If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   "Liberals and conservatives may love people more than do libertarians, but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress"   (reason.com) divider line 617
    More: Sick, Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist, moral dilemmas, religious tolerance, liberty, liberals, Simon Baron-Cohen, rule of law  
•       •       •

1725 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2012 at 1:47 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



617 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-28 08:22:37 AM  
Everyone knows the peak of moral progress is letting poor people starve. Duh....
 
2012-09-28 08:37:10 AM  

johnryan51: Everyone knows the peak of moral progress is letting poor people starve. Duh....


Well it's true. A dead person is more moral than a live one on the dole.
 
2012-09-28 09:00:28 AM  
and furthermore comma

*straightens fedora, adjusts jorts*
 
2012-09-28 09:06:07 AM  
"Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible."

Yeah, those Enlightenment thinkers, they were such total libertarians! John Locke thought we weren't universally collected in any way to make society, we were all just disparate actors working for our own benefits!
 
2012-09-28 09:19:58 AM  

Rincewind53: "Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible."

Yeah, those Enlightenment thinkers, they were such total libertarians! John Locke thought we weren't universally collected in any way to make society, we were all just disparate actors working for our own benefits!


"Every man is an island." - John Derpe
 
2012-09-28 09:52:19 AM  
What did they call J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism? Something like "the bourgeoise providing moral justification for their own selfishness"?

Similar thing applies here.
 
2012-09-28 09:57:13 AM  
Moral progress?
 
2012-09-28 10:00:18 AM  
Apparently the rest of the Fark drones don't really understand libertarianism.

I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)

Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty. Of course, with individual liberty comes personal responsibility. The current bi-partisan system is farked because you have the Democrats that want individual liberty without personal responsibility and the Republicans that want personal responsibility without individual liberty. The best analogy I can give for the 2 parties is that the Democrats are like mommy that always want to take care of you and the Republicans are like daddy that want to tell you how to live your life.

From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.

Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.
 
2012-09-28 10:00:37 AM  
You don't know anything and you should set yourself on fire.
 
2012-09-28 10:13:10 AM  

slayer199: From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.

Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.




Dude. Do go talking sense to these people. They NEED to hate on someone for their plight. It's YOUR fault you selfish bastard!
 
2012-09-28 10:14:13 AM  

slayer199: But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.

Except for the part where this has never actually, you know, worked.

 
2012-09-28 10:14:47 AM  

slayer199:
Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


The primary way we achieved substantive reform in the 20th century that massively lowered poverty rates, raised overall cost of living, improved society, extended life expectancy, and freed people from horribly dangerous working conditions is through government action. As much as you may try to write the Progressive Era and the New Deal out of history, they still happened.

Libertarianism is a movement with some great ideas, and some really terrible blind spots.
 
2012-09-28 10:23:19 AM  
'Allowing' charities and churches to handle the poor and hungry is a good way to ensure a lot of people end up dead. So it's not a bad way to go if you'd rather those people not be around to bother you.

I just think it's funny that paying taxes is considered unjust, but someone dying because of a lack of money doesn't even rate on the justice scale. It's just something that happens sometimes, oh well.
 
2012-09-28 10:24:10 AM  

Rincewind53: The primary way we achieved substantive reform in the 20th century that massively lowered poverty rates, raised overall cost of living, improved society, extended life expectancy, and freed people from horribly dangerous working conditions is through government action. As much as you may try to write the Progressive Era and the New Deal out of history, they still happened.

Libertarianism is a movement with some great ideas, and some really terrible blind spots.


So the Industrial Revolution, growth of GDP, and America's rise as a financial superpower had nothing to do with it?
 
2012-09-28 10:29:31 AM  

slayer199: So the Industrial Revolution, growth of GDP, and America's rise as a financial superpower had nothing to do with it?


Being anti-libertarian isn't the same thing as being anti-capitalism. Don't conflate the two. It doesn't take a Randian to mass produce soemthing and sell it for profit.
 
2012-09-28 10:30:57 AM  
What is "liberty" in this context?
 
2012-09-28 10:31:54 AM  

slayer199: Rincewind53: The primary way we achieved substantive reform in the 20th century that massively lowered poverty rates, raised overall cost of living, improved society, extended life expectancy, and freed people from horribly dangerous working conditions is through government action. As much as you may try to write the Progressive Era and the New Deal out of history, they still happened.

Libertarianism is a movement with some great ideas, and some really terrible blind spots.

So the Industrial Revolution, growth of GDP, and America's rise as a financial superpower had nothing to do with it?


I don't think any of those are in any way mutually exclusive of any of the things I mentioned. The Industrial Revolution brought an entirely new type of oppression into the world that caused massive social upheaval and created a huge amount of problems for the working poor. Children working in factories, women being worked until their hands bled, men dying of black lung in the coal mines, the Triangle Shirt-Waist fire -- all of these were the direct result of private action, aided and abetted by a court system that placed "freedom of contract" over the health and safety of the lower classes. In an era when adulterated sausage filled with pieces of rat were the norm, do you really think massive change could have occurred through private actors? It is unquestionable that private individuals did a lot to alleviate the problems of the era, through philanthropy from people like Andrew Carnegie or lower-level work from social reformers who set up workhouses to protect the poor. But in the end, the only way these excesses and human rights abuses were stopped was through campaigns for government oversight.

You know what happened when individuals tried to stand up to the Robber Barons? They were shot by hired thugs, bribed policemen, and the Pinkertons.
 
2012-09-28 10:33:24 AM  

slayer199: Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty.


Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?
 
2012-09-28 10:33:27 AM  

slayer199: Apparently the rest of the Fark drones don't really understand libertarianism.

I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)

Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty. Of course, with individual liberty comes personal responsibility. The current bi-partisan system is farked because you have the Democrats that want individual liberty without personal responsibility and the Republicans that want personal responsibility without individual liberty. The best analogy I can give for the 2 parties is that the Democrats are like mommy that always want to take care of you and the Republicans are like daddy that want to tell you how to live your life.

From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.

Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


As long as you deny the irrationalities of human beings, the amount of time we depend on our limbic system to make decisions and the fact that we use the full extent of the prefrontal cortex only a small percentage of the time ... as long as you deny all that then libertarianism is a great idea. With actual human beings, not so much.
 
2012-09-28 10:33:50 AM  
it's always interesting watching these threads....Republicans and Democrats alike both show their programmed responses very clearly. damn shame this country has been hard coded to only think in binary terms: left wing, right wing. Republican and Democrat. Conservative and Liberal. Good and Evil. both sides define themselves by their relationship to each other. then along comes a libertarian viewpoint that says 'hey, maybe a little bit of both sides would work out better for everyone' and the binary crowd loses their shiat.

I know i'm not going to change anyone's point of view in this (or any other) 'bash the libertarians' thread. I just thought it worth mentioning that you might benefit from questioning your own inherent bias before jumping on the libertarians. carry on my wayward sons, There'll be peace when you are done.
 
2012-09-28 10:36:03 AM  

kmmontandon: slayer199: But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.

Except for the part where this has never actually, you know, worked.


Read up on poverty in American history. Up until the Great Depression, nearly all aid to the poor was done through private groups. Government aid dating back to the early settlers focused on what they called the "deserving poor," i.e. those who had no real way to function in their societies (the blind, crippled, orphans).
 
2012-09-28 10:38:13 AM  

Weaver95: it's always interesting watching these threads....Republicans and Democrats alike both show their programmed responses very clearly. damn shame this country has been hard coded to only think in binary terms: left wing, right wing. Republican and Democrat. Conservative and Liberal. Good and Evil. both sides define themselves by their relationship to each other. then along comes a libertarian viewpoint that says 'hey, maybe a little bit of both sides would work out better for everyone' and the binary crowd loses their shiat.

I know i'm not going to change anyone's point of view in this (or any other) 'bash the libertarians' thread. I just thought it worth mentioning that you might benefit from questioning your own inherent bias before jumping on the libertarians. carry on my wayward sons, There'll be peace when you are done.


Look, you're a cool guy and all, but I think you're over-reacting to a perceived hatred for libertarians. As I stated in the first thing I said, I actually think Libertarians have some really great ideas, many of which are perfectly in line with my own thoughts on the subject. I just think they also have very large blind spots towards areas where government has helped, and can continue to help.
 
2012-09-28 10:38:38 AM  

ArkAngel: Read up on poverty in American history. Up until the Great Depression, nearly all aid to the poor was done through private groups.


Yeah, and it didn't work. Are you unaware of the crippling poverty most people lived in until the very recent past?
 
2012-09-28 10:41:16 AM  

ArkAngel: Read up on poverty in American history. Up until the Great Depression, nearly all aid to the poor was done through private groups. Government aid dating back to the early settlers focused on what they called the "deserving poor," i.e. those who had no real way to function in their societies (the blind, crippled, orphans).


No one is contesting that it was done. The question is: how many people still starved?

If a government program to feed people let 25% of people starve, it would be called an unmitigated failure. Why should there be a double standard between the success of a government and private entities?
 
2012-09-28 10:41:41 AM  

Weaver95: it's always interesting watching these threads....Republicans and Democrats alike both show their programmed responses very clearly. damn shame this country has been hard coded to only think in binary terms: left wing, right wing. Republican and Democrat. Conservative and Liberal. Good and Evil. both sides define themselves by their relationship to each other. then along comes a libertarian viewpoint that says 'hey, maybe a little bit of both sides would work out better for everyone' and the binary crowd loses their shiat.

I know i'm not going to change anyone's point of view in this (or any other) 'bash the libertarians' thread. I just thought it worth mentioning that you might benefit from questioning your own inherent bias before jumping on the libertarians. carry on my wayward sons, There'll be peace when you are done.


It's a little generous to assume that libertarian = centrist or that it fits nicely in between left-wing and right-wing. I like a lot of libertarian ideals but closing down entire federal departments and going back to the gold standard is not centrist.
 
2012-09-28 10:46:08 AM  
I'll start respecting these supposed libertarians when they get as outraged over something like warrantless wiretapping as they do about being unable to dump raw sewage into a public aquifer.
 
2012-09-28 10:47:07 AM  

Lumpmoose:

It's a little generous to assume that libertarian = centrist or that it fits nicely in between left-wing and right-wing. I like a lot of libertarian ideals but closing down entire federal departments and going back to the gold standard is not centrist.


that's also not what all libertarians belief.

trying to say that 'all libertarians believe XYZ' is like saying 'all democrats are atheist abortion addicts'. ask 3 libertarians to define their beliefs and you'll get 5 answers.

all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us. maybe the libertarians aren't the answer either...but I think we should try something - try ANYTHING different than the binary course of action we've been locked into all this time.
 
2012-09-28 10:51:56 AM  

Weaver95: Lumpmoose:

It's a little generous to assume that libertarian = centrist or that it fits nicely in between left-wing and right-wing. I like a lot of libertarian ideals but closing down entire federal departments and going back to the gold standard is not centrist.

that's also not what all libertarians belief.

trying to say that 'all libertarians believe XYZ' is like saying 'all democrats are atheist abortion addicts'. ask 3 libertarians to define their beliefs and you'll get 5 answers.

all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us. maybe the libertarians aren't the answer either...but I think we should try something - try ANYTHING different than the binary course of action we've been locked into all this time.


I don't think we are completely locked into a binary course. Both Democrats and Republicans have been evolving since the beginning of the parties. The ideologies change so that it's not always the same ideologies in locked opposition.
 
2012-09-28 10:53:36 AM  

Weaver95: all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us. maybe the libertarians aren't the answer either...but I think we should try something - try ANYTHING different than the binary course of action we've been locked into all this time.


By and large, the libertarians (at least the self described ones here) favor economic policy that is virtually indistinguishable from the most extreme policy coming out of the tea party

Slashing any and all regulations, slashing the entire social safety net, slashing anything resembling worker protection, and slashing every tax on those at the top while eliminating the breaks and credits those in the middle and lower classes take advantage of. .
 
2012-09-28 10:53:47 AM  
For the last time, "objectivist" does not necessarily mean "libertarian".
 
2012-09-28 10:55:50 AM  
Libertarianism is full of great ideas that fall apart as soon as you introduce human nature to the equation.
I support individual liberties exactly up until the point such liberties adversely affect someone else's.
Personal responsibility should be encouraged and rewarded, but a strong safety net benefits society in ways that well outpace the costs.
 
2012-09-28 10:57:52 AM  

Weaver95: all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us.


Things aren't perfect right now. Does that mean we're in a bad way? I'm grateful every day that I was fortunate enough to be born in this day and age, in this country, where I enjoy more rights and protections and the benefits of technological advances than almost anyone else who has ever been alive on this planet ever saw. Oh, but the economy isn't absolutely buff. There's some foreign trouble going on. People still suffer from the terrible fate of mortality. This makes things bad?
 
2012-09-28 10:58:56 AM  

Aarontology: Weaver95: all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us. maybe the libertarians aren't the answer either...but I think we should try something - try ANYTHING different than the binary course of action we've been locked into all this time.

By and large, the libertarians (at least the self described ones here) favor economic policy that is virtually indistinguishable from the most extreme policy coming out of the tea party

Slashing any and all regulations, slashing the entire social safety net, slashing anything resembling worker protection, and slashing every tax on those at the top while eliminating the breaks and credits those in the middle and lower classes take advantage of. .


you dodged my point - we've tried Republicans, we've tried Democrats....and look where it's gotten us. here we are, just as we've always been. And we're going to keep right on electing Republicans and Democrats and dancing to the same music until it all comes crashing down around us. I'm suggesting we've got other options.
 
2012-09-28 10:59:13 AM  

Weaver95: Lumpmoose:

It's a little generous to assume that libertarian = centrist or that it fits nicely in between left-wing and right-wing. I like a lot of libertarian ideals but closing down entire federal departments and going back to the gold standard is not centrist.

that's also not what all libertarians belief.

trying to say that 'all libertarians believe XYZ' is like saying 'all democrats are atheist abortion addicts'. ask 3 libertarians to define their beliefs and you'll get 5 answers.

all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us. maybe the libertarians aren't the answer either...but I think we should try something - try ANYTHING different than the binary course of action we've been locked into all this time.


What's with "we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way"? Eisenhower was a president of his time. Reagan was a president of his time. Clinton was a president of his time. There's no "democrats way" or "republicans way". Each decade brings a huge difference in conditions and challenges and both parties have changed dramatically over that time. 

Simpson-Bowles is a moderate, centrist solution. There's no reason both parties can't get behind it so Republicans are going to have to be willing to compromise and allow for responsible revenue increases.

Right there is the approximate status quo helping to solve the debt problem over the long term. It involves moderation and both parties compromising. What are libertarians offering that's different and not radical in comparison?
 
2012-09-28 11:01:34 AM  

The Bestest: Libertarianism is full of great ideas that fall apart as soon as you introduce human nature to the equation.


Exactly. The instincts we involved living in small hunter gatherer bands of around 30-50 people don't necessarily make sense in a global society of billions. Our cultural evolution (essentially the technology that we've built to allow us to expand as far as we have) has far outpaced our biological evolution (our instincts and limited use of our logical abilities).
 
2012-09-28 11:08:24 AM  

DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?


Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.

If you choose to do hookers and blow every night, that's your choice. The consequences of that could be STDs, overdose, having no money...consequences YOU have to live with.
 
2012-09-28 11:09:02 AM  

Weaver95: Aarontology: Weaver95: all i'm saying is that we've tried things the democrats way, and we've tried things the republican way....and look where its gotten us. maybe the libertarians aren't the answer either...but I think we should try something - try ANYTHING different than the binary course of action we've been locked into all this time.

By and large, the libertarians (at least the self described ones here) favor economic policy that is virtually indistinguishable from the most extreme policy coming out of the tea party

Slashing any and all regulations, slashing the entire social safety net, slashing anything resembling worker protection, and slashing every tax on those at the top while eliminating the breaks and credits those in the middle and lower classes take advantage of. .

you dodged my point - we've tried Republicans, we've tried Democrats....and look where it's gotten us. here we are, just as we've always been. And we're going to keep right on electing Republicans and Democrats and dancing to the same music until it all comes crashing down around us. I'm suggesting we've got other options.


How are we the same as we've ever been? Sure, politics are still nasty, but in dozens of large ways and hundreds and thousands of small ways, government and society today is fundamentally different than government and society was 25 years ago, or 50 years ago. Some problems have stuck with us, some problems are brand new, some problems have been solved, then cropped back up again in a new way, and some problems have been outright solved.
 
2012-09-28 11:10:19 AM  

Rincewind53: slayer199: Rincewind53: The primary way we achieved substantive reform in the 20th century that massively lowered poverty rates, raised overall cost of living, improved society, extended life expectancy, and freed people from horribly dangerous working conditions is through government action. As much as you may try to write the Progressive Era and the New Deal out of history, they still happened.

Libertarianism is a movement with some great ideas, and some really terrible blind spots.

So the Industrial Revolution, growth of GDP, and America's rise as a financial superpower had nothing to do with it?

I don't think any of those are in any way mutually exclusive of any of the things I mentioned. The Industrial Revolution brought an entirely new type of oppression into the world that caused massive social upheaval and created a huge amount of problems for the working poor. Children working in factories, women being worked until their hands bled, men dying of black lung in the coal mines, the Triangle Shirt-Waist fire -- all of these were the direct result of private action, aided and abetted by a court system that placed "freedom of contract" over the health and safety of the lower classes. In an era when adulterated sausage filled with pieces of rat were the norm, do you really think massive change could have occurred through private actors? It is unquestionable that private individuals did a lot to alleviate the problems of the era, through philanthropy from people like Andrew Carnegie or lower-level work from social reformers who set up workhouses to protect the poor. But in the end, the only way these excesses and human rights abuses were stopped was through campaigns for government oversight.

