born into being either party and brought up with like minded people so they stay in that mindset. It's no secret that most states have been PERMA-Red or Blue and that what we are fed.

I agree with you on some level. However, that is a pretty narrow view of religion. The same could be said for non-religious beliefs.

Truth be told. I was converted into Christianity as most Christians in the world are. Additionally, my religious beliefs have greatly informed my political belief which I would describe as being largely Libertarian (small government, low taxes, non-interventionism, sound money, etc). Many would argue that it is because of Christianity that such ideas even exist as all of them are Biblical truths. The last thing you want is a totally atheistic state because believe you me that is exactly what China and communist Russia were. Evolution + reason gives genocide a solid ground to stand on.


Anyway, that's why I am Libertarian! :awesome:

[SuBe]

:up:

[SuBe]

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

[Thirdworld]

I agree with you on some level. However, that is a pretty narrow view of religion. The same could be said for non-religious beliefs.

Truth be told. I was converted into Christianity as most Christians in the world are. Additionally, my religious beliefs have greatly informed my political belief which I would describe as being largely Libertarian (small government, low taxes, non-interventionism, sound money, etc). Many would argue that it is because of Christianity that such ideas even exist as all of them are Biblical truths. The last thing you want is a totally atheistic state because believe you me that is exactly what China and communist Russia were. Evolution + reason gives genocide a solid ground to stand on.


Anyway, that's why I am Libertarian! :awesome:Backdrifter please note I did not mean this as a slant against religion though many "religious" fall into the mix. What I was talking about of course was people believing in things simply because that is what they are told from a child to believe. Humans are social animals and are willing to accept premises that society (that in which we live; think red/blue state) gives them without much questioning.
If they are brought up as children to believe in something they will backwards rationalize they came to these conclusions from reason. Don't get confused this is not to say that ideas that they accepted don't have merit. Dr. Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine has this brilliant quote that says smart people are great at rationalizing things they came to believe for non smart reasons. Hopefully this clarified what I meant by what I had said...:huh:

As for the second quote I refer you to a video I actually posted recently on the "so called crimes of atheism". FYI the audio is off and I had a cold :awesome:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVwdVlr87fo

[The Overlord]

It seems like quite a few Libertarians here seem to believe we should give a blank check on foreign and military matters, that we should always just trust that the government knows what is doing in these areas and the general public should get no say in this.

That seems completely contradictory to me, what the government can't be trusted to build a highway, but they should be given absolute trust when it comes to safety of the nation?

When it comes to foreign affairs, the government often makes immoral and incompetent choices, that makes America less safe, like arming Saddam in the 80s.

The Health Care bill is evil, but the US government supporting the Saudi Monarchy is okay?

This is a major contradiction.

[SuBe]

You don't understand what Libetarians are.

[Thirdworld]

The non-aggression principle: By Walter Block

The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.

If the non-aggression axiom is the basic building block of libertarianism, private property rights based on (Lockean and Rothbardian) homesteading principles are the foundation. For if A reaches into B’s pocket, pulls out his wallet and runs away with it, we cannot know that A is the aggressor and B the victim. It may be that A is merely repossessing his own wallet, the one B stole from him yesterday. But given a correct grounding in property rights, the non-aggression axiom is a very powerful tool in the war of ideas. For most individuals believe, and fervently so, that it is wrong to invade other people or their property. Who, after all, favors theft, murder or rape? With this as an entering wedge, libertarians are free to apply this axiom to all of human action, including, radically, to unions, taxes, and even government itself.
The non-aggression axiom and private property rights theory which underlies it have recently come under furious attack, amazingly, from commentators actually calling themselves libertarians. Let us consider two cases posed by these people.
First, you are standing on the balcony of a 25th story high-rise apartment when, much to your dismay, you lose your footing and fall out. Happily, in your downward descent, you manage to grab onto a flagpole protruding from the 15th floor of the balcony of another apartment, 10 floors below. Unhappily, the owner of this apartment comes out to her balcony, states that you are protesting by holding on to her flag pole, and demands that you let go (e.g., drop another 15 floors to your death). You protest that you only want to hand walk your way down the flag pole, into her apartment, and then right out of it, but she is adamant. As a libertarian, are you bound to obey her?

Second case. You are lost in the woods, freezing, with no food. You will die without shelter and a meal. Fortunately, you come upon a warm cabin stocked with staples. You intend to eat, stay the night, leave your business card, and pay double any reasonable price that could be asked. Unfortunately, the cabin has a sign posted on the door: "Warning. Private Property. No Trespassing." Do you tamely go off into the woods and die?

Opponents of the non-aggression axiom maintain that you have no obligation to die in either of these cases, much less in the name of private property rights. In their view these concepts have been adopted to promote human life and well-being, which, ordinarily, they do, and superlatively so. But in these exceptional cases, where the non-aggression standard would be contrary to utilitarian principles, it should be jettisoned. The non-aggression principle, for them, is a good rule of thumb, which sometimes, rarely, should be ignored.