You know what happened when individuals tried to stand up to the Robber Barons? They were shot by hired thugs, bribed policemen, and the Pinkertons.


farking seriously.

Not to mention that the wealthy philanthropists, while they did good work, still picked and chose those they thought were "deserving" of charity, and those like Cadbury and Rowntree created semi-feudal workers' estates where everyone had to abide by the owner's beliefs, like zero alcohol and attending church.

How is that advancing liberty? I suspect they mean only the liberty of the donors, not the recipients.
 
2012-09-28 11:10:30 AM  

slayer199: DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?

Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.

If you choose to do hookers and blow every night, that's your choice. The consequences of that could be STDs, overdose, having no money...consequences YOU have to live with.


Okay. What if you choose to be born into a family that's been in poverty for three generations and go to a school in an area with high crime and low support structures? Do you have to just live with that, or are you supposed to just throw off your upbringing and the circumstances of your birth and emerge new, like a phoenix?
 
2012-09-28 11:10:40 AM  

slayer199: DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?

Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.

If you choose to do hookers and blow every night, that's your choice. The consequences of that could be STDs, overdose, having no money...consequences YOU have to live with.


Who's going to pay to clean out the corpse?
 
2012-09-28 11:12:42 AM  
Obligatory
www.leftycartoons.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-28 11:12:51 AM  

The Bestest: Libertarianism is full of great ideas that fall apart as soon as you introduce human nature to the equation.
I support individual liberties exactly up until the point such liberties adversely affect someone else's.
Personal responsibility should be encouraged and rewarded, but a strong safety net benefits society in ways that well outpace the costs.


When you think about it, most limits on personal freedom are there to protect the personal freedom of other people. For instance anti-pollution laws protect me from having your pollution literally forced down my throat.
 
2012-09-28 11:13:07 AM  

Weaver95: you dodged my point - we've tried Republicans, we've tried Democrats....and look where it's gotten us. here we are, just as we've always been. And we're going to keep right on electing Republicans and Democrats and dancing to the same music until it all comes crashing down around us. I'm suggesting we've got other options.


I first would need to be convinced that libertarian economic policy is substantively different than the economic policy coming out of the GOP before we say that we've never tried it. But anyway, that was my rebuttal to your point. We want to act like the libertarians would somehow behave or govern better, but their ideas have been tried and they've been unsuccessful.

The Crash of 08 is a perfect example. The lack of regulations (or the freedom to engage in, depending on how you want to describe it) on credit default swaps and the subsequent collapse of the entire scheme is the direct result of the failure of industry to police itself and the lack of government oversight. Not to say the government isn't at fault to some degree as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but lot of libertarian economic policy and philosophy is based upon the idea that markets will be self correcting, self policing and won't engage in nefarious activities because of the enlightened self interest. Which fails miserably once you add people and their greed and lack of empathy for others into the equation.

I do have sympathy for a lot of libertarian ideas, but their economic policy is simply as unrealistic and utopian as marxism in that it denies human nature. Marxism assumes that everyone will work solely for the collective without consideration for their own wants, needs, and so on. Libertarianism also assumes that people will put aside the worst aspects of greed, ambition, and competition to ensure the system will survive and everyone benefits. But that's also unrealistic. Look at the CEOs and bank executives. They knew the default swap was unsustainable. They didn't care about the aftermath of the collapse because they got theirs.

Libertarian social policy and policy on things like the drug war, the security state, etc. however, would be a very nice change of pace
 
2012-09-28 11:13:30 AM  

slayer199: DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?

Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.


How does this work in the real world? Let's take a really simply thing, like medicine. There's a vile of insulin on the table. I have diabetes. I walk over to the table and pick the the medicine to use it. Someone else comes along and says "Hey! You can't do that! That's mine!"

How do we decide who gets the medicine? Libertarianism doesn't seem to have any objective answer to that question. Based on the assumptions you put into the model, you get wildly different answers.

Patient: I have the freedom to ingest medicines that I need.

Hospital: But you're not infringing on my property rights.

Patient: My liberty to live is more important than your property rights.

Libertarian: The hospital is right.

Patient: Why?

Libertarian: Liberty and stuff.

I'm unconvinced.
 
2012-09-28 11:14:59 AM  
libertarians couldn't even raise chairty money for Ron Paul's own campaign managers healthcare bills, on what farking planet do they live on where chairty would work as a subsitite for social services because it certianly and this farking one. And every farking time without a farking doubt some clown comes in an acts like that is a viable soultion and some other clonws "this" his comment between the other hundreds of posts proving it wrong. And then guess what will happen next time we get a similar article from the tards at reason.com... the same farking thing.
 
2012-09-28 11:35:41 AM  

slayer199: DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?

Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.

If you choose to do hookers and blow every night, that's your choice. The consequences of that could be STDs, overdose, having no money...consequences YOU have to live with.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but the consequences of that could also be impaired judgment that leads you to cause harm to another.
 
2012-09-28 11:55:58 AM  

slayer199: Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?).


The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document with standing over the United States.

It was written to appeal to its audience: King George.
 
2012-09-28 12:07:19 PM  

slayer199: Apparently the rest of the Fark drones don't really understand libertarianism.

I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)

Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty. Of course, with individual liberty comes personal responsibility. The current bi-partisan system is farked because you have the Democrats that want individual liberty without personal responsibility and the Republicans that want personal responsibility without individual liberty. The best analogy I can give for the 2 parties is that the Democrats are like mommy that always want to take care of you and the Republicans are like daddy that want to tell you how to live your life.

From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.

Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


I like how this touchy-feely caveat is inserted, as if it makes up for the fact that the rest of the text as written implies the exact opposite.

/leaving aside the other parts where it is assumed that individual actions occur in a vacuum
//like the standard bearer of "war on drugs" being included, though
 
2012-09-28 12:34:05 PM  

slayer199: But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government


The government has a DUTY to care for the well-being of its citizens. A central tenet of every single western democracy on Earth.

So, like you knew you were going to hear, move to Somalia, because they won't do f*ck all for you or anyone. How wonderful that will be.
 
2012-09-28 12:49:51 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I like how this touchy-feely caveat is inserted, as if it makes up for the fact that the rest of the text as written implies the exact opposite.


Exactly. Libertarians might not want people to die, but they're perfectly willing to let it happen in order to better adhere to an ideology.
 
2012-09-28 12:53:51 PM  

hillbillypharmacist: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I like how this touchy-feely caveat is inserted, as if it makes up for the fact that the rest of the text as written implies the exact opposite.

Exactly. Libertarians might not want people to die, but they're perfectly willing to let it happen in order to better adhere to an ideology.


I'm fairly convinced that most Libertarians are that way because they believe they're the ones that will make all the "right choices", and that random chance or circumstances out of their control happen to "other people".
 
2012-09-28 12:54:39 PM  

Rev.K: The government has a DUTY to care for the well-being of its citizens. A central tenet of every single western democracy on Earth.

So, like you knew you were going to hear, move to Somalia, because they won't do f*ck all for you or anyone. How wonderful that will be.


That's not the issue. The issue is where to draw the line. Help those that are physically incapable of helping themselves? Sure. Helping able-bodied people? No.
 
2012-09-28 12:56:29 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I like how this touchy-feely caveat is inserted, as if it makes up for the fact that the rest of the text as written implies the exact opposite.

/leaving aside the other parts where it is assumed that individual actions occur in a vacuum
//like the standard bearer of "war on drugs" being included, though


There's a big difference between helping those that are physically unable to care for themselves and those that are. The issue is where to draw the line.

Self-reliance > government reliance
 
2012-09-28 12:57:55 PM  

DamnYankees: How does this work in the real world? Let's take a really simply thing, like medicine. There's a vile of insulin on the table. I have diabetes. I walk over to the table and pick the the medicine to use it. Someone else comes along and says "Hey! You can't do that! That's mine!"

How do we decide who gets the medicine? Libertarianism doesn't seem to have any objective answer to that question. Based on the assumptions you put into the model, you get wildly different answers.


Simple answer. Is that insulin yours? No. It belongs to the hospital.
 
2012-09-28 01:04:50 PM  

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I'm fairly convinced that most Libertarians are that way because they believe they're the ones that will make all the "right choices", and that random chance or circumstances out of their control happen to "other people".


libertarianism is a mild form of autism, it isn't selfishness they just can't relate.
 
2012-09-28 01:05:39 PM  

SurfaceTension: The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document with standing over the United States.


I never said it was the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution believed that rights came from the individual and the government existed to protect those rights. Read the Federalist Papers sometime (Federalist #84) in particular as there was a strong debate against including the Bill of Rights. Why? Because the People have rights (natural or unalienable) and the government is granted Power (from The People).

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." --Alexander Hamilton

Seems like Hamilton was onto something...
 
2012-09-28 01:09:23 PM  

slayer199: Helping able-bodied people? No.


Really?

I mean, really?

That's a 10-year old's view of the world.
 
2012-09-28 01:12:36 PM  

Rev.K: Really?

I mean, really?

That's a 10-year old's view of the world.


How many people have you tried to personally help financially or career-wise. I've tried to help many...and I'll help those that will help themselves. Fark the rest.
 
2012-09-28 01:12:57 PM  

slayer199: Rev.K: The government has a DUTY to care for the well-being of its citizens. A central tenet of every single western democracy on Earth.

So, like you knew you were going to hear, move to Somalia, because they won't do f*ck all for you or anyone. How wonderful that will be.

That's not the issue. The issue is where to draw the line. Help those that are physically incapable of helping themselves? Sure. Helping able-bodied people? No.


And if helping them saves money and is a net benefit to society, as well as being the moral thing to do? This seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Libertarianism just doesn't plan for the long term. "Here and now, I don't want to help pay for this drug addict's treatment. I'm going to ignore the fact that everybody benefits in the long term because working together to improve society is for suckers."
 
2012-09-28 01:20:04 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Obligatory
[www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]


i798.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-28 01:21:53 PM  

slayer199: TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: I like how this touchy-feely caveat is inserted, as if it makes up for the fact that the rest of the text as written implies the exact opposite.

/leaving aside the other parts where it is assumed that individual actions occur in a vacuum
//like the standard bearer of "war on drugs" being included, though

There's a big difference between helping those that are physically unable to care for themselves and those that are. The issue is where to draw the line.

Self-reliance > government reliance


We don't live on the frontier. We live in a 1st world, post-industrial, highly technological society.

Your world-view fits very well into the saying:

"For every problem there is an answer that is simple, obvious and wrong."
 
2012-09-28 01:23:54 PM  

DamnYankees:

Patient: My liberty to live is more important than your property rights.

Libertarian: The hospital is right.

Patient: Why?

Libertarian: Liberty and stuff.

I'm unconvinced.


This works for anyone who's ideals aren't in line with reality.

In reality the Hospital keeps drugs locked up and away from the general public. If there is an emergency then they dole out the drug. If the patient can't pay then they write it off.

See how it really works? Problem solved.
 
2012-09-28 01:24:27 PM  
Not sure why this has the "sick" tag - he didn't advocate killing poor people for fun.
 
2012-09-28 01:31:20 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: And if helping them saves money and is a net benefit to society, as well as being the moral thing to do? This seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Libertarianism just doesn't plan for the long term. "Here and now, I don't want to help pay for this drug addict's treatment. I'm going to ignore the fact that everybody benefits in the long term because working together to improve society is for suckers."


Oh, how is the War on Poverty working out since 1960? Hasn't done a damn thing.

Sorry to inform those of you dreaming of a socialist utopia that it won't work. Why? Human nature. Some people don't want to do what is necessary to succeed. It's easier to sponge off of others. There will ALWAYS be those that fit that category. The moral thing to do is help those that will help themselves....the others that won't help themselves...fark them.

The problem with the socialist mindset is the entire Appeal to Pity argument. It sounds good on paper. Tax the rich, give to the poor...because the poor are victims, not responsible for their status.

Just like I hate the social conservatives for telling me how to live my life, I hate the liberals telling me they know best how to spend my hard earned dollar when I've met very few that have actually put the time, cash, and effort into personally helping people. Liberals believe that the best way to help people springs from the government, not individuals. While I may be a hard-assed libertarian I've also done a lot to help individuals either financially, career-wise, and in other ways. I'm speaking from personal experience, not some textbook. Nothing is more satisfying than helping someone get their shiat together and get their life going...conversely, nothing is more heartbreaking when you see people make the same mistakes over and over and over and not do a thing to help themselves other than wallowing in self-pity and pointing a finger at everyone else. Unfortunately, the 2nd group is larger than the first...but that doesn't mean I'll stop trying.
 
2012-09-28 01:35:03 PM  

slayer199: How many people have you tried to personally help financially or career-wise. I've tried to help many...and I'll help those that will help themselves. Fark the rest.


Many friends who needed money in a jam, family members too. But even more compelling than that is part of the work I do, which is assisting senior citizens who cannot afford to pay their property taxes.

See, some elderly people own their home but are on very tight, fixed incomes. In some cases, when the property taxes on their house increase, they cannot afford to pay them. If that persists for long enough, the city will assume ownership of the property and an 82-year old widow would have nowhere to go but perhaps to family members or the street.

The tax relief program is in place because to most people, it's a much better idea all around to defer the taxes or provide relief so that an 82-year old widow doesn't have to face life on the streets.

As God-is-my-Co-Pirate pointed out, the long term benefit of not tossing the elderly into the street and recouping a portion of the property taxes far outweighs the smug satisfaction of turning the unfortunate out to the streets. 

But not for libertarians. They just say "f*ck em". And I find that abhorrent.
 
2012-09-28 01:37:50 PM  

slayer199: Simple answer. Is that insulin yours? No. It belongs to the hospital.


How do you determine who it belongs to? This is what I'm talking about. The very nature of determining property rights turns libertarianism into nonsense.
 
2012-09-28 01:38:03 PM  

Rev.K: But not for libertarians. They just say "f*ck em". And I find that abhorrent.


They fall into the category of helping those that cannot help themselves...but thanks for twisting it around.
 
2012-09-28 01:38:55 PM  

DamnYankees: How do you determine who it belongs to? This is what I'm talking about. The very nature of determining property rights turns libertarianism into nonsense.


It belongs to the hospital. Property rights exist ya know.
 
2012-09-28 01:39:58 PM  

slayer199: Oh, how is the War on Poverty working out since 1960? Hasn't done a damn thing.


today.. tomorrow or later today: Poor people are doing so well in america they all own x-boxs and refrigerators we need them to get more skin in the game and pay income taxes.
 
2012-09-28 01:40:44 PM  

slayer199: Oh, how is the War on Poverty working out since 1960? Hasn't done a damn thing.


anticap.files.wordpress.com

Seniors disagree.
 
2012-09-28 01:41:25 PM  

slayer199: That's not the issue. The issue is where to draw the line. Help those that are physically incapable of helping themselves? Sure. Helping able-bodied people? No.


Well that's not patronizing at all. Those poor disabled folks, might as well give them a hand up because bless their hearts, they can't do it for themselves.

slayer199:
Oh, how is the War on Poverty working out since 1960? Hasn't done a damn thing.

Sorry to inform those of you dreaming of a socialist utopia that it won't work. Why? Human nature. Some people don't want to do what is necessary to succeed. It's easier to sponge off of others. There will ALWAYS be those that fit that category. The moral thing to do is help those that will help themselves....the others that won't help themselves...fark them.

The problem with the socialist mindset is the entire Appeal to Pity argument. It sounds good on paper. Tax the rich, give to the poor...because the poor are victims, not responsible for their status.

Just like I hate the social conservatives for telling me how to live my life, I hate the liberals telling me they know best how to spend my hard earned dollar when I've met very few that have actually put the time, cash, and effort into personally helping people. Liberals believe that the best way to help people springs from the government, not individuals. While I may be a hard-assed libertarian I've also done a lot to help individuals either financially, career-wise, and in other ways. I'm speaking from personal experience, not some textbook. Nothing is more satisfying than helping someone get their shiat together and get their life going...conversely, nothing is more heartbreaking when you see people make the same mistakes over and over and over and not do a thing to help themselves other than wallowing in self-pity and pointing a finger at everyone else. Unfortunately, the 2nd group ...


While it's extremely admirable that you help people out, those of us who believe the best solution flows from the government don't disagree that individuals can help. I worked for the Public Defender's service this summer. In your world-view, there shouldn't be a Public Defender's service at all, lawyers should just volunteer their time to help those who don't have enough money to afford a lawyer. And that sounds wonderful and all, until you realize that there are tens of thousands of people who have legal problems who simply cannot afford a lawyer, no matter what.

"But wait!" you say. "These people can just get their shiat together and get their life going, and THEN afford a lawyer." Well gee, that's a great sounding idea, but a little hard to do when we live in a society where freedom-loving business owners have the freedom to refuse to hire anyone with a criminal conviction.

Your strawman of a liberal who thinks that government is the only solution and always the right solution is just that; a strawman. Find me a single person in this thread who has said that government is always right and is always better, and I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice. What you'll find instead is a belief that large, structural problems are best dealt with by the government. It's economies of scale, a concept you should be familiar with as an economic libertarian. When faced with a corporation with billions of dollars in cash reserves, individuals working together often cannot force them to change without government action.
 
2012-09-28 01:41:35 PM  

slayer199: Oh, how is the War on Poverty working out since 1960? Hasn't done a damn thing.


"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is...never try."
 
2012-09-28 01:42:08 PM  

slayer199: DamnYankees: How do you determine who it belongs to? This is what I'm talking about. The very nature of determining property rights turns libertarianism into nonsense.

It belongs to the hospital. Property rights exist ya know.