There are several grave problems with these critiques of the non-aggression axiom.
1. They misunderstand the nature of libertarianism. These arguments implicitly assume that libertarianism is a moral philosophy, a guide to proper behavior, as it were. Should the flagpole hanger let go? Should the hiker go off and die? But libertarianism is a theory concerned with the justified use of aggression, or violence, based on property rights, not morality. Therefore, the only proper questions which can be addressed in this philosophy are of the sort, if the flagpole hanger attempts to come in to the apartment, and the occupant shoots him for trespassing, Would the forces of law and order punish the home owner? Or, if the owner of the cabin in the woods sets up a booby trap, such that when someone forces his way into his property he gets a face full of buckshot, Would he be guilty of a law violation? When put in this way, the answer is clear. The owner in each case is in the right, and the trespasser in the wrong. If force is used to protect property rights, even deadly force, the owner is not guilty of the violation of any licit law.

2. These examples purposefully try to place us in the mind of the criminal perpetrator of the crime of trespass. We are invited, that is, to empathize with the flag pole hanger, and the hiker, not the respective property owners. But let us reverse this perspective. Suppose the owner of the apartment on the 15th floor has recently been victimized by a rape, perpetrated upon her by a member of the same ethnic or racial group as the person now hand walking his way down her flag pole, soon to uninvitedly enter her apartment. May she not shoot him in self-defense before he enters her premises? Or, suppose that the owner of the cabin in the woods has been victimized by several break-ins in the past few months, and has finally decided to do something in defense of his property. Or, suppose that the owner, himself, views his cabin as his own life preserver. Then, may he not take steps to safeguard his property? To ask these questions is to answer them, at least for the consistent libertarian.

3. The criticisms of libertarian property rights theory base their views on the philosophy of emergencies. The non-aggression axiom is all well and good in ordinary circumstances, but when there are life boat situations, all bets are off. The problem, however, with violating libertarian law for special exigencies is that these occurrences are more commonplace than supposed. Right now, there are numerous people dying of starvation in poor parts of the world. Some are suffering from illnesses which could be cured cheaply, e.g., by penicillin. We have all read those advertisements placed by aid agencies: "Here is little Maria. You can save her, and her entire village, by sending us some modest amount of money each month."
In point of fact, many so called libertarians who have attacked the non-aggression axiom on these emergency grounds live in housing of a middle class level or better; drive late model cars; eat well; have jewelry; send their children to pricey colleges. If they truly believed in their critiques, none of this would be true. For if the cabin owner and the apartment dweller are to give up their property rights to save the hiker and the flagpole hanger, then they must give up their comfortable middle class life styles in behalf of all the easily cured sick and starving people in the world. That they have not done so shows they do not even take their own arguments seriously.
The logical implication of their coercive welfarist argument is far worse than merely being required to give a few dollars a month to a relief agency. For suppose they do this. Their standard of living will still be far greater than those on the verge of death from straightened circumstances. No, as long as these relatively rich "libertarians" have enough money to keep themselves from dying from poverty, the logic of their argument compels them to give every penny they own over and above that level to alleviate the plight of the endangered poor.

[Kel]

It seems like quite a few Libertarians here seem to believe we should give a blank check on foreign and military matters, that we should always just trust that the government knows what is doing in these areas and the general public should get no say in this.

That seems completely contradictory to me, what the government can't be trusted to build a highway, but they should be given absolute trust when it comes to safety of the nation?

When it comes to foreign affairs, the government often makes immoral and incompetent choices, that makes America less safe, like arming Saddam in the 80s.

The Health Care bill is evil, but the US government supporting the Saudi Monarchy is okay?

This is a major contradiction.


wow......no.



@Thirdworld and this party becoming mainstream...

Unless the (L) party chooses people that can articulately, without coming off as a complete idiot as their spokesperson and their Presidential candidate, they will stay a party with no real future.

So far, even though I agree alot with their platform, there is no way in hell I would vote for their candidates that they have chosen over the past years of my voting career.

[Marx]

A viable, well spoken, and intelligent candidate makes all the difference.

[Kel]

Sure does, they don't even have to have ANY experience whatsoever.....

[Kel]

Sure does, they don't even have to have ANY experience whatsoever.....

[Paradoxium]

You mean appears intelligent :)

Let's face it, first impressions are important. And really, there are plenty of smart people who are socially retarded and are as charismatic as a wet cardboard box. And there are those who talk and look smart as a spokesperson, but are as dumb as a wet cardboard box.

[Kel]

You mean appears intelligent :)

Let's face it, first impressions are important. And really, there are plenty of smart people who are socially retarded and are as charismatic as a wet cardboard box. And there are those who talk and look smart as a spokesperson, but are as dumb as a wet cardboard box.


Very true......people aren't going to even open the package if it ain't wrapped purty.....

[SuBe]

It's a good thing TV wasn't around during the Founding of this Country. Adams wouldn't have been allowed anywhere near the Presidency. And Washington??? With THOSE teeth???

[Kel]

That is for sure......in fact, many historians believe that Nixon would have won his first election had the debates not been televised.

[Paradoxium]

They need to get an uber Alpha Male, looks smart, is smart, incredibly confident body language and assertive personality, good looking and tall. It's superficial but hey whatever it takes. Physical perceptions has a huge role. There was some study about how guys who are 5'7+ make more money on average than those below this... and it's quite obvious height has no baring on intelligence.

[Paradoxium]

Yes yes I notice I used masculine pronouns, I am too lazy to fix it up to be PC :o

[Kel]

Well, honestly the first time out with a viable candidate.....it will probably have to be a man.

[Kel]

Well, honestly the first time out with a viable candidate.....it will probably have to be a man.

[Backdrifter]

Maybe I am overstating a bit here, but it seems to me that politics, by nature, is pretty 'dirty.' If you want power in this country you are going to have to play the game. In contrast to this, Libertarianism is built around honesty and liberty. You have all these brilliant Libertarians who don't want to get their hands dirty. And, if they do decided to their hands dirty, they are sullying the very ideals that they stand for. So, what to do? I say just ride this burning plane until it crashes and the people realize that the "freedom guys" are the best option left.

:)

[Paradoxium]

I dunno, that seems like the best case and least likely scenario. I think it will be:

- burning plane crashes in economic fail
- blame it entirely on capitalism (something we haven't really had due to the monetary foundation to begin with, the system was and still is perverted this way)
- probably turn to something more Soviet and managed, meanwhile the Russians go LOL.

History shows, the winners are those with the least scruples. Just my realist side speaking.

[Thirdworld]

@ Paradoxium you 100% because that is what is going on and our future if we let it happen. Bush started the destruction of the dollar and Obama has it on high gear right now. They are already trying to blame capitalism ala Micheal Moore (the great "editor") and the white house is full of Soviet types.

It all sounds like something out of a novel but as Byron said truth is stranger than fiction.

[Backdrifter]

http://dogsounds.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/sad20face.jpg

[Kel]

I would vote for that....

[The Overlord]

wow......no.



@Thirdworld and this party becoming mainstream...

Unless the (L) party chooses people that can articulately, without coming off as a complete idiot as their spokesperson and their Presidential candidate, they will stay a party with no real future.

So far, even though I agree alot with their platform, there is no way in hell I would vote for their candidates that they have chosen over the past years of my voting career.

Norm is a libertarian and he seems to believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to US military action.

[Paradoxium]

Michael Moore is a dick, he knows the difference between corporatism and capitalism. He even ****ing admitted it on video to a student. He just likes to rebrand for expedience towards some of his ideological outcomes. Of he predictably tries to steer away from answering the full and original question.
gwQ41Yo60og

Don't get to caught up with the Ron Paul money printing simplicity of dollar devaluation. That is the simple story, monetary value has a lot more to it than that. You need to account for credit destruction and velocity of money, even Peter Schiff when pressured on this conceded to some of this. Gold for an example is not necessarily a hedge on inflation. Notice during the high dollar rally Gold was still up? It's no coincidence. Gold is a crisis hedge.

Consumers have recently spent more, but the fundamentals are still wrong... this probably contributing to the rise in money velocity (ergo recent decline). On top of some of the speculative hype as well. Most countries are buying up Yen and Euro in their reserves now (2/3, with the last third in USD). It's nice the MSM does NOT mention any of this too.

[Thirdworld]

Norm is a socialist "libertarian" which in itself is any oxymoron because you transgress the non-aggression principle. Or to put another way he believes people should be able to do what they want but their property doesn't fall into the equation.

[Kel]

*just sitting back with the popcorn and diet coke, waiting for Norm to read these posts*

[Thirdworld]

Norm is a socialist "libertarian" which in itself is any oxymoron because you transgress the non-aggression principle. Or to put another way he believes people should be able to do what they want but their property doesn't fall into the equation.I recant, I thought you meant Noam (Chomsky). Though I'm interesting in hearing Norm's POV through his own words. @ Paradoxium very true but HR 1207 is just the rallying point to reforming and fixing our economy. That is for people who understand "capitalism" is not to blame especially since we have a mixed economy based on Keynesian and not an actual free market.

[Paradoxium]

I hear the senate version tries to water down the audit bill.

Unfortunately I don't think the monetary system will ever be big enough of an issue until it burns everyone in the ass. The fractional reserve system is purposely complicated. In fact I don't even think they really teach it at school (they really gloss it over or do not test it)... on that note, Kel, is the fractional reserve system part of the curriculum of where you teach?

[Paradoxium]

double post

[The Overlord]

I recant, I thought you meant Noam (Chomsky). Though I'm interesting in hearing Norm's POV through his own words. @ Paradoxium very true but HR 1207 is just the rallying point to reforming and fixing our economy. That is for people who understand "capitalism" is not to blame especially since we have a mixed economy based on Keynesian and not an actual free market.

No Norm the poster here.

*just sitting back with the popcorn and diet coke, waiting for Norm to read these posts*

I'm not scared of him. (=

Anyway I recalled Norm stating the ends justify the means in regards to torture of terror suspects and Gitmo and that public opinion should have an effect on the Health Care debate, but not the Iraq war.

I have seen other libertarians around the web with similar views about the military.

Is there any cohesive Libertarian policy on military and foreign affairs?

[SuBe]

Paleo Libertarians believe in near complete non-interventalism.
NeoLibertarians believe in National Security peppered with pre-emptive strike diplomacy if threat disrupts national interests.

[Paradoxium]

Probably mean consequentialist libertarianism ?

[Paradoxium]

Still thinking, is neo libertarian really a label for the consequentialist view? Or is it just Libertarianism, and the non-interventionist are basically Paleo Libertarianism to Libertarianism?

The way a consequentialist sees something both intervention and non-intervention has a consequence (as far foreign policy goes). As a result of this, you need to make a very thorough cost benefit calculus. Which way ultimately maximizes happiness and prosperity for the said nation?