No, they don't 'exist'. They are MADE. That's my point. People don't just a priori own things.
 
2012-09-28 01:42:26 PM  

slayer199: They fall into the category of helping those that cannot help themselves...but thanks for twisting it around.


So that property tax relief program is acceptable in your view?

Serious question.
 
2012-09-28 01:44:46 PM  

Rev.K: So that property tax relief program is acceptable in your view?

Serious question.


Yes. I'm not part of the min-archist branch of the LP (they way farkers like to portray all libertarians). A proper role of government IS helping those that are unable to help themselves. That is in the country's best interests.
 
2012-09-28 01:45:25 PM  

slayer199: Yes. I'm not part of the min-archist branch of the LP (they way farkers like to portray all libertarians). A proper role of government IS helping those that are unable to help themselves. That is in the country's best interests.


Hey guys, its the social assistance policy of Edward VI! What a vibrant, new idea for our national polity.
 
2012-09-28 01:46:01 PM  

Rev.K: slayer199: Helping able-bodied people? No.

Really?

I mean, really?

That's a 10-year old's view of the world.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-28 01:46:37 PM  

violentsalvation: Because People in power are Stupid: Obligatory
[www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]

[i798.photobucket.com image 532x799]


haha wow you somehow made it even dumber, gj
 
2012-09-28 01:47:27 PM  

slayer199: Yes. I'm not part of the min-archist branch of the LP (they way farkers like to portray all libertarians). A proper role of government IS helping those that are unable to help themselves. That is in the country's best interests.


Ok. Well I definitely agree with you there.

So what did you mean earlier when you talked about not helping "able bodied people"? What does that mean exactly?
 
2012-09-28 01:47:58 PM  

slayer199: DamnYankees: How do you determine who it belongs to? This is what I'm talking about. The very nature of determining property rights turns libertarianism into nonsense.

It belongs to the hospital. Property rights exist ya know.


Property rights do not exist outside of the context of the state. Let me give you an example of that. In a world absent of government action, if I own an object, and person B wants that object, what is to stop person B from taking it? Well, I am. I have a gun, or a spear, or a knife, or my fists, and I can stand up to person B and stop him from taking that object. Unless person B is larger than me, or has a better weapon, in which case he takes my object and then he owns it, not me. Thus, in the absence of government, property rights devolve to might makes right.

In a government system, if I own an object, and person B wants the object, what is to stop person B from taking it? Well, I am (presuming away in this case that the law allows physical defense for objects, which it doesn't), and additionally, the law says that person B cannot take it. Thus, I have a privilege, granted by the government, to retaliate against B without ramification from the state. Person B, on the other hand, does not have such a privilege. If he attempts to assert dominion over my object through might makes right, it is the State that steps in and tells him he cannot, and often wields force in my favor. Therefore, in the presence of government, property rights are determine by the government's action or inaction.
 
2012-09-28 01:48:23 PM  

Rev.K: So what did you mean earlier when you talked about not helping "able bodied people"? What does that mean exactly?


It means they get to maintain their moral opprobrium and still get off on being withholding while thinking of themselves of the vanguards of public righteousness.
 
2012-09-28 01:48:41 PM  

violentsalvation: Because People in power are Stupid: Obligatory
[www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]


Is that you Jeff?
 
2012-09-28 01:49:04 PM  

Rincewind53: Property rights do not exist outside of the context of the state. Let me give you an example of that. In a world absent of government action, if I own an object, and person B wants that object, what is to stop person B from taking it? Well, I am. I have a gun, or a spear, or a knife, or my fists, and I can stand up to person B and stop him from taking that object. Unless person B is larger than me, or has a better weapon, in which case he takes my object and then he owns it, not me. Thus, in the absence of government, property rights devolve to might makes right.

In a government system, if I own an object, and person B wants the object, what is to stop person B from taking it? Well, I am (presuming away in this case that the law allows physical defense for objects, which it doesn't), and additionally, the law says that person B cannot take it. Thus, I have a privilege, granted by the government, to retaliate against B without ramification from the state. Person B, on the other hand, does not have such a privilege. If he attempts to assert dominion over my object through might makes right, it is the State that steps in and tells him he cannot, and often wields force in my favor. Therefore, in the presence of government, property rights are determine by the government's action or inaction.


Exactly right.
 
2012-09-28 01:49:09 PM  
An important part of maintaining a cult is periodically reminding the followers of how superior they are to people outside of the cult.
 
2012-09-28 01:49:22 PM  

Rincewind53: Your strawman of a liberal who thinks that government is the only solution and always the right solution is just that; a strawman. Find me a single person in this thread who has said that government is always right and is always better, and I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice. What you'll find instead is a belief that large, structural problems are best dealt with by the government. It's economies of scale, a concept you should be familiar with as an economic libertarian. When faced with a corporation with billions of dollars in cash reserves, individuals working together often cannot force them to change without government action.


I disagree that government uses economies of scale. Why? Because there's no incentive for efficiency. There's no incentive to be efficient. If you've ever worked for/with a government agency and are familiar with how public-sector budgeting works, their goal is to spend every dollar...so they don't get cut the next year. In the private sector, there's competition and profit motive to be efficient...not true for government.
 
2012-09-28 01:50:13 PM  

slayer199: If you've ever worked for/with a government agency and are familiar with how public-sector budgeting works, their goal is to spend every dollar...so they don't get cut the next year.


This dynamic is exactly the same in private companies.
 
2012-09-28 01:51:15 PM  

slayer199: Apparently the rest of the Fark drones don't really understand libertarianism.

I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)

Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty. Of course, with individual liberty comes personal responsibility. The current bi-partisan system is farked because you have the Democrats that want individual liberty without personal responsibility and the Republicans that want personal responsibility without individual liberty. The best analogy I can give for the 2 parties is that the Democrats are like mommy that always want to take care of you and the Republicans are like daddy that want to tell you how to live your life.

From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.

Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


I'll just respond the way I always respond:

Any economic or social theory that does not start with the assumption that people are assholes is fundamentally wrong.
 
2012-09-28 01:51:45 PM  

slayer199: But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.


We already know that doesn't work. Sorry your worldview only works on paper.
 
2012-09-28 01:52:46 PM  

slayer199: Rincewind53: Your strawman of a liberal who thinks that government is the only solution and always the right solution is just that; a strawman. Find me a single person in this thread who has said that government is always right and is always better, and I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice. What you'll find instead is a belief that large, structural problems are best dealt with by the government. It's economies of scale, a concept you should be familiar with as an economic libertarian. When faced with a corporation with billions of dollars in cash reserves, individuals working together often cannot force them to change without government action.

I disagree that government uses economies of scale. Why? Because there's no incentive for efficiency. There's no incentive to be efficient. If you've ever worked for/with a government agency and are familiar with how public-sector budgeting works, their goal is to spend every dollar...so they don't get cut the next year. In the private sector, there's competition and profit motive to be efficient...not true for government.


I think I phrased my point badly. What I was saying is that economies of scale prevent individual actors from having any deterrent effect against large corporations. Because government is already large, they are on an equal footing with large corporations and have the power to reign in certain excesses and actually promote substantive change (see for instance how the Cuyahoga river no longer catches fire).
 
2012-09-28 01:52:53 PM  

slayer199: But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


Unfortunately, the world doesn't run on raindrops and well-wishes, so the government actually *does* need to step in and make sure its citizens aren't starving to death in the streets.
 
2012-09-28 01:53:54 PM  

slayer199: The problem with the socialist mindset is the entire Appeal to Pity argument. It sounds good on paper. Tax the rich, give to the poor...because the poor are victims, not responsible for their status.


Well, it's more like Appeal to Common Decency, but my point is that a social safety net benefits everyone because A) it costs lest in the long term, B) it improves the overally quality of society in terms of lower crime, a healthier and less vulnerable populace, etc., and C) you may need it yourself someday.
 
2012-09-28 01:54:05 PM  

DamnYankees: slayer199: If you've ever worked for/with a government agency and are familiar with how public-sector budgeting works, their goal is to spend every dollar...so they don't get cut the next year.

This dynamic is exactly the same in private companies.


More so in private companies, because in being beholden to shareholders, perpetual growth is expected. Government agencies could care less if they're growing or shrinking (beyond the immediate care of people for their jobs).
 
2012-09-28 01:54:15 PM  

Rincewind53: slayer199:
Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.

The primary way we achieved substantive reform in the 20th century that massively lowered poverty rates, raised overall cost of living, improved society, extended life expectancy, and freed people from horribly dangerous working conditions is through government action. As much as you may try to write the Progressive Era and the New Deal out of history, they still happened.

Libertarianism is a movement with some great ideas, and some really terrible blind spots.


I just picked up "The Conscience of a Conservative" from my local library so I can reread the awful chapter in which Goldwater displays his willful blindness on the issue of civil rights.
 
2012-09-28 01:55:24 PM  

Rincewind53: I think I phrased my point badly. What I was saying is that economies of scale prevent individual actors from having any deterrent effect against large corporations. Because government is already large, they are on an equal footing with large corporations and have the power to reign in certain excesses and actually promote substantive change (see for instance how the Cuyahoga river no longer catches fire).


The standard libertarian counter is that people have the ability to sue corporations; that if a company sprays toxic waste all over your children, your method of redress is to sue the company into oblivion.

The obvious problems with this situation are what makes it so funny.
 
2012-09-28 01:55:49 PM  

slayer199: I disagree that government uses economies of scale. Why? Because there's no incentive for efficiency. There's no incentive to be efficient.


Sure there is. Profit isn't the only way to encourage people to act efficiently.

Why would it be, then, for Medicare's administrative overhead to be so much less than private insurers?
 
2012-09-28 01:56:16 PM  

slayer199: The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


You know how I know you've never been to a third-world country?
 
2012-09-28 01:56:22 PM  

DamnYankees: slayer199: Oh, how is the War on Poverty working out since 1960? Hasn't done a damn thing.

[anticap.files.wordpress.com image 500x358]

Seniors disagree.


It might be educational to know what those lines looked like prior to 1960, as well.
 
2012-09-28 01:57:10 PM  

sprawl15: Rincewind53: I think I phrased my point badly. What I was saying is that economies of scale prevent individual actors from having any deterrent effect against large corporations. Because government is already large, they are on an equal footing with large corporations and have the power to reign in certain excesses and actually promote substantive change (see for instance how the Cuyahoga river no longer catches fire).

The standard libertarian counter is that people have the ability to sue corporations; that if a company sprays toxic waste all over your children, your method of redress is to sue the company into oblivion.

The obvious problems with this situation are what makes it so funny.


Not only that, but the judiciary is itself government. The only way to sue a corporation is to admit that government is the only solution to your problems, because a court that didn't have the full power of the government behind it to enforce its actions would be a pretty meaningless court.
 
2012-09-28 01:57:37 PM  

slayer199: Apparently the rest of the Fark drones don't really understand libertarianism.

I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)

Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty. Of course, with individual liberty comes personal responsibility. The current bi-partisan system is farked because you have the Democrats that want individual liberty without personal responsibility and the Republicans that want personal responsibility without individual liberty. The best analogy I can give for the 2 parties is that the Democrats are like mommy that always want to take care of you and the Republicans are like daddy that want to tell you how to live your life.

From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.

Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


Translation: fark you, i've got mine.
 
2012-09-28 01:57:43 PM  
Libertarian societies grow happy and wealthy.

Robber barons? That is not libertarian. That is statism.

liberalism has failed everywhere it has been tried and has killed hundreds of millions of people. national SOCIALIST party, russia, china, etc.

You liberals need to open a book every once in a while.
 
2012-09-28 01:57:48 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com

But who loves CORPORATIONS (which are people, my friend) more?
 
2012-09-28 01:57:57 PM  

qorkfiend: It might be educational to know what those lines looked like prior to 1960, as well.


That would be interesting. I can't seem to find anything which goes back before 1960.
 
2012-09-28 01:58:01 PM  
On more time for you Republicans:

This is NOT Jesus Christ:

upload.wikimedia.org
This is:
www.shjolg.com

This is Jesus Christ (and the old testament) on the poor:

Prov. 22:9 He who is generous will be blessed, for he gives some of his food to the poor.

Jer. 22:16 "Did not your father eat and drink, and do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; then it was well. Is that not what it means to know Me?" declares the LORD.

Deut. 15:10. You shall give generously to [your poor brother], and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings.

Prov. 19:17. He who is gracious to a poor man lends to the LORD, and He will repay him for his good deed.

Jer. 7:5-7. "For, if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor walk after other gods to your own ruin, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever."

Is. 58:10. "And if you give yourself to the hungry, and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then your light will rise in darkness, and your gloom will become like midday. And the LORD will continually guide you, and satisfy your desire in scorched places, and give strength to your bones; and you will be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water whose waters do not fail."

Luke 14:12-14. "When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and repayment come to you. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Luke 12:44. "Sell your possessions and give alms; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

Mt. 19:20ff. The young man said to Him, "All these commands I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."


Sure you can say what Jesus (and the bible) preached is immoral. If you want to make that argument Republicans, please do. That will be fun.
 
2012-09-28 01:58:48 PM  

DamnYankees: slayer199: Oh, how is the War on Poverty working out since 1960? Hasn't done a damn thing.

[anticap.files.wordpress.com image 500x358]

Seniors disagree.


and single mothers
 
2012-09-28 02:00:04 PM  
Also, really not sure conservatives care about people...

24.media.tumblr.com

http://lucilleandmitt.tumblr.com/
 
2012-09-28 02:00:29 PM  

slayer199: From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.


Ok I and all liberals will make you a deal. When these private entities step and will take care of the problem so we don't need the government to take care of these things we will vote to get the government out of them. But until they do libertarians stop pretending that others will take care of it when they have proven they won't.

Deal?
 
2012-09-28 02:00:38 PM  

aegean: Libertarian societies grow happy and wealthy.

Robber barons? That is not libertarian. That is statism.

liberalism has failed everywhere it has been tried and has killed hundreds of millions of people. national SOCIALIST party, russia, china, etc.

You liberals need to open a book every once in a while.


People's DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC of Korea.

// OMG! We're North Korea's bitaches!!
// moran
 
2012-09-28 02:01:00 PM  
Libertarian ideals always succeed. Any counter examples were not real libertarianism. We know this because libertarian ideals always succeed.
 
2012-09-28 02:01:17 PM  

The Bestest: Libertarianism is full of great ideas that fall apart as soon as you introduce human nature to the equation.
I support individual liberties exactly up until the point such liberties adversely affect someone else's.
Personal responsibility should be encouraged and rewarded, but a strong safety net benefits society in ways that well outpace the costs.


In the West, the Government has had to work with large Corporations in order to make it inhabitable and prosperous. If anyone doubts this, I can point to water works projects, mining projects, lumber, railroads and on and on. The environment does not allow for people to go at it alone very well. Not like Back East. As a result, we live under a shadow of sorts, and aren't happy about it. A lot of people in the West distrust the Government for the very reason that it is from Back East. Large Corporations cultivate friendships in the region and people are more willing to back them. But people and the environment, which are so dependent on each other, do not benefit from these Corporations. It is a strange brew.

So you've a lot of unhappiness for both sides.

Libertarianism can't work out West because we need the Federal Government. Everyone in the Colorado Compact understands the need of the unifying oversite provided- even if each individual state isn't happy about their share or how it is unfair to them. But Arizona is more than happy to have the Feds lean on California to allow Arizona to get their fair share of the Colorado River. And on and on it goes.

I do like the idea of 'let me do what I want in my own house and backyard'. I support it. It actually seems to be more in line with the current breed of Democrats. Libertarians should side with them on that. I would like to believe the GOP espouses less Government- even on a military front- which should appeal to libertarians as well. As a result, libertarians across the board should be all over both parties in supporting this and that. But from what I am seeing here in Arizona, they don't. They simply side with the GOP and I have no idea why.

As for the philosophy of Libertarianism in general, I love this exchange in Master and Commander: Far Side of the World:

Capt. Jack Aubrey: I respect your right to disagree with me, but I can only afford one rebel on this ship. I hate it when you talk of the service in this way. It makes me feel so very low. You think I want to flog Nagle? A man who hacked the ropes that sent his mate to his death? Under MY orders? Do you not see? The only things that keep this wooden world together are hard work...

Dr. Stephen Maturin: Jack, the man failed to salute. There's hierarchies even in nature. There is no disdain in nature. There is no...

Capt. Jack Aubrey: Men must be governed! Often not wisely, but governed nonetheless.

Dr. Stephen Maturin: That's the excuse of every tyrant in history, from Nero to Bonaparte. I, for one, am opposed to authority. It is an egg of misery and opression.

Capt. Jack Aubrey: You've come to the wrong shop for anarchy, brother.
 
2012-09-28 02:01:49 PM  

aegean: Libertarian societies grow happy and wealthy.

Robber barons? That is not libertarian. That is statism.

liberalism has failed everywhere it has been tried and has killed hundreds of millions of people. national SOCIALIST party, russia, china, etc.

You liberals need to open a book every once in a while.


6/10, already got a bite.
 
2012-09-28 02:01:53 PM  
Libertarianism is like Communism. It's a great idea on paper, and you can do all kinds of thought experiments where it works out perfectly, but if you actually try to do it in the real world, a lot of bad things are going to happen.

The more you take away the power of the collective as a whole, the more the stronger (read: wealthier) individuals will take advantage of everyone else. Child labor, indentured servitude, debtor's prisons, etc. On the flip side, if you put every bit of power into a single collective entity, the people pulling its levers become the stronger individuals who take advantage and commit abuses.

The best system we've found so far is to try to strike a balance between the two. Done correctly, such systems are pretty good at providing stability and prosperity for everyone.
 
2012-09-28 02:02:31 PM  

slayer199: The current bi-partisan system is farked because you have the Democrats that want individual liberty without personal responsibility


No how I know you are full of shiat?
 
2012-09-28 02:02:37 PM  

DamnYankees: What is "liberty" in this context?


Freedom to be a complete psychopath, is what I'm gathering.

I'm sorry, libertarians, but all I hear when I hear you speak is a dressed-up version of "I got mine so f*ck you." I just don't see how your stance "let people do what they want and good will flow" is any different from that of the GOPs rhetoric. And I don't see that it is any more grounded in reality. People DON'T automatically do what's right, they DON'T do what is in everyone's best interests, some people CAN'T take responsibility for their poverty or illness, and pretending that they would, if only freed of the shackles of Evil Government is just foolish.

But then, I've been accused of being too pragmatic, so don't let me rain on your idealistic crusade.
 
2012-09-28 02:03:52 PM  

slayer199: I disagree that government uses economies of scale. Why? Because there's no incentive for efficiency. There's no incentive to be efficient. If you've ever worked for/with a government agency and are familiar with how public-sector budgeting works, their goal is to spend every dollar...so they don't get cut the next year. In the private sector, there's competition and profit motive to be efficient...not true for government.



- the government's mandate is not to be profitable, it is to provide services to citizens, many of which are not profitable and not provided by the private sector.

- elected officials, by and large, don't want to raise taxes endlessly on their constituents, so they direct government bureaucrats to find ways to provide the same services for less. Government uses technology wherever possible to make processes and systems more efficient. Despite the right wing's incorrect assertion about the massive size of the federal government, it's actually smaller than it has ever been, per capita.
 
2012-09-28 02:03:52 PM  

slayer199: Rincewind53: Your strawman of a liberal who thinks that government is the only solution and always the right solution is just that; a strawman. Find me a single person in this thread who has said that government is always right and is always better, and I will donate $50 to the charity of your choice. What you'll find instead is a belief that large, structural problems are best dealt with by the government. It's economies of scale, a concept you should be familiar with as an economic libertarian. When faced with a corporation with billions of dollars in cash reserves, individuals working together often cannot force them to change without government action.

I disagree that government uses economies of scale. Why? Because there's no incentive for efficiency. There's no incentive to be efficient. If you've ever worked for/with a government agency and are familiar with how public-sector budgeting works, their goal is to spend every dollar...so they don't get cut the next year. In the private sector, there's competition and profit motive to be efficient...not true for government.


Of course there's incentive for efficiency. You do your job right, your bosses (who at some point are politicians) get reelected, you stay employed. The other side gets employed, your job changes or evaporates. A bit harder to quantify then a balance sheet, but not hard to comprehend.
 
2012-09-28 02:04:49 PM  

imontheinternet: The best system we've found so far is to try to strike a balance between the two. Done correctly, such systems are pretty good at providing stability and prosperity for everyone.


upload.wikimedia.org
Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later get squish just like grape.
 
2012-09-28 02:05:24 PM  

slayer199: I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)


I hope you didn't get any government subsidies for that cross you're hanging on.
 
2012-09-28 02:05:28 PM  
Libertarian Platform:

1. fark you I got mine

2. fark you I want more

Thus endith the the Libertarian Platform
 
2012-09-28 02:05:40 PM  
And the GOP: focuses on legislating restrictions on marriage, sex, and labor equality....
 
2012-09-28 02:08:18 PM  
When your ideological and political persuasions are sounding more and more like the satire in videogames like Fallout and Bioshock; it's time to reevaluate.
 
2012-09-28 02:08:20 PM  

imontheinternet: Libertarianism is like Communism. It's a great idea on paper, and you can do all kinds of thought experiments where it works out perfectly, but if you actually try to do it in the real world, a lot of bad things are going to happen.


It's not even good on paper.

The history of humanity has been the attempt to reduce the amount of workload needed to provide the same benefits. When we could farm instead of hunt, our food per acre - and population density - skyrocketed, enabling governing classes, priests, merchants, and technology. As people cooperated, society was given the room to advance. Cooperation is what got us beyond throwing rocks at zebras.
 
2012-09-28 02:08:37 PM  
Serious question for you libertarian folks - I've been enduring a deluge of Gary Johnson propaganda on Facebook so I thought, hey, farkit, I'll check out his stances.

I was confused by this:

Gary Johnson supports "a woman's right to choose up until the point of viability"[36] and wants to keep abortion legal.[37] He has been very vocal in his beliefs.[38] He supports legislation banning late-term abortions and mandating parental notification for minors seeking an abortion.[39] Johnson believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned because it "expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution." He believes that laws regarding abortion should "be decided by the individual states."[35]

How, exactly, does that mesh with the libertarian philosophy? How is allowing individual states to decide if they want to exert control over what a person does with their body more libertarianish than, say, allowing neither the state nor federal government that power?
 
2012-09-28 02:08:55 PM  

Weaver95: you dodged my point - we've tried Republicans, we've tried Democrats....and look where it's gotten us. here we are, just as we've always been. And we're going to keep right on electing Republicans and Democrats and dancing to the same music until it all comes crashing down around us. I'm suggesting we've got other options.


we're the most powerful country in the history of the world, with the longest life spans, highest standard of living and technology that a mere 40 years ago was expected to be as unobtainable as FTL spacecraft.

are we perfect? far from it, and there have been some recent stumbles, but i'll still take the current situation over living anywhere else in our current world or at any point in the past
 
2012-09-28 02:09:20 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Libertarian ideals always succeed. Any counter examples were not real libertarianism. We know this because libertarian ideals always succeed.


What's very ironic is the exact same argument Communists use. Imagine that. It's basically the same thing, people who want to cling to an idealistic dogma because it sounds pure and want to ignore the complexity of reality where answers are less black and white.

Obviously if you even accept their argument to be true it means that this "pure states" are too idealistic to actually exist in the real world so the idea of striving for it is useless. Since they seem to be admitting it only truly works in it's pure form because they discount governments that are closer to these forms of government.
 
2012-09-28 02:09:37 PM  

vpb: The Bestest: Libertarianism is full of great ideas that fall apart as soon as you introduce human nature to the equation.
I support individual liberties exactly up until the point such liberties adversely affect someone else's.
Personal responsibility should be encouraged and rewarded, but a strong safety net benefits society in ways that well outpace the costs.

When you think about it, most limits on personal freedom are there to protect the personal freedom of other people. For instance anti-pollution laws protect me from having your pollution literally forced down my throat.

 
2012-09-28 02:10:34 PM  

kmmontandon: slayer199: But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.

Except for the part where this has never actually, you know, worked.


FTFY
 
2012-09-28 02:11:28 PM  
Libertarians: People unfamiliar with distribution of risk and economies of scale. For starters.
 
2012-09-28 02:11:59 PM  
Said it before, will say it again:

A libertarian society could only last if the individuals acted and thought like socialists. and vice-versa.

/how's that for some dialectic?
 
2012-09-28 02:12:01 PM  

pdee: kmmontandon: slayer199: But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.

Except for the part where this has never actually, you know, worked.

FTFY


Examples please.
 
2012-09-28 02:13:31 PM  

Jackson Herring: violentsalvation: Because People in power are Stupid: Obligatory
[www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]

[i798.photobucket.com image 532x799]

haha wow you somehow made it even dumber, gj


They get even dumber, google the one for progressives.
 
2012-09-28 02:13:49 PM  

Rincewind53: pdee: kmmontandon: slayer199: But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.

Except for the part where this has never actually, you know, worked.

FTFY

Examples please.


Rwanda.
 
2012-09-28 02:13:58 PM  

Corvus: Lost Thought 00: Libertarian ideals always succeed. Any counter examples were not real libertarianism. We know this because libertarian ideals always succeed.

What's very ironic is the exact same argument Communists use. Imagine that. It's basically the same thing, people who want to cling to an idealistic dogma because it sounds pure and want to ignore the complexity of reality where answers are less black and white.

Obviously if you even accept their argument to be true it means that this "pure states" are too idealistic to actually exist in the real world so the idea of striving for it is useless. Since they seem to be admitting it only truly works in it's pure form because they discount governments that are closer to these forms of government.


True. Libertarianism and Communism both share the trait that they rely upon unstable social equilibrium. They require everyone acting according to a certain set of rules, and if people deviate from those rules the system collapses. It's like designing a chair with a single point of contact with the ground.
 
2012-09-28 02:17:40 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Corvus: Lost Thought 00: Libertarian ideals always succeed. Any counter examples were not real libertarianism. We know this because libertarian ideals always succeed.

What's very ironic is the exact same argument Communists use. Imagine that. It's basically the same thing, people who want to cling to an idealistic dogma because it sounds pure and want to ignore the complexity of reality where answers are less black and white.

Obviously if you even accept their argument to be true it means that this "pure states" are too idealistic to actually exist in the real world so the idea of striving for it is useless. Since they seem to be admitting it only truly works in it's pure form because they discount governments that are closer to these forms of government.

True. Libertarianism and Communism both share the trait that they rely upon unstable social equilibrium. They require everyone acting according to a certain set of rules, and if people deviate from those rules the system collapses. It's like designing a chair with a single point of contact with the ground.


Or a prisoners' dilemma. It only takes a single bad actor to fark it up for EVERYONE else.

And Libertarians, please tell me - has there ever been a society that maxed out both charitable giving AND freedom?
 
2012-09-28 02:17:58 PM  

China White Tea: Serious question for you libertarian folks - I've been enduring a deluge of Gary Johnson propaganda on Facebook so I thought, hey, farkit, I'll check out his stances.

I was confused by this:

Gary Johnson supports "a woman's right to choose up until the point of viability"[36] and wants to keep abortion legal.[37] He has been very vocal in his beliefs.[38] He supports legislation banning late-term abortions and mandating parental notification for minors seeking an abortion.[39] Johnson believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned because it "expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution." He believes that laws regarding abortion should "be decided by the individual states."[35]

How, exactly, does that mesh with the libertarian philosophy? How is allowing individual states to decide if they want to exert control over what a person does with their body more libertarianish than, say, allowing neither the state nor federal government that power?


I've noticed this too with Ron Paul's defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. But I've never been able to get a coherent answer from the Ron Paul supporters when I ask them how supporting DOMA is Libertarian.
 
2012-09-28 02:18:57 PM  

Mrtraveler01: I've noticed this too with Ron Paul's defense of the Defense of Marriage Act. But I've never been able to get a coherent answer from the Ron Paul supporters when I ask them how supporting DOMA is Libertarian.


It's libertarian because libertarians support it. QED.

If they were consistent, they wouldn't be libertarians.
 
2012-09-28 02:19:57 PM  

Gyrfalcon: DamnYankees: What is "liberty" in this context?

Freedom to be a complete psychopath, is what I'm gathering.

I'm sorry, libertarians, but all I hear when I hear you speak is a dressed-up version of "I got mine so f*ck you." I just don't see how your stance "let people do what they want and good will flow" is any different from that of the GOPs rhetoric. And I don't see that it is any more grounded in reality. People DON'T automatically do what's right, they DON'T do what is in everyone's best interests, some people CAN'T take responsibility for their poverty or illness, and pretending that they would, if only freed of the shackles of Evil Government is just foolish.

But then, I've been accused of being too pragmatic, so don't let me rain on your idealistic crusade.


I agree. While libertarianism may have a few good points, for the most part it's silly and self centered.

I've also been thinking about how its supporters say that people in a libertarian society would have more freedom, but I'm not sure if that's true. Sure, I pay a bit of tax in the current society I live in, but I'm free to pursue any endeavor I wish. I don't have to worry about securing my house from roaming gangs, or check everything I eat to make sure it's safe and uncontaminated, or test every electronic item I buy to make sure it's not going to short out and catch fire.

In a libertarian society I'd be spending a huge amount of time and resources just protect myself and my assets, and making sure others weren't trying to screw me over, I don't know if I'd have time for anything else. If also wonder, in such a society, if a consumer bought a faulty, if not dangerous, good unknowingly, what recourse would they have? Would there be anything more than "buyer beware" and "suck long, suck it hard?" That's not a world I'd like to live in.
 
2012-09-28 02:20:12 PM  
Libertarians are painfully naive. They ignore the basic underlying nature of the human animal, as well as some of the necessities for maintaining a civilization of millions of people. They're the angry teenagers of the political world.
 
2012-09-28 02:20:21 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: Libertarian Platform:

1. fark you I got mine

2. fark you I want more

Thus endith the the Libertarian Platform


3. I don't have mine, so it's the farking government's fault.
 
2012-09-28 02:20:43 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Corvus: Lost Thought 00: Libertarian ideals always succeed. Any counter examples were not real libertarianism. We know this because libertarian ideals always succeed.

What's very ironic is the exact same argument Communists use. Imagine that. It's basically the same thing, people who want to cling to an idealistic dogma because it sounds pure and want to ignore the complexity of reality where answers are less black and white.

Obviously if you even accept their argument to be true it means that this "pure states" are too idealistic to actually exist in the real world so the idea of striving for it is useless. Since they seem to be admitting it only truly works in it's pure form because they discount governments that are closer to these forms of government.

True. Libertarianism and Communism both share the trait that they rely upon unstable social equilibrium. They require everyone acting according to a certain set of rules, and if people deviate from those rules the system collapses. It's like designing a chair with a single point of contact with the ground.


Like the great philosopher Yogi Berra once said (maybe):

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
 
2012-09-28 02:20:44 PM  

China White Tea: Serious question for you libertarian folks - I've been enduring a deluge of Gary Johnson propaganda on Facebook so I thought, hey, farkit, I'll check out his stances.

I was confused by this:

Gary Johnson supports "a woman's right to choose up until the point of viability"[36] and wants to keep abortion legal.[37] He has been very vocal in his beliefs.[38] He supports legislation banning late-term abortions and mandating parental notification for minors seeking an abortion.[39] Johnson believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned because it "expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution." He believes that laws regarding abortion should "be decided by the individual states."[35]

How, exactly, does that mesh with the libertarian philosophy? How is allowing individual states to decide if they want to exert control over what a person does with their body more libertarianish than, say, allowing neither the state nor federal government that power?


When you scratch the surface, a lot of "libertarians" turn out to be neoconfederates. They'll rant and rave about the federal government taking people's rights away, but if, for example, a state wants to execute people for marijuana possession, that's its sovereign right.

See Paul, Ron.
 
2012-09-28 02:21:08 PM  

sprawl15: Cooperation is what got us beyond throwing rocks at zebras.


Wait. We're not supposed to do this anymore?
 
2012-09-28 02:21:59 PM  

slayer199: Sorry to inform those of you dreaming of a socialist libertarian utopia that it won't work. Why? Human nature.


Sure it's been done already, but bears repeating.
 
2012-09-28 02:22:24 PM  
If only Libertarians understood the concept of the social contract. If only.
 
2012-09-28 02:22:44 PM  

rustypouch: Gyrfalcon: DamnYankees: What is "liberty" in this context?

Freedom to be a complete psychopath, is what I'm gathering.

I'm sorry, libertarians, but all I hear when I hear you speak is a dressed-up version of "I got mine so f*ck you." I just don't see how your stance "let people do what they want and good will flow" is any different from that of the GOPs rhetoric. And I don't see that it is any more grounded in reality. People DON'T automatically do what's right, they DON'T do what is in everyone's best interests, some people CAN'T take responsibility for their poverty or illness, and pretending that they would, if only freed of the shackles of Evil Government is just foolish.

But then, I've been accused of being too pragmatic, so don't let me rain on your idealistic crusade.

I agree. While libertarianism may have a few good points, for the most part it's silly and self centered.

I've also been thinking about how its supporters say that people in a libertarian society would have more freedom, but I'm not sure if that's true. Sure, I pay a bit of tax in the current society I live in, but I'm free to pursue any endeavor I wish. I don't have to worry about securing my house from roaming gangs, or check everything I eat to make sure it's safe and uncontaminated, or test every electronic item I buy to make sure it's not going to short out and catch fire.

In a libertarian society I'd be spending a huge amount of time and resources just protect myself and my assets, and making sure others weren't trying to screw me over, I don't know if I'd have time for anything else. If also wonder, in such a society, if a consumer bought a faulty, if not dangerous, good unknowingly, what recourse would they have? Would there be anything more than "buyer beware" and "suck long, suck it hard?" That's not a world I'd like to live in.


I think the idea is that eventually after some time has passed, the stupid, the weak, the timid, the sick would all be killed or die off leaving just the intelligent, strong, and bold to live out their lives as they see fit. All two of em.
 
2012-09-28 02:23:14 PM  

Dr Dreidel: And Libertarians, please tell me - has there ever been a society that maxed out both charitable giving AND freedom?


Like I said when the private sector steps up and says "He we will cover all remaining people who can't afford healthcare" I and tons of people will be first in line to repeal "Obamacare" but that's NEVER going to happen.

When the private sector fails THEN we need another solution. If the private sector can cover it I have no problem with them doing it.
 
2012-09-28 02:24:26 PM  

China White Tea: How, exactly, does that mesh with the libertarian philosophy? How is allowing individual states to decide if they want to exert control over what a person does with their body more libertarianish than, say, allowing neither the state nor federal government that power?


By coloring libertarianism as more compatible with increased local government power, you can effectively promote plain old conservative policy preferences and not get called on them.

Happens all the time.
 
2012-09-28 02:24:26 PM  

slayer199: Helping people is bad, listen to me pretend to be superior

 
2012-09-28 02:24:39 PM  
I actually consider myself a small-l libertarian, which is vastly different than a capital-L Libertarian. (I believe the distinction was explained to me by another Farker, years ago, but I can't remember specifically).