Major Action A with Consequence A,

Major Action B with Consequence B,

Major InAction C with Consequence C.

Within each Major Action there is immediate pro/cons and long term pro/cons. Within each set, are a permutation of different outcomes depending sets of action. So 3, 2, 1 matters differently to 2, 3, 1 and to 1, 2, 3. Perhaps Major Action A is the most desired outcome, but statistically speaking, to arrive a particular sequence of 3, 2, 1 is low. Major InAction C, which has the second most favorable but statistically most probably sequence to arrive it might be more desirable. But C also has a low probability of a sequence that is disastrous. But are the cost benefit worth it?

Something like that :huh:

[SuBe]

Dox, too many labels. Let's just stick with "Real Americans" :)

[The Overlord]

Paleo Libertarians believe in near complete non-interventalism.
NeoLibertarians believe in National Security peppered with pre-emptive strike diplomacy if threat disrupts national interests.

That seems like code for giving a blank check to DoD and the State Department, which seems like a bad idea to me.

In the 80s DoD and the state Department felt arming Saddam was in the national interest and look how wrong they were there. Why should they get a blank check? Why shouldn't they get any oversight?

It seems illogical that you think people are taking away your freedom with Obama's health care system, yet you want to spend tax payer money on something the majority of the population doesn't support, are you not taking away their freedom?

If I think the Iraq war, illogical and immoral and I believe it doesn't serve any national interest, why should I have to pay for it? The war was only supported because of a bunch promises where made about and those promises were broken, why should people continue to support a war based on broken promises?

If any any other government project was run as badly as the Iraq war was (where they literally lost money that was sent to Iraq) you would be up in arms over it, so why should the Iraq war get a pass?

[StorminNorman]

Norm is a libertarian and he seems to believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to US military action.

Norm is a socialist "libertarian" which in itself is any oxymoron because you transgress the non-aggression principle. Or to put another way he believes people should be able to do what they want but their property doesn't fall into the equation.

No Norm the poster here.

I'm not scared of him. (=

Anyway I recalled Norm stating the ends justify the means in regards to torture of terror suspects and Gitmo and that public opinion should have an effect on the Health Care debate, but not the Iraq war.

I have seen other libertarians around the web with similar views about the military.

Is there any cohesive Libertarian policy on military and foreign affairs?

Once again you fail to fully comprehend my posts.

I never stated that the public opinion SHOULD effect any policy one way or the other, I have stated time and time again about the political realities.

The political reality is that the public opinion will absolutely effect the Health Care debate because elections are so close, because the public is keeping an eye on government spending, and because the debate is so loud. Also Democrats from Conservative districts are feeling the pressure due to votes on Stimulus, Bailouts and Cap and Trade.

The case for the Iraq War was completely different because Americans (rationally or irrationally) were gun-ho for Iraq at the time. You can argue the why or how all you want. Now yes, I do not believe the government should be completely obedient to the people's wishes either. If military commanders on the field are saying that the operation is winnable, I don't believe in surrendering even if the majority of the American people do.

Now, that being said, I only believe in the use of military conflict as a last resort - which it obviously was not in Iraq. I believe the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq was poor and that more should have been done before putting boots on the ground. However once we were there, once operations began, once men and women were killed for this mission - we owed it to them and ourselves to finish the job. I am glad we did.

[Paradoxium]

Some readings. They are free legal digital copies, but they are also sold on Amazon. I personally like using Adobe Digital Editions (http://www.adobe.com/products/digitaleditions/) to read through this stuff (which I also use to buy up digital books).

Economics in One Lesson
Henry Hazlitt
http://www.mises.org/books/onelesson.pdf
http://jim.com/econ/
Economics in One Lesson is an introduction to free market economics written by Henry Hazlitt and published in 1946, based on Frédéric Bastiat's essay Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas (English: "What is Seen and What is Not Seen").

America's Great Depression
Murray Rothbard
http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf
Rothbard blames the interventionist policies of the Herbert Hoover administration for magnifying the duration, breadth, and intensity of the Great Depression. Rothbard explains the Austrian theory of the business cycle, which holds that government manipulation of the money supply sets the stage for the familiar "boom-bust" phases of the modern market. He then detailed the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve from 1921 to 1929 as evidence that the depression was essentially caused not by speculation, but by government and central bank interference in the market.

Human Action: A Treatise on Economics
Ludwig von Mises
http://mises.org/humanaction/pdf/humanaction.pdf
Human Action: A Treatise on Economics is the magnum opus of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. It presents a case for laissez-faire capitalism based on Mises' praxeology, or rational investigation of human decision-making. It rejects positivism within economics. It defends an a priori epistemology and underpins praxeology with a foundation of methodological individualism and laws of apodictic certainty. Mises argues that the free-market economy not only outdistances any government-planned system, but ultimately serves as the foundation of civilization itself.