As a small l libertarian, I am concerned with liberty. Choice. Making sure that each person in this country can live their life as they choose.

The large L Libertarians are more concerned with getting the government out of their lives, even if that has a negative impact on the amount of liberty and choice to run their lives.

How does this work in the real world? Well, a small l libertarian (like me) would be all for single payer healthcare. It provides people with the ability to choose NOT dying, NOT going bankrupt because of medical costs, and NOT having to stay in jobs just for benefits. A large L libertarian would rather have the smaller government than the liberties I just mentioned.

A small l libertarian loves regulatory agencies like the FDA, OSHA, and EPA, because they allow me the freedom to not die from strychnine in my potatoes, or mercury in my air and water, or die from some snake oil sold to me out of a "pharmacy" to cure my blindness caused by an accident at work.

A small l libertarian thinks that liberty is about more than freedom from government. It's about freedom of choice. It's about being able to spend your time doing what you WANT to do, rather than what you HAVE to do. It's about being free from worry about where your next meal is coming from, or whether your children will die before they're old enough to walk, or whether the food you're eating is poisoning you. It's about the freedom to use roads and bridges, benefit from the protection of police and firefighters, to know that if you decide to quit your job and become a circus acrobat like you've always dreamed of, you don't have to give up your health insurance.

In short: liberty isn't always about less government.
 
2012-09-28 02:25:39 PM  
Libertarianism: political belief in which opponents are derided as seeing government as their nanny, all while viewing all rich people as Daddy Warbucks
 
2012-09-28 02:28:00 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: sprawl15: Cooperation is what got us beyond throwing rocks at zebras.

Wait. We're not supposed to do this anymore?


Now we can throw baseballs at zebras. Or rocks at horses.

It's a big wide world out there.
 
2012-09-28 02:28:10 PM  
I wonder how many Libertarians who call themselves Christians realize that the social philosophy of Libertarianism is the same as Satanism...or in other words directly in opposition to the teachings of Jesus?
 
2012-09-28 02:28:29 PM  

Weaver95: it's always interesting watching these threads....Republicans and Democrats alike both show their programmed responses very clearly. damn shame this country has been hard coded to only think in binary terms: left wing, right wing. Republican and Democrat. Conservative and Liberal. Good and Evil. both sides define themselves by their relationship to each other. then along comes a libertarian viewpoint that says 'hey, maybe a little bit of both sides would work out better for everyone' and the binary crowd loses their shiat.

I know i'm not going to change anyone's point of view in this (or any other) 'bash the libertarians' thread. I just thought it worth mentioning that you might benefit from questioning your own inherent bias before jumping on the libertarians. carry on my wayward sons, There'll be peace when you are done.


So what you're saying can be summed up as "libertarians are right and non-libertarians are wrong."

Sounds pretty binary to me

/trololo
 
2012-09-28 02:30:51 PM  
Do they really love people more, or are they just more easily manipulated by pathos?

/not a Libertarian
 
2012-09-28 02:32:41 PM  

slayer199: Apparently the rest of the Fark drones don't really understand libertarianism.

I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)


We understand it all too well, and it's illustrated perfectly by what you just wrote. Libertarians are assholes.
 
2012-09-28 02:33:28 PM  

violentsalvation: Because People in power are Stupid: Obligatory
[www.leftycartoons.com image 650x976]

[i798.photobucket.com image 532x799]


So what you're saying is...

cache.ohinternet.com
 
2012-09-28 02:33:53 PM  
Libertarian extreme = Anarchy

I prefer my politics and philosophy with a pinch of this and a bit of that.

/sittin' on a fence and proud of it.
 
2012-09-28 02:34:10 PM  
Libertarianism is just Feudalism and aristocracy. A Republic/Democracy and strong central government is the only way to counter the natural power of people with all the money and guns.

Libertarians are not learned people, but they desperately try to think they are. They believe they are the strongest survivors and couldn't care less about those suffering around them.

Let's change the name of Libertarians to the cake party.
 
2012-09-28 02:34:37 PM  

Nobodyn0se: I actually consider myself a small-l libertarian, which is vastly different than a capital-L Libertarian. (I believe the distinction was explained to me by another Farker, years ago, but I can't remember specifically).

As a small l libertarian, I am concerned with liberty. Choice. Making sure that each person in this country can live their life as they choose.

The large L Libertarians are more concerned with getting the government out of their lives, even if that has a negative impact on the amount of liberty and choice to run their lives.

How does this work in the real world? Well, a small l libertarian (like me) would be all for single payer healthcare. It provides people with the ability to choose NOT dying, NOT going bankrupt because of medical costs, and NOT having to stay in jobs just for benefits. A large L libertarian would rather have the smaller government than the liberties I just mentioned.

A small l libertarian loves regulatory agencies like the FDA, OSHA, and EPA, because they allow me the freedom to not die from strychnine in my potatoes, or mercury in my air and water, or die from some snake oil sold to me out of a "pharmacy" to cure my blindness caused by an accident at work.

A small l libertarian thinks that liberty is about more than freedom from government. It's about freedom of choice. It's about being able to spend your time doing what you WANT to do, rather than what you HAVE to do. It's about being free from worry about where your next meal is coming from, or whether your children will die before they're old enough to walk, or whether the food you're eating is poisoning you. It's about the freedom to use roads and bridges, benefit from the protection of police and firefighters, to know that if you decide to quit your job and become a circus acrobat like you've always dreamed of, you don't have to give up your health insurance.

In short: liberty isn't always about less government.


The term you're looking for is not "small l libertarian" but "Democrat." Seriously, everything you mention is part of the Democratic platform. Now if only the Democrats actually put those ideas into practice more often, we'd be getting somewhere.
 
2012-09-28 02:35:01 PM  
what Aarontology said... ALL OF IT (dammit Aa.. stop being so reasonable, and accurate and agreeing with me, we're supposed to hate each other i thought! :D)
 
2012-09-28 02:36:01 PM  
Obviously, to solve this, we must take away Liberty.
 
2012-09-28 02:37:16 PM  

johnryan51: Everyone knows the peak of moral progress is letting poor people starve. Duh....


Nothing in libertarianism states you can't voluntarily give to charity or others. I fail to see a cogent point in your flawed assumption.

I know liberals hate choice, but that doesn't mean other views aren't valid.
 
2012-09-28 02:37:17 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: The term you're looking for is not "small l libertarian" but "Democrat." Seriously, everything you mention is part of the Democratic platform. Now if only the Democrats actually put those ideas into practice more often, we'd be getting somewhere.


1. "Democrat" is a political party (like "Republican" and "Whig"). "libertarian" (in this case) is a political philosophy (like "liberal" and "conservative").

2. You've succeeded in identifying one of the many reasons I don't consider myself a Democrat, despite my plan to vote straight ticket Democrat in November.
 
2012-09-28 02:39:03 PM  

intelligent comment below: Libertarianism is just Feudalism and aristocracy. A Republic/Democracy and strong central government is the only way to counter the natural power of people with all the money and guns.

Libertarians are not learned people, but they desperately try to think they are. They believe they are the strongest survivors and couldn't care less about those suffering around them.

Let's change the name of Libertarians to the cake party.


The people with all the money and guns are always and will always be the people in charge. Regardless of the system of government or lack thereof. So why not just let people do what they want?

/Might makes right, the one true axiom of the world since 4.3 billion years BCE
 
2012-09-28 02:39:07 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What did they call J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism? Something like "the bourgeoise providing moral justification for their own selfishness"?

Similar thing applies here.


What does utilitarianism have to do with selfishness. If the benefit was greater when a rich man's entire possessions were given away, that would be the utilitarian choice.

So you even know what utilitarianism is?
 
2012-09-28 02:39:23 PM  

MyRandomName: Nothing in libertarianism states you can't voluntarily give to charity or others. I fail to see a cogent point in your flawed assumption.

I know liberals hate choice, but that doesn't mean other views aren't valid.



It's not about "can't." It's about "don't." Libertarians are free to give money to poor people through charities, but in the real world they always fail to donate enough to solve the problem.
 
2012-09-28 02:39:34 PM  
Guys, I think you can stop. He's gone. The horse is just a smear of blood and hair.
 
2012-09-28 02:40:36 PM  

MyRandomName: Nothing in libertarianism states you can't voluntarily give to charity or others


True but as history has shown, relying solely on charity does not work. That's why these government programs were created in the first place.
 
2012-09-28 02:41:26 PM  

LockeOak: Guys, I think you can stop. He's gone. The horse is just a smear of blood and hair.


I hear a neigh!

*whack* *whack* *whack*
 
2012-09-28 02:41:40 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Corvus: Lost Thought 00: Libertarian ideals always succeed. Any counter examples were not real libertarianism. We know this because libertarian ideals always succeed.

What's very ironic is the exact same argument Communists use. Imagine that. It's basically the same thing, people who want to cling to an idealistic dogma because it sounds pure and want to ignore the complexity of reality where answers are less black and white.

Obviously if you even accept their argument to be true it means that this "pure states" are too idealistic to actually exist in the real world so the idea of striving for it is useless. Since they seem to be admitting it only truly works in it's pure form because they discount governments that are closer to these forms of government.

True. Libertarianism and Communism both share the trait that they rely upon unstable social equilibrium. They require everyone acting according to a certain set of rules, and if people deviate from those rules the system collapses. It's like designing a chair with a single point of contact with the ground.


The ideologies also tend to be quite vanguardist, relying upon an enlightened group of superhumans to lead everyone, politically and ethically. Any ideology or system that relies upon such a superhuman vanguard will slam face-first into reality once fallible humans and imperfect information get involved.
 
2012-09-28 02:42:10 PM  

MyRandomName: What does utilitarianism have to do with selfishness. If the benefit was greater when a rich man's entire possessions were given away, that would be the utilitarian choice.

So you even know what utilitarianism is?



As that would NOT be the Utilitarian choice for Rule Utilitarianism, I wonder if you even now what Utilitarianism is....
 
2012-09-28 02:42:33 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: The term you're looking for is not "small l libertarian" but "Democrat." Seriously, everything you mention is part of the Democratic platform. Now if only the Democrats actually put those ideas into practice more often, we'd be getting somewhere.

1. "Democrat" is a political party (like "Republican" and "Whig"). "libertarian" (in this case) is a political philosophy (like "liberal" and "conservative").

2. You've succeeded in identifying one of the many reasons I don't consider myself a Democrat, despite my plan to vote straight ticket Democrat in November.


OK, then you're a liberal.
 
2012-09-28 02:43:03 PM  
I wonder if the author got a crick in his neck while giving himself that self-congratulatory blowjob.
 
2012-09-28 02:43:28 PM  

MyRandomName: I know liberals hate choice, but that doesn't mean other views aren't valid.



Yes, liberals hate choice. That's why they're the pro-life, pro-banning drugs, pro-banning gay marriage, etc.


had98c: The people with all the money and guns are always and will always be the people in charge. Regardless of the system of government or lack thereof. So why not just let people do what they want?

/Might makes right, the one true axiom of the world since 4.3 billion years BCE



What a stupid naive comment. Do you really want to go back to the time of labor suppressed by government troops, child labor in factories, no environmental oversight so your local river is polluted, etc?

The rich aren't always in charge, if more Americans paid attention to politics their politicians would do what they want, not what the wealthy want.
 
2012-09-28 02:44:58 PM  

Weaver95: it's always interesting watching these threads....Republicans and Democrats alike both show their programmed responses very clearly. damn shame this country has been hard coded to only think in binary terms: left wing, right wing. Republican and Democrat. Conservative and Liberal. Good and Evil. both sides define themselves by their relationship to each other. then along comes a libertarian viewpoint that says 'hey, maybe a little bit of both sides would work out better for everyone' and the binary crowd loses their shiat.

I know i'm not going to change anyone's point of view in this (or any other) 'bash the libertarians' thread. I just thought it worth mentioning that you might benefit from questioning your own inherent bias before jumping on the libertarians. carry on my wayward sons, There'll be peace when you are done.


Speaking of programmed responses:

slayer199:
Apparently the rest of the Fark drones don't really understand libertarianism.
I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)
Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty. Of course, with individual liberty comes personal responsibility. The current bi-partisan system is farked because you have the Democrats that want individual liberty without personal responsibility and the Republicans that want personal responsibility without individual liberty. The best analogy I can give for the 2 parties is that the Democrats are like mommy that always want to take care of you and the Republicans are like daddy that want to tell you how to live your life.


This genius understanding of the complexities of both parties may have something to do with why those parties don't respect the libertarian position much when coming from the layperson. A does not equal C and B does not equal D. If libertarians want to showcase their viability as a third party it would help if they didn't engage in the same sort of pedantic pigeonholing that the flag-waving detritus of the D's and R's is chronically guilty of.
 
2012-09-28 02:45:24 PM  

MyRandomName: Nothing in libertarianism states you can't voluntarily give to charity or others. I fail to see a cogent point in your flawed assumption.



Except voluntary charity does nothing to stop poverty in America. What stopped poverty in America was the New Deal, Social Security and Medicare until starting with Reagan de-regulation was pushed through and all the new deal era policies were negated.
 
2012-09-28 02:45:52 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Nobodyn0se: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: The term you're looking for is not "small l libertarian" but "Democrat." Seriously, everything you mention is part of the Democratic platform. Now if only the Democrats actually put those ideas into practice more often, we'd be getting somewhere.

1. "Democrat" is a political party (like "Republican" and "Whig"). "libertarian" (in this case) is a political philosophy (like "liberal" and "conservative").

2. You've succeeded in identifying one of the many reasons I don't consider myself a Democrat, despite my plan to vote straight ticket Democrat in November.

OK, then you're a liberal.


And yet I disagree with "liberals" on many issues. Although I do believe I'm a lot closer to "liberal" than "conservative" I will also say that there are many instances in which the "liberal" side of things is to take away liberty and choice. That's why I decided to call myself a small l libertarian, because that philosophy perfectly encapsulates how I approach every political issue. The first test I give any political debate is "which side is trying to increase the amount of choice that people are able to have for themselves?" While that is the liberal side a majority of the time, it's not always.

All my conservative friends think I'm an ultra liberal. All my liberal friends think I'm ultra conservative. It's very confusing :(
 
2012-09-28 02:48:43 PM  

Nobodyn0se: there are many instances in which the "liberal" side of things is to take away liberty and choice.



You seem to be confusing economics with social liberties. See this is the problem right here. There are no economic Constitutional freedoms. In fact it's the exact opposite. The founders specifically wrote in the Constitution that government has a right to regulate interstate commerce.
 
2012-09-28 02:49:18 PM  

Weaver95: it's always interesting watching these threads....Republicans and Democrats alike both show their programmed responses very clearly. damn shame this country has been hard coded to only think in binary terms: left wing, right wing. Republican and Democrat. Conservative and Liberal. Good and Evil. both sides define themselves by their relationship to each other. then along comes a libertarian viewpoint that says 'hey, maybe a little bit of both sides would work out better for everyone' and the binary crowd loses their shiat.

I know i'm not going to change anyone's point of view in this (or any other) 'bash the libertarians' thread. I just thought it worth mentioning that you might benefit from questioning your own inherent bias before jumping on the libertarians. carry on my wayward sons, There'll be peace when you are done.


Here's the thing, Weav... I think that the libertarians generally have it right on social issues (well, the few that actually are libertarians and not embarrassed Republicans, anyway). However, their economic policy is disastrous; all it'd do would be to create a power vacuum that would quickly be filled by megacorps and other moneyed interests, ironically giving them even more of an iron grip over our lives than they have today. Even given the choice between Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians, I'd say the Democrats are the lesser evil of the three.
 
2012-09-28 02:50:28 PM  

Nobodyn0se: I actually consider myself a small-l libertarian, which is vastly different than a capital-L Libertarian. (I believe the distinction was explained to me by another Farker, years ago, but I can't remember specifically).

As a small l libertarian, I am concerned with liberty. Choice. Making sure that each person in this country can live their life as they choose.

The large L Libertarians are more concerned with getting the government out of their lives, even if that has a negative impact on the amount of liberty and choice to run their lives.

How does this work in the real world? Well, a small l libertarian (like me) would be all for single payer healthcare. It provides people with the ability to choose NOT dying, NOT going bankrupt because of medical costs, and NOT having to stay in jobs just for benefits. A large L libertarian would rather have the smaller government than the liberties I just mentioned.

A small l libertarian loves regulatory agencies like the FDA, OSHA, and EPA, because they allow me the freedom to not die from strychnine in my potatoes, or mercury in my air and water, or die from some snake oil sold to me out of a "pharmacy" to cure my blindness caused by an accident at work.

A small l libertarian thinks that liberty is about more than freedom from government. It's about freedom of choice. It's about being able to spend your time doing what you WANT to do, rather than what you HAVE to do. It's about being free from worry about where your next meal is coming from, or whether your children will die before they're old enough to walk, or whether the food you're eating is poisoning you. It's about the freedom to use roads and bridges, benefit from the protection of police and firefighters, to know that if you decide to quit your job and become a circus acrobat like you've always dreamed of, you don't have to give up your health insurance.

In short: liberty isn't always about less government.


welcome to my favorites
 
2012-09-28 02:50:46 PM  

intelligent comment below: Nobodyn0se: there are many instances in which the "liberal" side of things is to take away liberty and choice.


You seem to be confusing economics with social liberties. See this is the problem right here. There are no economic Constitutional freedoms. In fact it's the exact opposite. The founders specifically wrote in the Constitution that government has a right to regulate interstate commerce.


.... Where (in ANY of my posts) have I said anything about the Constitution, let alone said it contains economic freedoms?
 
2012-09-28 02:51:56 PM  

Kazan: welcome to my favorites


I've been on Fark since 2005 or so, and I think you may be the first person to ever favorite me. :(

(BROFIST)
 
2012-09-28 02:54:08 PM  

Nobodyn0se: ... Where (in ANY of my posts) have I said anything about the Constitution, let alone said it contains economic freedoms?



Then what liberty and choice do liberals take away from you?
 
2012-09-28 02:54:23 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Now if only the Democrats actually put those ideas into practice more often, we'd be getting somewhere.


the problem is the democrats lack the balls to shout down and shut down the obstructionism from the right.

Nobodyn0se: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Nobodyn0se: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: The term you're looking for is not "small l libertarian" but "Democrat." Seriously, everything you mention is part of the Democratic platform. Now if only the Democrats actually put those ideas into practice more often, we'd be getting somewhere.

1. "Democrat" is a political party (like "Republican" and "Whig"). "libertarian" (in this case) is a political philosophy (like "liberal" and "conservative").

2. You've succeeded in identifying one of the many reasons I don't consider myself a Democrat, despite my plan to vote straight ticket Democrat in November.

OK, then you're a liberal.

And yet I disagree with "liberals" on many issues. Although I do believe I'm a lot closer to "liberal" than "conservative" I will also say that there are many instances in which the "liberal" side of things is to take away liberty and choice. That's why I decided to call myself a small l libertarian, because that philosophy perfectly encapsulates how I approach every political issue. The first test I give any political debate is "which side is trying to increase the amount of choice that people are able to have for themselves?" While that is the liberal side a majority of the time, it's not always.

All my conservative friends think I'm an ultra liberal. All my liberal friends think I'm ultra conservative. It's very confusing :(


what some people here fail to realize is... libertarian vs authoritarian and liberal vs conservative are DIFFERENT AXIS.

liberal libertarian, liberal authoritarian, conservative libertarian, conservative authoritarian... those are the four corners of a two axis grid.

and in this day and age most american conservatives think anything that doesn't agree with them 100% is ultra liberal.
 
2012-09-28 02:54:35 PM  

sprawl15:
Any economic or social theory that does not start with the assumption that people are assholes is fundamentally wrong.


Quoted for truth.
 
2012-09-28 02:56:47 PM  

Kazan: slayer199: Helping people is bad, listen to me pretend to be superior


Apparently you have a short attention span or an issue with reading comprehension.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7352951/79679484#c79679484
 
2012-09-28 02:57:35 PM  

The Bestest: Libertarianism is full of great ideas that fall apart as soon as you introduce human nature to the equation.
I support individual liberties exactly up until the point such liberties adversely affect someone else's.
Personal responsibility should be encouraged and rewarded, but a strong safety net benefits society in ways that well outpace the costs.


There is a simple solution that works 100% of the time it's tried.

Causing a demonstrable harm to life, liberty or property of another through fraud or force is punished severely. Real crimes that hurt people. Not smoking a joint, not some kid jaywalking. I'm talking about things that hurt lives. Car crashes, thefts, foreclosing without cause, rape, murder, identity theft, etc. All punished by hanging the Friday after you're convicted.

It won't take too long to weed out those that can't be civilized. Those that can be but choose not to will either change their ways or hang. Before too long we'll be left only with those that can live without farking up other people's lives.

It's harsh but so is enabling the goblins. My way at least is a guaranteed solution to the criminal element.
 
2012-09-28 02:58:12 PM  

intelligent comment below: Then what liberty and choice do liberals take away from you?


Off the top of my head, I'm a fan of (sane) gun laws, and many on the left think guns need to be completely banned. (Yes, I realize that the Democrats are not among that group, but the Democrats don't speak for the left). I also think there are some government regulations that are absolutely asinine and that we need to leave it up to the "free market." For instance, I think we need to let foreign airlines start running domestic flights, as long as they abide by our safety rules.

I'm sure i could come up with more if I thought longer, but there are a couple of examples.
 
2012-09-28 02:58:25 PM  

MyRandomName: johnryan51: Everyone knows the peak of moral progress is letting poor people starve. Duh....

Nothing in libertarianism states you can't voluntarily give to charity or others. I fail to see a cogent point in your flawed assumption.

I know liberals hate choice, but that doesn't mean other views aren't valid.


The Libertarian philosophy: "When you are down on your luck, hope that somebody else will feel sorry enough for you to help you out".
 
2012-09-28 02:59:35 PM  
Forgive the gender assignment here -- this is a personal credo and I happen to be male, but I've long thought that the difference between a boy and man is that a boy believes he needs to deal with a problem only if he caused it, whereas a man will deal with a problem simply because there is a problem, and it needs to be dealt with. A boy complains when asked to help. A man does not.

Preserving individual liberties is not noble if the liberty you're primarily concerned with is that you should not be expected to help.
 
2012-09-28 02:59:35 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Causing a demonstrable harm to life, liberty or property of another through fraud or force is punished severely. Real crimes that hurt people. Not smoking a joint, not some kid jaywalking. I'm talking about things that hurt lives. Car crashes, thefts, foreclosing without cause, rape, murder, identity theft, etc. All punished by hanging the Friday after you're convicted.

It won't take too long to weed out those that can't be civilized. Those that can be but choose not to will either change their ways or hang. Before too long we'll be left only with those that can live without farking up other people's lives.

It's harsh but so is enabling the goblins. My way at least is a guaranteed solution to the criminal element.




As an actual expert in the subject, this is bat shiat crazy and is one of the most horrible ideas for a justice system I've ever seen.

No offense.
 
2012-09-28 02:59:59 PM  

intelligent comment below: Then what liberty and choice do liberals take away from you?


Gigantic sodas, machine guns, and unlimited corporate spending in politics all come to mind. The horror!
 
2012-09-28 03:00:46 PM  

slayer199: Kazan: slayer199: Helping people is bad, listen to me pretend to be superior

Apparently you have a short attention span or an issue with reading comprehension.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7352951/79679484#c79679484


let me show you how little that post changes my opinion of you.


History, simple, stark, dirty harsh history - the Gilded Era - shows beyond a reasonable doubt that your philosophy doesn't work in the real world. You're a Large-L Libertarian. You are in favor of Laissez-Faire capitalism (to the point I call it anarchocapitalism), which is hardly a form of capitalism at all. Laissez-Faire is incompatible with personal freedom, as the large corporations will limit your options, feed you poisons, harm your body, and warp your mind for their profit.

Large-L Libertarianism in the united states is the equal and opposite of Stalinistic Communism - but they're still the same damn coin, minted of willful ignorance of human behavior and motivation. Anything that coinage is invested in doesn't work and can never work in the real world.
 
2012-09-28 03:01:03 PM  

slayer199: Apparently the rest of the Fark drones don't really understand libertarianism.

I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)

Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty. Of course, with individual liberty comes personal responsibility. The current bi-partisan system is farked because you have the Democrats that want individual liberty without personal responsibility and the Republicans that want personal responsibility without individual liberty. The best analogy I can give for the 2 parties is that the Democrats are like mommy that always want to take care of you and the Republicans are like daddy that want to tell you how to live your life.

From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.

Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


You know the government is really just a collection of people right?
 
2012-09-28 03:02:44 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Here's the thing, Weav... I think that the libertarians generally have it right on social issues (well, the few that actually are libertarians and not embarrassed Republicans, anyway). However, their economic policy is disastrous; all it'd do would be to create a power vacuum that would quickly be filled by megacorps and other moneyed interests, ironically giving them even more of an iron grip over our lives than they have today. Even given the choice between Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians, I'd say the Democrats are the lesser evil of the three.


I wouldn't say the Democrats are even a lesser evil. They aren't great, but they are a reasonable political party, in that if they move anywhere it is nearly always for the better, but their nature as a loose alliance means consensus and actually moving anywhere is very slow, and it is all too easily for it to break down with pressure as one or other interest group can be chipped off by the opposition with a suitable piece of pork being offered on an issue which they have no particular interest in (except as part of the quid pro quo of the alliance). This same nature though means it is very hard for them to be "evil" - to create a consensus on a negative topic that gets accepted across such a disparate alliance is virtually impossible - they can obviously be misguided and wrong, but only really when a large proportion of the population believes the same thing. I guess the only exception would be with the Presidential executive powers, which could be abused by a Democratic President just as with a Republican one.
 
2012-09-28 03:04:03 PM  

tlchwi02: we're the most powerful country in the history of the world, with the longest life spans, highest standard of living and technology that a mere 40 years ago was expected to be as unobtainable as FTL spacecraft.


Er... yes to "most powerful", but last I checked we are like... 30something? in life expectancy, and I (informally) doubt we have the very highest standard of living, either.
 
2012-09-28 03:04:05 PM  

CanuckInCA: You know the government is really just a collection of people right?


No it's not! It's made up of bankers (i.e. Jews) and corporations and evil people who did the 9/11s!
 
2012-09-28 03:05:29 PM  
My dad has started calling himself libertarian since Bush's 2nd term. I've asked him why and he's flat out said because it is too embarrassing to claim to be a republican these days and the current GOP isn't about personal freedom anymore.
 
2012-09-28 03:05:30 PM  

Nobodyn0se: many on the left think guns need to be completely banned.


that's a false perception. it is a loud minority, a marginalized loud minority. it's NRA propaganda that they're anymore more than that.


Nobodyn0se: I also think there are some government regulations that are absolutely asinine and that we need to leave it up to the "free market." For instance, I think we need to let foreign airlines start running domestic flights, as long as they abide by our safety rules.


not unreasonable. i was actually unaware of this regulation. seems silly and protectionist. if they apply to our safety, environmental, and labor regs... i don't see why not

but if they're exploiting lower regs in other countries to give them competitive advantage over our domestic carriers ... they can fark off.
 
2012-09-28 03:05:36 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Kazan: welcome to my favorites

I've been on Fark since 2005 or so, and I think you may be the first person to ever favorite me. :(

(BROFIST)


I have you favorited, but I don't have a tag for you so I don't know why. How about I just tag you "BROFIST".
 
2012-09-28 03:06:02 PM  

flux: Forgive the gender assignment here -- this is a personal credo and I happen to be male, but I've long thought that the difference between a boy and man is that a boy believes he needs to deal with a problem only if he caused it, whereas a man will deal with a problem simply because there is a problem, and it needs to be dealt with. A boy complains when asked to help. A man does not.

Preserving individual liberties is not noble if the liberty you're primarily concerned with is that you should not be expected to help.


but taxes aren't fair
 
2012-09-28 03:06:53 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: The Bestest: Libertarianism is full of great ideas that fall apart as soon as you introduce human nature to the equation.
I support individual liberties exactly up until the point such liberties adversely affect someone else's.
Personal responsibility should be encouraged and rewarded, but a strong safety net benefits society in ways that well outpace the costs.

There is a simple solution that works 100% of the time it's tried.

Causing a demonstrable harm to life, liberty or property of another through fraud or force is punished severely. Real crimes that hurt people. Not smoking a joint, not some kid jaywalking. I'm talking about things that hurt lives. Car crashes, thefts, foreclosing without cause, rape, murder, identity theft, etc. All punished by hanging the Friday after you're convicted.

It won't take too long to weed out those that can't be civilized. Those that can be but choose not to will either change their ways or hang. Before too long we'll be left only with those that can live without farking up other people's lives.

It's harsh but so is enabling the goblins. My way at least is a guaranteed solution to the criminal element.


And, as we all know, innocent people never get convicted.
 
2012-09-28 03:08:16 PM  

Weaver95: it's always interesting watching these threads....Republicans and Democrats alike both show their programmed responses very clearly. damn shame this country has been hard coded to only think in binary terms: left wing, right wing. Republican and Democrat. Conservative and Liberal. Good and Evil. both sides define themselves by their relationship to each other. then along comes a libertarian viewpoint that says 'hey, maybe a little bit of both sides would work out better for everyone' and the binary crowd loses their shiat.

I know i'm not going to change anyone's point of view in this (or any other) 'bash the libertarians' thread. I just thought it worth mentioning that you might benefit from questioning your own inherent bias before jumping on the libertarians. carry on my wayward sons, There'll be peace when you are done.


Well, it's the same thing with Marxism and capitalism, really. Fascism advertised itself as the third way, completely separate from the other two systems.
 
2012-09-28 03:08:46 PM  

China White Tea: tlchwi02: we're the most powerful country in the history of the world, with the longest life spans, highest standard of living and technology that a mere 40 years ago was expected to be as unobtainable as FTL spacecraft.

Er... yes to "most powerful", but last I checked we are like... 30something? in life expectancy, and I (informally) doubt we have the very highest standard of living, either.


we're nowhere near highest living standard.
 
2012-09-28 03:09:18 PM  

Jackson Herring: flux: Forgive the gender assignment here -- this is a personal credo and I happen to be male, but I've long thought that the difference between a boy and man is that a boy believes he needs to deal with a problem only if he caused it, whereas a man will deal with a problem simply because there is a problem, and it needs to be dealt with. A boy complains when asked to help. A man does not.

Preserving individual liberties is not noble if the liberty you're primarily concerned with is that you should not be expected to help.

but taxes aren't fair


We could make them fair by having the nearly half of all Americans who don't pay taxes try to contribute to society.

But then they'd have to get off their asses, so you know that ain't gonna happen.
 
2012-09-28 03:10:05 PM  

Kazan: that's a false perception. it is a loud minority, a marginalized loud minority. it's NRA propaganda that they're anymore more than that.


I realize they're a loud minority, but they are a part of the "liberal" group. And I disagree with them.

Kazan: not unreasonable. i was actually unaware of this regulation. seems silly and protectionist. if they apply to our safety, environmental, and labor regs... i don't see why not

but if they're exploiting lower regs in other countries to give them competitive advantage over our domestic carriers ... they can fark off.



Brofist #2

PanicMan: I have you favorited, but I don't have a tag for you so I don't know why. How about I just tag you "BROFIST".


I've barely posted the last few years, and most of that has been about my mother's run for a seat on the Texas State Board of Education. Odds are, you liked her, and not me :(
 
2012-09-28 03:11:34 PM  

sprawl15: Jackson Herring: flux: Forgive the gender assignment here -- this is a personal credo and I happen to be male, but I've long thought that the difference between a boy and man is that a boy believes he needs to deal with a problem only if he caused it, whereas a man will deal with a problem simply because there is a problem, and it needs to be dealt with. A boy complains when asked to help. A man does not.

Preserving individual liberties is not noble if the liberty you're primarily concerned with is that you should not be expected to help.

but taxes aren't fair

We could make them fair by having the nearly half of all Americans who don't pay taxes try to contribute to society.

But then they'd have to get off their asses, so you know that ain't gonna happen.


*tosses yellow flag*

Complete and utter bullshiat on the field, 15 yard penalty, loss of down.
 
2012-09-28 03:11:56 PM  

sprawl15: Jackson Herring: flux: Forgive the gender assignment here -- this is a personal credo and I happen to be male, but I've long thought that the difference between a boy and man is that a boy believes he needs to deal with a problem only if he caused it, whereas a man will deal with a problem simply because there is a problem, and it needs to be dealt with. A boy complains when asked to help. A man does not.

Preserving individual liberties is not noble if the liberty you're primarily concerned with is that you should not be expected to help.

but taxes aren't fair

We could make them fair by having the nearly half of all Americans who don't pay taxes try to contribute to society.

But then they'd have to get off their asses, so you know that ain't gonna happen.


I took out the garbage YESTERDAY

you're not my real dad I hate you
 
2012-09-28 03:12:34 PM  

Nobodyn0se: I realize they're a loud minority, but they are a part of the "liberal" group. And I disagree with them.


so do most liberals.

Nobodyn0se: Brofist #2


www.maniacworld.com
 
2012-09-28 03:14:20 PM  

intelligent comment below: MyRandomName: I know liberals hate choice, but that doesn't mean other views aren't valid.


Yes, liberals hate choice. That's why they're the pro-life, pro-banning drugs, pro-banning gay marriage, etc.


had98c: The people with all the money and guns are always and will always be the people in charge. Regardless of the system of government or lack thereof. So why not just let people do what they want?

/Might makes right, the one true axiom of the world since 4.3 billion years BCE


What a stupid naive comment. Do you really want to go back to the time of labor suppressed by government troops, child labor in factories, no environmental oversight so your local river is polluted, etc?

The rich aren't always in charge, if more Americans paid attention to politics their politicians would do what they want, not what the wealthy want.


I'm very defeatist. The way I see it, regardless of what I actually want, the wealthy and the powerful are going to have their way anyway. It's a sad viewpoint, I know, and doesn't actually solve anything, but that's just the way I see the world. Pathetic yes, but there it is. Basically the epitome of disenfranchisement.
 
2012-09-28 03:15:16 PM  

sprawl15: We could make them fair by having the nearly half of all Americans who don't pay taxes try to contribute to society.


Bullshiat on the field, 100 yard penalty, 4th down.

Revise your number to include not just "income tax" but payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes.

now shut the fark up with you
 
2012-09-28 03:18:34 PM  

slayer199: The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


Let me know when police enforcing the War on Poverty break down an old lady's door and gun her down.
 
2012-09-28 03:19:21 PM  

Teufelaffe: Complete and utter bullshiat on the field, 15 yard penalty, loss of down.


it is a joke you see
 
2012-09-28 03:19:56 PM  
noted fark conservative sprawl15 foiled again
 
2012-09-28 03:20:21 PM  

sprawl15: We could make them fair by having the nearly half of all Americans who don't pay taxes try to contribute to society.

But then they'd have to get off their asses, so you know that ain't gonna happen.