[SuBe]

:up:

[Paradoxium]

Rothbard's America's Great Depression is quite telling about Hoover. It actually separates what Hoover said, and what Hoover did. This why it drives me up the wall every time keeps going on about him being laissez faire. It's like calling Bush a fiscal conservative, and thus fiscal conservatism does not work.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/11/hoover_the_myth.html
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/10/economic_crisis.html

From Chapter 11 about Hoover's New Deal
Measures such as Federal and state and local public works, work-sharing, maintaining wage rates ("a large majority have maintained wages at high levels" as before), curtailment of immigration, and the National Credit Corporation, Hoover declared, have served these purposes and fostered recovery. Now, Hoover urged more drastic action, and he presented the following program:

1. Establish a Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which would use Treasury funds to lend to banks, industries, agricultural credit agencies, and local governments;

2. Broaden the eligibility requirement for discounting at the Fed;

3. Create a Home Loan Bank discount system to revive construction and employment measures which had been warmly endorsed by a National Housing Conference recently convened by Hoover for that purpose;

4. Expand government aid to Federal Land Banks;

5. Set up a Public Works Administration to coordinate and expand Federal public works;

6. Legalize Hoover's order restricting immigration;

7. Do something to weaken "destructive competition" (i.e., competition) in natural resource use;

8. Grant direct loans of $300 million to States for relief;

9. Reform the bankruptcy laws (i.e., weaken protection for the creditor).

Hoover also displayed anxiety to "protect railroads from unregulated competition," and to bolster the bankrupt railroad lines. In addition, he called for sharing-the-work programs to save several millions from unemploymentWith a $2 billion deficit during annual year 1931, Hoover felt that he had to do something in the next year to combat it. Deficit spending is indeed an evil, but a balanced budget is not necessarily a good, particularly when the "balance" is obtained by increasing revenue and expenditures. If he wanted to balance the budget, Hoover had two choices open to him: to reduce expenditures, and thereby relieve the economy of some of the aggravated burden of government, or to increase that burden further by raising taxes. He chose the latter course. In his swan song as Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon advocated, in December, 1931, drastic increases of taxes, including personal income taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, and postal rates.

Obedient to the lines charted by Mellon and Hoover, Congress passed, in the Revenue Act of 1932, one of the greatest increases in taxation ever enacted in the United States in peacetime. The range of tax increases was enormous. Many wartime excise taxes were revived, sales taxes were imposed on gasoline, tires, autos, electric energy, malt, toiletries, furs, jewelry, and other articles; admission and stock transfer taxes were increased; new taxes were levied on bank checks, bond transfers, telephone, telegraph, and radio messages; and the personal income tax was raised drastically as follows: the normal rate was increased from a range of 1? percent-5 percent, to 4 percent-8 percent; personal exemptions were sharply reduced, and an earned credit of 25 percent eliminated; and surtaxes were raised enormously, from a maximum of 25 percent to 63 percent on the highest incomes. Furthermore, the corporate income tax was increased from 12 percent to l3? percent, and an exemption for small corporations eliminated; the estate tax was doubled, and the exemption floor halved; and the gift tax, which had been eliminated, was restored, and graduated up to 33??percent.[1] Hoover also tried his best to impose on the public a manufacturers' sales tax, but this was successfully opposed by the manufacturers.

[The Overlord]

Once again you fail to fully comprehend my posts.

I never stated that the public opinion SHOULD effect any policy one way or the other, I have stated time and time again about the political realities.

The political reality is that the public opinion will absolutely effect the Health Care debate because elections are so close, because the public is keeping an eye on government spending, and because the debate is so loud. Also Democrats from Conservative districts are feeling the pressure due to votes on Stimulus, Bailouts and Cap and Trade.

The case for the Iraq War was completely different because Americans (rationally or irrationally) were gun-ho for Iraq at the time. You can argue the why or how all you want. Now yes, I do not believe the government should be completely obedient to the people's wishes either. If military commanders on the field are saying that the operation is winnable, I don't believe in surrendering even if the majority of the American people do.

Now, that being said, I only believe in the use of military conflict as a last resort - which it obviously was not in Iraq. I believe the Bush Administration's handling of Iraq was poor and that more should have been done before putting boots on the ground. However once we were there, once operations began, once men and women were killed for this mission - we owed it to them and ourselves to finish the job. I am glad we did.

How long was Vietnam considered "winnable"? What about WWI, how many people died in that conflict, because everyone thought it was "winnable"? Wasn't WWI supposed to be over by Christmas 1914? How people died in pointless conflicts because their leaders thought these things were winnable, even as the years pass and more men are lost?

Public opinion on the war had a major effect on things, considering it was based on broken promises and public opinion turned against the war when those promises were not met. It is very hard to maintain a war when the public is against it. The USSR lost the Afghanistan war, in part because it became unpopular with the public and the USSR was a dictatorship, so public opinion can affect a war, no matter what. So saying public opinion is important in Health Care debate, but far less important in the Iraq war, seems completely flawed! Besides how can you say the war is winnable when the definition of victory kept on changing, it certainly isn't winnable by the promises the war was based on: finding WMDs and having no more then six months of fighting in Iraq.

It still seems like a major contradiction that you think other people are taking away your freedom with this Health Care bill, but you have no problem spending other people's money on a war that hasn't met its promises.

[bell110]

Firstly I think Libertarians (or classical liberal) are going to become more popular in our society when people realize the massive corruption in the other parties. As far as why more people aren't Libertarians I think it is just like why religion has stayed with us. People are mainly born into being either party and brought up with like minded people so they stay in that mindset. It's no secret that most states have been PERMA-Red or Blue and that what we are fed.