"Whaat? No fair! I shouldn't have to take my dishes to the sink if Marcus doesn't have to!"
"Sweetie... Marcus has cerebral palsy."
"But Grandpa doesn't have to either!"
"Your grandfather is in a wheelchair. And he built the house you're living in."
"IT'S NOT FAIR! HALF THE PEOPLE IN THIS HOUSE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING! I HATE THIS FAMILY!"

/high-fives Jackson Herring
 
2012-09-28 03:20:29 PM  

Jackson Herring: noted fark conservative sprawl15 foiled again


dastardly kids
 
2012-09-28 03:22:20 PM  

Kazan: we're nowhere near highest living standard.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it SOCIALIST Sweden that tops that list?
 
2012-09-28 03:23:03 PM  
You stupid farks don't know what soft positive liberalism is. It's a form of social democracy that gently makes you a better person without you realizing how much of an asshole you are.
 
2012-09-28 03:23:06 PM  

slayer199: Apparently the rest of the Fark drones don't really understand libertarianism.

I'll try to explain it, though I doubt most farklibs or fark conservatives will understand (and I'm sure I'll get flamed)

Freedom comes not from the government, but from the individual (remember the "unalienable rights" bit?). The government's purpose is to guarantee individual liberty. Of course, with individual liberty comes personal responsibility. The current bi-partisan system is farked because you have the Democrats that want individual liberty without personal responsibility and the Republicans that want personal responsibility without individual liberty. The best analogy I can give for the 2 parties is that the Democrats are like mommy that always want to take care of you and the Republicans are like daddy that want to tell you how to live your life.

From a libertarian POV, the best thing the government can do is to allow individuals the freedom to make their own choices AND the responsibility to live with those choices.

Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


If bootstrappers and charities had ever fulfilled even a minuscule portion of the charity that's really required, government would never have had to get involved in the first place.

/don't let that stop you from dreaming of a world where eight-year old orphans work on coal mines and senile Aunt Helen is kept in a pit with an iron collar around her neck
//because those are among the things that the government had to remedy
///no one else wanted to even admit they existed
 
2012-09-28 03:23:48 PM  

intelligent comment below: Nobodyn0se: there are many instances in which the "liberal" side of things is to take away liberty and choice.


You seem to be confusing economics with social liberties. See this is the problem right here. There are no economic Constitutional freedoms. In fact it's the exact opposite. The founders specifically wrote in the Constitution that government has a right to regulate interstate commerce.


Well outside the limits on taxes that the federal govt can issue towards people.
 
2012-09-28 03:28:10 PM  

CanuckInCA: You know the government is really just a collection of people right?


You really don't understand the concept of individual liberty, the Constitution, or the delegation of powers...do you?
 
2012-09-28 03:28:20 PM  

Nobodyn0se: PanicMan: I have you favorited, but I don't have a tag for you so I don't know why. How about I just tag you "BROFIST".

I've barely posted the last few years, and most of that has been about my mother's run for a seat on the Texas State Board of Education. Odds are, you liked her, and not me :(


That could be it, but I'll favorite anyone who seems able to hold a decent discussion or otherwise worth my time to talk to. I'd say you earned it on your own.
 
2012-09-28 03:30:30 PM  
FTFA: 3) On relationships: Libertarians are the most individualistic; they report the weakest ties to other people. They score lowest of the three groups on many traits related to sociability, including extroversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. They have a morality that matches their sociability - one that emphasizes independence, rather than altruism or patriotism.

Well "individualistic" is one way to frame that. "Anti-social, uncaring asshole" is perhaps more accurate.
 
2012-09-28 03:32:09 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Kazan: we're nowhere near highest living standard.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it SOCIALIST Sweden that tops that list?


Norway, Sweden is #3 now Link


slayer199: CanuckInCA: You know the government is really just a collection of people right?

You really don't understand the concept of individual liberty, the Constitution, or the delegation of powers...do you?


i think he understands it better than you. Governments are constituted amongst men (neutered sense of the word) for the common interest. when the government isn't serving the common interest it is because corruption influences, like Citizens United.
 
2012-09-28 03:33:00 PM  
Just to get back to the trollerific headline, "Liberals and conservatives may love people more than do libertarians, but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress"

Really?
Because a theocracy may be considered the most moral government by its citizens, but it certainly doesn't value liberty. The Celts and Vikings had small government and lots of personal freedom, but they burned their enemies alive and they weren't exactly economic powerhouses - they got most of their wealth from raiding their neighbours. You know which societies do well when faced with crisis? Ones that value civic responsibility. Think of Ancient Greece and democracy, think of Elizabethan England and the national muster to beat the Armada, think of Japan's recent earthquake and the orderly queues to donate blood and return lost property.

I swear, libertarians are the equivalent of those superstitious people who believe they were Emperors in a past life. They're never peasants or scullery maids or canon fodder soldiers. Nope, they would have been special, therefore it would've been great to live back then.
 
2012-09-28 03:35:21 PM  
If you want to be a libertarian build yourself a raft and sail west until you find empty land. The rest of us live in a society.
 
2012-09-28 03:37:03 PM  

slayer199: CanuckInCA: You know the government is really just a collection of people right?

You really don't understand the concept of individual liberty, the Constitution, or the delegation of powers...do you?


Are you a real person or did the caricature of an annoying libertarian in my head come to life?
 
2012-09-28 03:38:14 PM  

Nobodyn0se: I also think there are some government regulations that are absolutely asinine and that we need to leave it up to the "free market." For instance, I think we need to let foreign airlines start running domestic flights, as long as they abide by our safety rules.



So you're just a liar then:

Nobodyn0se: let alone said it contains economic freedoms?



PS: liberals don't want a complete ban on guns, just sane gun legislation not underhanded by the NRA like the last assault weapons ban
 
2012-09-28 03:39:04 PM  

Saiga410: Well outside the limits on taxes that the federal govt can issue towards people.



What limits on taxes?
 
2012-09-28 03:41:10 PM  

intelligent comment below: liberals don't want a complete ban on guns


a few crazy ones do, but we ignore them.
 
2012-09-28 03:41:26 PM  

intelligent comment below: What limits on taxes?


Read the Constitution, libulardo.
 
2012-09-28 03:41:34 PM  
Why the hell does our political system use scores more appropriate to a psychology test? Because your inborn type of intelligence and empathic responses should not be the main factor in a supposedly chosen political party...
 
2012-09-28 03:42:12 PM  

CPennypacker: If you want to be a libertarian build yourself a raft and sail west until you find empty land. The rest of us live in a society.


Hey, if you want cradle to grave mama govt why dont you just move to Sweden.
 
2012-09-28 03:42:19 PM  

Nobodyn0se: I actually consider myself a small-l libertarian, which is vastly different than a capital-L Libertarian. (I believe the distinction was explained to me by another Farker, years ago, but I can't remember specifically).

As a small l libertarian, I am concerned with liberty. Choice. Making sure that each person in this country can live their life as they choose.

The large L Libertarians are more concerned with getting the government out of their lives, even if that has a negative impact on the amount of liberty and choice to run their lives.

How does this work in the real world? Well, a small l libertarian (like me) would be all for single payer healthcare. It provides people with the ability to choose NOT dying, NOT going bankrupt because of medical costs, and NOT having to stay in jobs just for benefits. A large L libertarian would rather have the smaller government than the liberties I just mentioned.

A small l libertarian loves regulatory agencies like the FDA, OSHA, and EPA, because they allow me the freedom to not die from strychnine in my potatoes, or mercury in my air and water, or die from some snake oil sold to me out of a "pharmacy" to cure my blindness caused by an accident at work.

A small l libertarian thinks that liberty is about more than freedom from government. It's about freedom of choice. It's about being able to spend your time doing what you WANT to do, rather than what you HAVE to do. It's about being free from worry about where your next meal is coming from, or whether your children will die before they're old enough to walk, or whether the food you're eating is poisoning you. It's about the freedom to use roads and bridges, benefit from the protection of police and firefighters, to know that if you decide to quit your job and become a circus acrobat like you've always dreamed of, you don't have to give up your health insurance.

In short: liberty isn't always about less government.



Hold on...I've always believed all this, and I'm a 10 year Democrat/25 year Reformed 'Pubbie.

So all this time I've been a small l libertarian?

Well, damn.
 
2012-09-28 03:43:06 PM  
That headline makes no sense whatsoever. I hope it's not what the article actually says.
 
2012-09-28 03:43:23 PM  
Once again, I *heart* Kazan.
 
2012-09-28 03:44:05 PM  

mcwehrle: So all this time I've been a small l libertarian?


most liberals are small-l libertarians.
 
2012-09-28 03:46:54 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Just to get back to the trollerific headline, "Liberals and conservatives may love people more than do libertarians, but love of your own liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress"

Really?
Because a theocracy may be considered the most moral government by its citizens, but it certainly doesn't value liberty. The Celts and Vikings had small government and lots of personal freedom, but they burned their enemies alive and they weren't exactly economic powerhouses - they got most of their wealth from raiding their neighbors. You know which societies do well when faced with crisis? Ones that value civic responsibility. Think of Ancient Greece and democracy, think of Elizabethan England and the national muster to beat the Armada, think of Japan's recent earthquake and the orderly queues to donate blood and return lost property.

I swear, libertarians are the equivalent of those superstitious people who believe they were Emperors in a past life. They're never peasants or scullery maids or canon fodder soldiers. Nope, they would have been special, therefore it would've been great to live back then.


BIG This, and a FTFY

I see them the same as the last few remaining Communists. They think their ideas are great, just apparently never actually been tested. Any discussion from a historical standpoint gets you the No True Scotsman defense. "What about Historical Example X" "Well that's wasn't really Libertarianism"
 
2012-09-28 03:48:27 PM  

intelligent comment below: Saiga410: Well outside the limits on taxes that the federal govt can issue towards people.


What limits on taxes?


Only one's I am aware of is the need to be income, excise, duties, and import related and they be "uniform" across the US.

So really that's not much limitations. So not sure what he is getting at either.
 
2012-09-28 03:48:44 PM  

Saiga410: CPennypacker: If you want to be a libertarian build yourself a raft and sail west until you find empty land. The rest of us live in a society.

Hey, if you want cradle to grave mama govt why dont you just move to Sweden.


Sounds good. Would improve things here a little bit by shedding both groups.
 
2012-09-28 03:49:43 PM  
Libertarians believe that the invisible hand, which failed to protect people for thousands of years, will suddenly protect us now, if only we got rid of all that pesky regulation.

It has no basis in reality, and is why their ideology i non sense. All the rights in the world don't mean shiat without a government to protect them, and who acknowledges them. Business will not, historically, look out for the well being of it's workers, or it's customers, unless forced to, it's not as profitable.

People can not be expected to protect the rights of others out of the goodness of their hearts. Companies cannot be trusted to do the right thing. that's why we form governments: to force those who can't be trusted to do what is required.

Until libertarians understand that, they can be safely dismissed as crackpots and nutbars.
 
2012-09-28 03:49:59 PM  

sprawl15: intelligent comment below: What limits on taxes?

Read the Constitution, libulardo.


I have and yes there are some limits. Basically they have to be "uniform" and some very minor issues. Can you explain to us specifically what you are referring to? or where you being sarcastic?
 
2012-09-28 03:50:16 PM  

sprawl15: intelligent comment below: What limits on taxes?

Read the Constitution, libulardo.


16th Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...


Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.



So, I think the question remains: What limits on taxes?
 
2012-09-28 03:50:29 PM  

sprawl15: Read the Constitution, libulardo.



So Obamacare was Constitutional because it was a tax, but there are limits on taxes? Sounds legit
 
2012-09-28 03:51:56 PM  

Saiga410: CPennypacker: If you want to be a libertarian build yourself a raft and sail west until you find empty land. The rest of us live in a society.

Hey, if you want cradle to grave mama govt why dont you just move to Sweden.


Umm because we don't want that. However the libertarians are asking for removing of all regulations and safety nets.

People are asking for a balance of public and private sector. I know it's hard to believe some people don't live in a false dichotomy world.
 
2012-09-28 03:51:59 PM  

intelligent comment below: sprawl15: Read the Constitution, libulardo.


So Obamacare was Constitutional because it was a tax, but there are limits on taxes? Sounds legit


Supreme Court: "We sure thought so."
 
2012-09-28 03:54:57 PM  

Teufelaffe: So, I think the question remains: What limits on taxes?


16th only applies to taxation on income, which varies as either a direct or indirect tax based on type of income (taxation on salary is a direct tax, taxation on land holdings is an indirect tax), and the 16th was passed to clarify the constitutionality of all of these forms of taxes.

It does not, however, allow for the category of direct, unapportioned taxation upon anything other than income. That remains disallowed per Article 1, Section 9:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
 
2012-09-28 03:55:01 PM  

Saiga410: Hey, if you want cradle to grave mama govt why dont you just move to Sweden.



Why? Is there something in the American Constitution that prohibits social safety nets?
 
2012-09-28 03:55:02 PM  

intelligent comment below: sprawl15: Read the Constitution, libulardo.


So Obamacare was Constitutional because it was a tax, but there are limits on taxes? Sounds legit


His point is right there ARE limits to taxes. For example it would be illegal for a federal tax to only be for things in Texas. That would be unconstitutional. His argument is correct. However the point he is making is wrong. This limits are extremely minor in the constitution and in legal precedent.

That's why Roberts said what he did. It's like It's an excise tax - Case closed! Not even going to beyond that.
 
2012-09-28 03:55:24 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Nobodyn0se: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: The term you're looking for is not "small l libertarian" but "Democrat." Seriously, everything you mention is part of the Democratic platform. Now if only the Democrats actually put those ideas into practice more often, we'd be getting somewhere.

1. "Democrat" is a political party (like "Republican" and "Whig"). "libertarian" (in this case) is a political philosophy (like "liberal" and "conservative").

2. You've succeeded in identifying one of the many reasons I don't consider myself a Democrat, despite my plan to vote straight ticket Democrat in November.

OK, then you're a liberal.

And yet I disagree with "liberals" on many issues. Although I do believe I'm a lot closer to "liberal" than "conservative" I will also say that there are many instances in which the "liberal" side of things is to take away liberty and choice. That's why I decided to call myself a small l libertarian, because that philosophy perfectly encapsulates how I approach every political issue. The first test I give any political debate is "which side is trying to increase the amount of choice that people are able to have for themselves?" While that is the liberal side a majority of the time, it's not always.

All my conservative friends think I'm an ultra liberal. All my liberal friends think I'm ultra conservative. It's very confusing :(


One thing you need to keep an open mind out for is that there are several persuasions of liberals as well as conservatives. Case in point, I consider myself a liberal but have massive arguments with my fellow liberals whom I tend to label nanny liberals as they are for the 32oz ban here in NY while I try to explain to them that it is not the governments job to dictate this to me. It all depends on where along the axis you lie. It seems that you, like me lay closer to the center but still on the liberal side while those that I might have mentioned lay on the outskirts. Personally you confused me and made me question whether I'm a libertarian or liberal but I think our philosophy is so close to the center that there is very little distinction between the philosophies.
 
2012-09-28 03:55:38 PM  

Aldon: I wonder how many Libertarians who call themselves Christians realize that the social philosophy of Libertarianism is the same as Satanism...or in other words directly in opposition to the teachings of Jesus?


I doubt you'll find many self-described l(L)ibertarians who support government based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.
 
2012-09-28 03:56:15 PM  

sprawl15: Teufelaffe: So, I think the question remains: What limits on taxes?

16th only applies to taxation on income, which varies as either a direct or indirect tax based on type of income (taxation on salary is a direct tax, taxation on land holdings is an indirect tax), and the 16th was passed to clarify the constitutionality of all of these forms of taxes.

It does not, however, allow for the category of direct, unapportioned taxation upon anything other than income. That remains disallowed per Article 1, Section 9:No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


Do you understand what that means?

It's just saying it has to be uniform across the nation. That's not that restrictive at all.
 
2012-09-28 03:56:20 PM  

sprawl15: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid


Poor, poor taxes.

/i got nothin
//carry on good sir
 
2012-09-28 03:57:20 PM  
Ah yes. It's the Libertarians against the world.

That reminds me of a quote:

"It belongs to the genius of a great political leader to make even adversaries far removed from one another seem to belong to single category, because in weak and uncertain characters the knowledge of having different enemies can only too readily lead to the beginning of doubt in their own right. Once the wavering mass sees itself in a struggle against too many enemies, objectivity will put in an appearance, throwing open the question whether all others are really wrong and only their own movement are in the right. And this brings about the first paralysis of their own power. Hence a multiplicity of different adversaries must always be combined so that in the eyes of one's own supporters the struggle is directed against only one enemy."

~ Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
 
2012-09-28 03:58:33 PM  

gameshowhost: Ah yes. It's the Libertarians against the world.

That reminds me of a quote:

"It belongs to the genius of a great political leader to make even adversaries far removed from one another seem to belong to single category, because in weak and uncertain characters the knowledge of having different enemies can only too readily lead to the beginning of doubt in their own right. Once the wavering mass sees itself in a struggle against too many enemies, objectivity will put in an appearance, throwing open the question whether all others are really wrong and only their own movement are in the right. And this brings about the first paralysis of their own power. Hence a multiplicity of different adversaries must always be combined so that in the eyes of one's own supporters the struggle is directed against only one enemy."

~ Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"


He sure uses run-on sentences like a Libertarian.
 
2012-09-28 03:59:57 PM  

sprawl15: Teufelaffe: So, I think the question remains: What limits on taxes?

16th only applies to taxation on income, which varies as either a direct or indirect tax based on type of income (taxation on salary is a direct tax, taxation on land holdings is an indirect tax), and the 16th was passed to clarify the constitutionality of all of these forms of taxes.