I agree with the second part you said. People born of a certain party tend to stay with it. I'm starting to think Libertarians will never become popular. Too many people are of the mind set that since they are not big, there is no reason to vote for them. They will either vote for the lesser of two evils, or not vote at all, and that is a shame.

A viable, well spoken, and intelligent candidate makes all the difference.

Well, that doesn't explain Bush.

Besides how can you say the war is winnable when the definition of victory kept on changing...

That's exactly HOW they are going to win.

I have a great idea. Obama can say passing health care will give us victory in Iraq, and we can leave. That way everyone wins: Democrats get health care legislation and Republicans get a victory in Iraq. It's too crazy NOT to work.

[Thirdworld]

I agree with the second part you said. People born of a certain party tend to stay with it. I'm starting to think Libertarians will never become popular. Too many people are of the mind set that since they are not big, there is no reason to vote for them. They will either vote for the lesser of two evils, or not vote at all, and that is a shame. Primarily I think the popularity will come in the form of Libertarian minded people getting Republican nominations. As for the party itself it could only can gain popularity if we do hit "the greatest depression". People looking for answers will turn (hopefully) to more Austrian/Libertarian ideas and writers. There is already some evidence of this today with book sales.

[Marx]

Well, that doesn't explain Bush.

Bush was the guy people 'wanted to have a beer with'. Beyond that, I can't explain it.

[The Overlord]

Primarily I think the popularity will come in the form of Libertarian minded people getting Republican nominations. As for the party itself it could only can gain popularity if we do hit "the greatest depression". People looking for answers will turn (hopefully) to more Austrian/Libertarian ideas and writers. There is already some evidence of this today with book sales.

But I don't see any evidence of the GOP becoming more Libertarian.

[Thirdworld]

But I don't see any evidence of the GOP becoming more Libertarian. Citizens who associate themselves with the GOP I think are more open to Libertarian ideas especially the younger generations. The GOP will eventually have to listen to these people more if they ever hope to change news like this -> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2009/73_of_gop_voters_say_congressional_republicans_hav e_lost_touch_with_their_base

[Kel]

Independents will move toward the Libertarian Party long before the Republican Party will......The $$$$$$ is still Right-Wing, Corporate.....

[bell110]

Primarily I think the popularity will come in the form of Libertarian minded people getting Republican nominations. As for the party itself it could only can gain popularity if we do hit "the greatest depression". People looking for answers will turn (hopefully) to more Austrian/Libertarian ideas and writers. There is already some evidence of this today with book sales.

It sucks that we would have to hit a great depression for people to change their ways. Unfortunately, the hard part would be getting Libertarians Republcan nominations. The religious right will not stand for that.

Bush was the guy people 'wanted to have a beer with'. Beyond that, I can't explain it.

LOL, that reminds me of what some comedian said. Greg Giraldo maybe. "Some of you are watching this in a bar right now. Look around. Do you see anyone that's presidential material?"

Citizens who associate themselves with the GOP I think are more open to Libertarian ideas especially the younger generations. The GOP will eventually have to listen to these people more if they ever hope to change news like this -> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2009/73_of_gop_voters_say_congressional_republicans_hav e_lost_touch_with_their_base

I've always seen the base of the GOP as two symbiotic groups: The Rich and the Religious. The rich only care about being able to get rich, and the religious only care about having America be more "Godly" (what ever that means). They have different agenda that don't directely contradict each other. The religious right won't vote for a more libertarian candidate. The rich would have to follow suit because it's a large portion of the party, which means more votes.

As for the younger generation. I could see that. I'm a recovering Republican. But, i'm also a North Easterner (Born in NY, raise in the DC suburbs). I live in a more liberal environment compared to people living in the red states, so it's easier for me to empathize with the left. Plus, people tend to become more conservative with age. Or maybe they stay the same, and the world becomes more liberal. I just blew my mind :wow:

My fear is that if Libertarians become more of a force in politics, some of the more unsavoriy parts of the right...(Beck..cough)... will latch on to it and bastardize it.

Independents will move toward the Libertarian Party long before the Republican Party will......The $$$$$$ is still Right-Wing, Corporate.....

Yes, I agree with this. I'm also afraid of them bastardizing Libertarians too, if they ever get big.

[Paradoxium]

The GOP is the party of the Second Richest and Evangelicals. The Democrats are now the Richest and College Educated. Both are the same corporatist sellouts, with paternalistic tendencies of "I know how to live your life and spend your money" attitudes. Unless there are reforms made... the only way Libertarians will have a shot is if they go corrupt and sell out to corporatism somehow. Otherwise they are "crazy people" who are "unelectable".

[The Overlord]

Citizens who associate themselves with the GOP I think are more open to Libertarian ideas especially the younger generations. The GOP will eventually have to listen to these people more if they ever hope to change news like this -> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2009/73_of_gop_voters_say_congressional_republicans_hav e_lost_touch_with_their_base

I still don't see evidence that they are not going to give a lot of power to the older social conservatives and social conservatism is a form of big government.

What evidence is there they planning on changing their policies, what is their plan to reduce the size of government?

[Thirdworld]

I still don't see evidence that they are not going to give a lot of power to the older social conservatives and social conservatism is a form of big government.

What evidence is there they planning on changing their policies, what is their plan to reduce the size of government? :doh: Let's back up a little firstly I don't think they will take over the party but become more popular (which they currently are not @ all). The Tea parties and town halls were greatly organized within Libertarian organizations. The growing popularity to people like Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Peter Schiff (the last two running '10). Much more youth being interested in Libertarian Ideas (young republicans and even some more liberal), book sales and google searches of Austrian and libertarian minded people reaching new highs. Where were these ideas before?

To clarify I'm not saying they will take over the party overnight but it is moving toward Libertarianism. Old conservatives are deeply entrenched but I certainly think we are seeing the start of the change in the party. As for change in policy look at Rand and Peter's campaign. There are actually a couple of new Libertarians in the '10 under Republican. I suggest watching "Freedom Watch" because they are usually on that show. In fact that show (internet show really) is the best show in my opinion on Fox.

[The Overlord]

:doh: Let's back up a little firstly I don't think they will take over the party but become more popular (which they currently are not @ all). The Tea parties and town halls were greatly organized within Libertarian organizations. The growing popularity to people like Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Peter Schiff (the last two running '10). Much more youth being interested in Libertarian Ideas (young republicans and even some more liberal), book sales and google searches of Austrian and libertarian minded people reaching new highs. Where were these ideas before?

To clarify I'm not saying they will take over the party overnight but it is moving toward Libertarianism. Old conservatives are deeply entrenched but I certainly think we are seeing the start of the change in the party. As for change in policy look at Rand and Peter's campaign. There are actually a couple of new Libertarians in the '10 under Republican. I suggest watching "Freedom Watch" because they are usually on that show. In fact that show (internet show really) is the best show in my opinion on Fox.

You still have no solid evidence of this, this is just hearsay. None of this proves a trend, it seems like wishful thinking on your part, I think you are looking at this with rose colored glasses.

If Ron Paul was popular in the GOP, why didn't he win the nomination? Doesn't seem he is that popular.

It seem like any focus on Libertarianism in the GOP is just some cynical attempt to justify being in power again and they have no intention of keeping these promises once they regain power.

I need stronger then the conjuncture you have provided. Why should anyone believe the GOP believes in small government, until they release an extremely detailed plan explaining exactly what government sectors they plan to cut?

[StorminNorman]

The GOP is the party of the Second Richest and Evangelicals. The Democrats are now the Richest and College Educated. Both are the same corporatist sellouts, with paternalistic tendencies of "I know how to live your life and spend your money" attitudes. Unless there are reforms made... the only way Libertarians will have a shot is if they go corrupt and sell out to corporatism somehow. Otherwise they are "crazy people" who are "unelectable".

I think if the Libertarians could find their own Obama-like figure, with the way the internet has changed politics - they could find success.

Americans are tired of the two parties doing nothing and of government being too big. An exciting Libertarian candidate that doesn't make you think Bob Barr that can raise Ron Paul-like money can have real success.

[Backdrifter]

I was just thinking about if a Libertarian were actually to become President. I don't think that much of anything will get done because of the resistance that will be coming from Congress. It seems the wisest move to make strategically is to mobilize hundreds of candidates for the House and Senate and fill the legislative branch with Libertarians. After this is achieved, I think having a Libertarian president would have a greater benefit. A massive shift to Libertarianism isn't going to happen over night. It is going to take years to slowly seep in and replace what passes for conservatism today.

I, also, think this strategy is actually more in line with the Libertarian ideology. The Presidency was never designed as an office which creates policy. The goal of the Libertarian ideology is reduced the size of the government and to do it according to the processes and design of the government. To be true to the Constitution. That can only be achieved through changing policy and legislation. Congress is the place where this has to happen. Therefore, Congress is the real battleground.

Just some thoughts. :)

[Thirdworld]

@ Overlord, The Trend is both population becoming more anti big-gov and the economy of the United States becoming worse. Within 1-4 years when the dollar nears collapse as the government continually tries and fails with there programs people will be fed up. As crime, prices go up and jobs go down citizens will become more discontent will the GOV and perhaps involving violent incidents.

Trends research CEO http://www.lewrockwell.com/celente/celente19.1.html believes that a new party will form from this "Progressive Libertarians". GOP will IMO cater in those times to small government and those who don't will certainly have a backlash and will inspire many to actually keep these promises.

This of course is just a future projection however the tea parties and the shape of the dollar and the trend of where it is going is there. I hold the same cynicism as far as the GOP because right now it just like the DEMS are BIG GOV ussa. The only way they change if their political lives depended on it and at a point I think it will.

[The Overlord]

@ Overlord, The Trend is both population becoming more anti big-gov and the economy of the United States becoming worse. Within 1-4 years when the dollar nears collapse as the government continually tries and fails with there programs people will be fed up. As crime, prices go up and jobs go down citizens will become more discontent will the GOV and perhaps involving violent incidents. .

It seems like a real leap of logic to make that type of correlation, even Alan Greenspan has recently changed his mind about whether the market should be unregulated in reaction to this mess, so it seems this correlation is conjecture, not fact, because different people have different reactions to it.


Trends research CEO http://www.lewrockwell.com/celente/celente19.1.html believes that a new party will form from this "Progressive Libertarians". GOP will IMO cater in those times to small government and those who don't will certainly have a backlash and will inspire many to actually keep these promises.

That projection is merely conjecture, not evidence. You have not provided any evidence of that happening.


This of course is just a future projection however the tea parties and the shape of the dollar and the trend of where it is going is there. I hold the same cynicism as far as the GOP because right now it just like the DEMS are BIG GOV ussa. The only way they change if their political lives depended on it and at a point I think it will.

I don't trust the tea party movement, I'm not sure of their intentions, it seems like a lot of people in the tea parties have goals besides small government.

But why should I believe the GOP will reduce the size of government when didn't for the last 8 years and so far they presented no detailed plans as to how they would reduce government.

[Paradoxium]

Just letting some know, Sinclair has been calling about the major event count down. He is part of the inflationist camp (I am a deflationist). I believe it was the G20 meeting + the deadline on November 11th. From that point on, the dollar will supposedly keep dropping from today and onwards. So far it seems to have dropped quite a bit as it is.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dollar-slumps-versus-euro-as-gold-futures-soar-2009-11-09

This will be an interesting week.

[Backdrifter]

Why do you think the dollar is deflating?

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't like the fiscal libertarian logic that big government is worse than big corporations. If you lweaken one the other will take over.

If I had to choose a master it would be government because it is the lesser of two evils. At least the people have some amount of control of government via democracy.

[MessiahDecoy123]

I agree with libertarians socially.

What adults do in private is there own business. That includes prostitution and doing drugs.

[hippie_hunter]

Drugs is one thing, but prostitution on the other hand should remain illegal. Far too shady and dangerous of a practice to allow.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Its no more dangerous than the porn industry.

what's so dangerous about a guy going into a brothel, picking a girl of his choice who gets std checks regularly?

Hookers always use condoms these days. They're more careful than the average one night stand.

what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is not the governments business.

[hippie_hunter]

Its no more dangerous than the porn industry.

what's so dangerous about a guy going into a brothel, picking a girl of his choice who gets std checks regularly?

Hookers always use condoms these days. They're more careful than the average one night stand.

what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is not the governments business.

The fact that prostitution is heavily linked to human trafficking, sexual slavery, and general abuse to women is reason enough for it to be illegal.

[MessiahDecoy123]

That's illegal prostitution rings.

You don't have those problems in Nevada where it's legal and tightly controlled the way it should be.

[hippie_hunter]

That's illegal prostitution rings.

You don't have those problems in Nevada where it's legal and tightly controlled the way it should be.

It's legalized in the Netherlands and you still have the massive amounts of sexual slavery and human trafficking involved with prostitution. If you legalize prostitution, you're still going to have the street prostitutes with abusive pimps, you're still going to have people from Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe deceived and forced against their will to be prostitutes, etc.

[MessiahDecoy123]

So why are those problems absent from the Nevada brothels?

[marcofthebeast]

I don't like the fiscal libertarian logic that big government is worse than big corporations. If you lweaken one the other will take over.


I'd choose the corporation. If a corporation does something you don't like you can stop buying their products and go elsewhere. If the Gov't does something you don't like they don't care because they get a piece of your check regardless.

[hippie_hunter]

So why are those problems absent from the Nevada brothels?

Just because there are legal brothels doesn't mean that there aren't problems in Nevada regarding prostitution.

Las Vegas has high rates of child prostitution and is one of the most likely destinations of human trafficking in the United States.

And the brothels in Nevada are said to be just as bad, if not worse, than pimps.

[Paradoxium]

Why do you think the dollar is deflating?Money velocity is slowed to a crawl. Banks are hoarding a ton of money - if there is movement, it might as well not be in the system. Inflation is the net gain of both credit AND money supply. There has been an increase of money supply but credit contraction this on top of the money velocity.

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4106/totalbankcredit.png

Note we never had credit in the negative before until recently.

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/3005/excessreserves.png

Note the piling of cash reserves - affects money velocity.

Although ultimately inflation is inevitable if things return to some level of normalcy in money velocity - spend more normally - we enter a inflationary depression. It is thus no surprise recent increase of consumer spending has been going up and the dollar index been going down. You can thank Bernanke's quantitative easing and Obama's stimulus.

Anyways, the G20 meeting was interesting.

China Signals That It May Allow Currency to Rise Against Dollar (http://www.cnbc.com/id/33850971)

[MessiahDecoy123]

Just because there are legal brothels doesn't mean that there aren't problems in Nevada regarding prostitution.
There aren't problems in Nevada. The brothels are run like legitimate businesses. The girls get checked for diseases frequently. The girls are safe and pay taxes.

Las Vegas has high rates of child prostitution and is one of the most likely destinations of human trafficking in the United States.
Prositution is illegal in Las Vegas so it's a poor example of legalized prostitution. Many problems there are probably associated with the criminalization of prostitution.

And the brothels in Nevada are said to be just as bad, if not worse, than pimps.
The brothels are no where as bad as a pimp who has a woman in fear for her life and will beat her if she doesn't hand over all if not most of her hard earned earnings.

Legalized prostitution doesn't increase the victimization associated with prostitution. It lowers it.

It gives the girls a safe avenue to practice their trade.

[Paradoxium]

Americans are overpaid (http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/11/news/international/global_american_wages.breakingviews/index.htm?cnn=yes)

This is one of the things deflation will bring. Mother of all paycuts. Either this happens or massive unemployment over the long term. Take your pick. Even if there is hyperinflation, in true value (based on purchase power and not nominal terms) to work pay, it will be a reduction. Oh this is on top of a tax increase over the board to sustain and payoff the debt by the current government.