It does not, however, allow for the category of direct, unapportioned taxation upon anything other than income. That remains disallowed per Article 1, Section 9:No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


Yeah about that:

The Sixteenth Amendment nullified the effect of Pollock.[25][26] That means the Congress may impose taxes on income from any source without having to apportion the total dollar amount of tax collected from each state according to each state's population in relation to the total national population.[27]

In Wikoff v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court said:

t is immaterial, with respect to Federal income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or an indirect tax. Mr. Wikoff [the taxpayer] relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. [ . . . ] but the effect of that decision has been nullified by the enactment of the 16th Amendment.[28]

In Abrams v. Commissioner, the Tax Court said:

Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.[29]
 
2012-09-28 04:01:03 PM  

Kazan: mcwehrle: So all this time I've been a small l libertarian?

most liberals are small-l libertarians.


I guess. Here's the thing though. I don't really put a lot of importance on the labeling anyway. It's what the person does/says/acts on. And with the exception of this year, I've always voted that way. Never a straight ticket, I'll pick and choose who I think is best for whatever position they are running for. This year will be the first, and hopefully only time I'll vote straight Dem. I don't want to take a chance giving them any downticket votes, even though there is actually one local Pubbie on my ballot who's not batshiat insane, has done some good things over the years for the community, and has come out as nicely as he can pretty much saying he's sorry for being Republican this year, but he's still going to keep doing what he's doing, and ignores what the rest of the party is doing. I'd still like to vote for him, but I just can't.

I've never understood those that vote party line and party line only. I can't get behind a mentality like that, where you give up all individual choice to protect the party at all costs. I just don't get it. But this year, I will go out of my way to have nothing to do with the GOP. They've gone off the cliff, batshiat insane, coo coo for cocoa puffs and any other trite term you'd like to use. I've never seen anything near this in all the elections I've been around to watch. Sure, there's been herp and derp to a degree, but nothing on the level of outright lies that this one has been.

Wasn't really going anywhere with this, just waiting out the rest of the workday so I can go home and mow the yard. And I don't really want to be labeled as this, that, or the other, because I'm actually a little bit of all, with the exception of this year's 'pubs.
 
2012-09-28 04:01:49 PM  

Corvus: Do you understand what that means?

It's just saying it has to be uniform across the nation.


You're wrong, but even if you were right you'd still be wrong because it's still a limitation on taxation.
 
2012-09-28 04:03:09 PM  

Corvus: Saiga410: CPennypacker: If you want to be a libertarian build yourself a raft and sail west until you find empty land. The rest of us live in a society.

Hey, if you want cradle to grave mama govt why dont you just move to Sweden.

Umm because we don't want that. However the libertarians are asking for removing of all regulations and safety nets.

People are asking for a balance of public and private sector. I know it's hard to believe some people don't live in a false dichotomy world.


You are smarter than to not notice a rehashing of the Somolia meme when talking about moving way from our current system and towards less of a safety net and it was even in response to a request to leave the country if you want what you want....
 
2012-09-28 04:03:13 PM  

Corvus: Yeah about that:


You do realize your examples are all agreeing with me, right? Do you really just not understand at all what you're quoting?
 
2012-09-28 04:03:36 PM  

PanicMan: Nobodyn0se: PanicMan: I have you favorited, but I don't have a tag for you so I don't know why. How about I just tag you "BROFIST".

I've barely posted the last few years, and most of that has been about my mother's run for a seat on the Texas State Board of Education. Odds are, you liked her, and not me :(

That could be it, but I'll favorite anyone who seems able to hold a decent discussion or otherwise worth my time to talk to. I'd say you earned it on your own.


BROFIST it is.
 
2012-09-28 04:05:00 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Do you understand what that means?

It's just saying it has to be uniform across the nation.

You're wrong, but even if you were right you'd still be wrong because it's still a limitation on taxation.


Hey dipshiat I said it was a limitation. I said it twice already. HOWEVER it's a very pedantic BS distinction that really has no bearing on the points being made.

Can you read? Seriously?
 
2012-09-28 04:05:18 PM  

intelligent comment below: Nobodyn0se: I also think there are some government regulations that are absolutely asinine and that we need to leave it up to the "free market." For instance, I think we need to let foreign airlines start running domestic flights, as long as they abide by our safety rules.


So you're just a liar then:

Nobodyn0se: let alone said it contains economic freedoms?


PS: liberals don't want a complete ban on guns, just sane gun legislation not underhanded by the NRA like the last assault weapons ban


..... Wait, what? I ask for an instance in which I said the Constitution contains economic freedom and you call me a liar and use as proof a quote in which i say NOTHING about the Constitution or that the Constitution contains economic freedoms?!?!

Are you for real?
 
2012-09-28 04:06:30 PM  

mcwehrle: Hold on...I've always believed all this, and I'm a 10 year Democrat/25 year Reformed 'Pubbie.

So all this time I've been a small l libertarian?

Well, damn.




That is just my own definition, which I got from someone else on Fark. You can use it if you like, or call yourself anything else you wish.
 
2012-09-28 04:07:46 PM  

Rev.K: slayer199: How many people have you tried to personally help financially or career-wise. I've tried to help many...and I'll help those that will help themselves. Fark the rest.

Many friends who needed money in a jam, family members too. But even more compelling than that is part of the work I do, which is assisting senior citizens who cannot afford to pay their property taxes.

See, some elderly people own their home but are on very tight, fixed incomes. In some cases, when the property taxes on their house increase, they cannot afford to pay them. If that persists for long enough, the city will assume ownership of the property and an 82-year old widow would have nowhere to go but perhaps to family members or the street.

The tax relief program is in place because to most people, it's a much better idea all around to defer the taxes or provide relief so that an 82-year old widow doesn't have to face life on the streets.

As God-is-my-Co-Pirate pointed out, the long term benefit of not tossing the elderly into the street and recouping a portion of the property taxes far outweighs the smug satisfaction of turning the unfortunate out to the streets. 

But not for libertarians. They just say "f*ck em". And I find that abhorrent.



Wait a minute. The government would be the ones throwing them out into the street and you blame libertarians for being heartless? Are you trolling here?
 
2012-09-28 04:08:43 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Yeah about that:

You do realize your examples are all agreeing with me, right? Do you really just not understand at all what you're quoting?


You realize I DID SAY THAT IT IS LIMITED. I just said your point was a pedantic BS one.

Serious can you read?

Corvus: His point is right there ARE limits to taxes. For example it would be illegal for a federal tax to only be for things in Texas. That would be unconstitutional. His argument is correct. However the point he is making is wrong. This limits are extremely minor in the constitution and in legal precedent.


Are you seriously this dumb. Or are you so mad with some made up rage for me you just completely ignore what I actually said?


How can you not understand that sentence
 
2012-09-28 04:10:35 PM  

Corvus: Hey dipshiat I said it was a limitation.


Teufelaffe: So, I think the question remains: What limits on taxes?
sprawl15: Well, there's this limitation.
Corvus: Do you understand what that means? It's just saying it has to be uniform across the nation. That's not that restrictive at all.
Corvus AND FURTHERMORE, look at all these cases that prove you wrong!
sprawl15: It's still a limitation.
Corvus: I SAID THAT ALL ALONG U DIPSHIAT LOL OMG WTF

Corvus: HOWEVER it's a very pedantic BS distinction that really has no bearing on the points being made.


It's pretty relevant when considering the PPACA, levied as a tax, is capitation not covered by the 16th. It's materially similar to an income tax, though so it got a pass by SCOTUS.
 
2012-09-28 04:11:03 PM  
Remember when We the People gave the government new powers by way of the process outlined in the Constitution? Neither do I!
 
2012-09-28 04:12:18 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What did they call J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism? Something like "the bourgeoise providing moral justification for their own selfishness"?

Similar thing applies here.


Yeah. about that...

"And assuredly the terrible case which, as we saw in a former chapter, Socialists are able to make out against the present economic order of society, demands a full consideration of all means by which the institution may have a chance of being made to work in a manner more beneficial to that large portion of society which at present enjoys the least share of its direct benefits."

J.S. Mill, _Socialism_

/and Jeremy Bentham scowls at your attribution of Classical Utilitarianism
 
2012-09-28 04:12:50 PM  

GoldSpider: Remember when We the People gave the government new powers by way of the process outlined in the Constitution? Neither do I!


Marbury v Madison would like a word.
 
2012-09-28 04:14:19 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Hey dipshiat I said it was a limitation.

Teufelaffe: So, I think the question remains: What limits on taxes?
sprawl15: Well, there's this limitation.
Corvus: Do you understand what that means? It's just saying it has to be uniform across the nation. That's not that restrictive at all.
Corvus AND FURTHERMORE, look at all these cases that prove you wrong!
sprawl15: It's still a limitation.
Corvus: I SAID THAT ALL ALONG U DIPSHIAT LOL OMG WTF

Corvus: HOWEVER it's a very pedantic BS distinction that really has no bearing on the points being made.

It's pretty relevant when considering the PPACA, levied as a tax, is capitation not covered by the 16th. It's materially similar to an income tax, though so it got a pass by SCOTUS.


No it's not. It's an excise tax and those have been very non-limited since the start of the US.

I did say it all along. You just didn't read what I wrote. And you are the one having a tantrum not me. So stop pretending I am the one freaking out when it's you writing in the caps.
 
2012-09-28 04:14:48 PM  

Nobodyn0se: mcwehrle: Hold on...I've always believed all this, and I'm a 10 year Democrat/25 year Reformed 'Pubbie.

So all this time I've been a small l libertarian?

Well, damn.



That is just my own definition, which I got from someone else on Fark. You can use it if you like, or call yourself anything else you wish.



It's cool. As I posted to Kazan, I really don't strive for a label. I also don't seem to fit neatly into one anyway, and that's ok too.
 
2012-09-28 04:15:22 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Hey dipshiat I said it was a limitation.

Teufelaffe: So, I think the question remains: What limits on taxes?
sprawl15: Well, there's this limitation.
Corvus: Do you understand what that means? It's just saying it has to be uniform across the nation. That's not that restrictive at all.
Corvus AND FURTHERMORE, look at all these cases that prove you wrong!
sprawl15: It's still a limitation.
Corvus: I SAID THAT ALL ALONG U DIPSHIAT LOL OMG WTF


Do you want me to quote about the 4 times I agrees that there are limitations to show you the compete ass you are being?

Those limitations just don't apply to the point being made.
 
2012-09-28 04:15:56 PM  

slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


To "allow" people and charities to handle it, because they were apparently on the verge of ending poverty, and would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling government.

That is a pretty god one, genuine LOL there.
 
2012-09-28 04:16:24 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Hey dipshiat I said it was a limitation.

Teufelaffe: So, I think the question remains: What limits on taxes?
sprawl15: Well, there's this limitation.
Corvus: Do you understand what that means? It's just saying it has to be uniform across the nation. That's not that restrictive at all.
Corvus AND FURTHERMORE, look at all these cases that prove you wrong!
sprawl15: It's still a limitation.
Corvus: I SAID THAT ALL ALONG U DIPSHIAT LOL OMG WTF

Corvus: HOWEVER it's a very pedantic BS distinction that really has no bearing on the points being made.

It's pretty relevant when considering the PPACA, levied as a tax, is capitation not covered by the 16th. It's materially similar to an income tax, though so it got a pass by SCOTUS.


blog.zap2it.com

It's fun when you can make up what the other person said isn't it?
 
2012-09-28 04:16:56 PM  
None of you dull assholes know what efficiency is. Do you?
 
2012-09-28 04:17:06 PM  

flux: Preserving individual liberties is not noble if the liberty you're primarily concerned with is that you should not be expected to help.


The difference between "expected to" and "forced to," let me show you it.
 
2012-09-28 04:18:00 PM  

Corvus: It's an excise tax


An excise on what?

Corvus: So stop pretending I am the one freaking out when it's you writing in the caps.


Are you going to quote my post a third time, or am I safe to respond now?

Corvus: Those limitations just don't apply to the point being made.


whofarkincares.jpg
 
2012-09-28 04:19:07 PM  

Nobodyn0se: GoldSpider: Remember when We the People gave the government new powers by way of the process outlined in the Constitution? Neither do I!

Marbury v Madison would like a word.


That was directed more at people who assert that the commerce clause and the presence of the words "general welfare" in the preamble gives the government the power to do whatever the fark it wants.
 
2012-09-28 04:21:09 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: It's an excise tax

An excise on what?


Holy crap dude. Even congress had it was an excise tax in the original form. It's a fail to act excise tax.

Are you saying no fail to comply/act excise taxes don't exist?



Corvus: So stop pretending I am the one freaking out when it's you writing in the caps.

Are you going to quote my post a third time, or am I safe to respond now?

Corvus: Those limitations just don't apply to the point being made.

whofarkincares.jpg


Sure post all you want. I am not going to cry about it like you are doing now.

So you don't care that your pedantic argument has no bearing on the actual point being made?
 
2012-09-28 04:21:15 PM  

Teufelaffe: sprawl15: Jackson Herring: flux: Forgive the gender assignment here -- this is a personal credo and I happen to be male, but I've long thought that the difference between a boy and man is that a boy believes he needs to deal with a problem only if he caused it, whereas a man will deal with a problem simply because there is a problem, and it needs to be dealt with. A boy complains when asked to help. A man does not.

Preserving individual liberties is not noble if the liberty you're primarily concerned with is that you should not be expected to help.

but taxes aren't fair

We could make them fair by having the nearly half of all Americans who don't pay taxes try to contribute to society.

But then they'd have to get off their asses, so you know that ain't gonna happen.

*tosses yellow flag*

Complete and utter bullshiat on the field, 15 yard penalty, loss of down.


Really. Anyone calling themselves a libertarian should not be advocating forcing more people to pay higher taxes.
 
2012-09-28 04:21:21 PM  
[Conservative] - {good Samaritan morals} = [Libertarian]

/ ??
 
2012-09-28 04:21:38 PM  

Nobodyn0se: GoldSpider: Remember when We the People gave the government new powers by way of the process outlined in the Constitution? Neither do I!

Marbury v Madison would like a word.


Marbury v Madison did no such thing. It was simply the first time the power of judicial review was used to strike down a federal statute.
 
2012-09-28 04:21:44 PM  

Corvus: Are you saying no fail to comply/act excise taxes don't exist?


FTFM
 
2012-09-28 04:22:41 PM  
hurr LOVE OF LIBERTY

Jesus Christ, grow up and face the 21st century.
 
2012-09-28 04:23:29 PM  

qorkfiend: Nobodyn0se: GoldSpider: Remember when We the People gave the government new powers by way of the process outlined in the Constitution? Neither do I!

Marbury v Madison would like a word.

Marbury v Madison did no such thing. It was simply the first time the power of judicial review was used to strike down a federal statute.


Yeah these idiots believe judicial review was a created power when they had talked about judicial review prior to the constitution. It's a BS libertarian made up history.
 
2012-09-28 04:23:30 PM  

Biological Ali: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.

To "allow" people and charities to handle it, because they were apparently on the verge of ending poverty, and would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling government.

That is a pretty god one, genuine LOL there.


wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net
 
2012-09-28 04:24:03 PM  

qorkfiend: Marbury v Madison did no such thing. It was simply the first time the power of judicial review was used to strike down a federal statute.


So in other words, Marbury Vs. Madison set up the concept of "judicial review" in which the SCOTUS gets to decide what is constitutional and what isn't, and people on Fark don't get to decide for themselves whether the Federal government is usurping more power than what is given to them by the constitution?

Got it.
 
2012-09-28 04:25:55 PM  

jigger: Biological Ali: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.

To "allow" people and charities to handle it, because they were apparently on the verge of ending poverty, and would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling government.

That is a pretty god one, genuine LOL there.

[wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net image 570x387]


Yeah but that chart shows that FDR's big social programs were reducing poverty before hand.
 
2012-09-28 04:26:10 PM  

whidbey: hurr LOVE OF LIBERTY

Jesus Christ, grow up and face the 21st century.


Agreed. Liberty was fine for frontiersmen and other rugged individualists of their time. Today its the buggy-whip of governance philosophy.
 
2012-09-28 04:26:18 PM  

sprawl15: Are you going to quote my post a third time


I guess you were. Farkin' lol. Pace yourself, you'll blow a blood vessel.

Corvus: Are you saying no fail to comply/act excise taxes don't exist?


I would suggest you go figure out what excise taxes are before asking such a ridiculously stupid question.

Corvus: So you don't care that your pedantic argument has no bearing on the actual point being made?


The point being made is that there are limitations on the government's capacity to levy taxes. You've already said you agree with that point (by disagreeing with it), and yet you continue to shiat your pants responding to my posts (up to three times in a row!).
 
2012-09-28 04:27:39 PM  

Nobodyn0se: qorkfiend: Marbury v Madison did no such thing. It was simply the first time the power of judicial review was used to strike down a federal statute.

So in other words, Marbury Vs. Madison set up the concept of "judicial review"
in which the SCOTUS gets to decide what is constitutional and what isn't, and people on Fark don't get to decide for themselves whether the Federal government is usurping more power than what is given to them by the constitution?

Got it.


No it did not. That concept was around way before then. It was the first time it was used. That's not the same thing.
 
2012-09-28 04:28:17 PM  

Corvus: jigger: Biological Ali: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.

To "allow" people and charities to handle it, because they were apparently on the verge of ending poverty, and would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling government.

That is a pretty god one, genuine LOL there.

[wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net image 570x387]

Yeah but that chart shows that FDR's big social programs were reducing poverty before hand.


Or the fact that WWII ended.

Frankly it doesn't really show any cause/effect relationship for anything.
 
2012-09-28 04:28:49 PM  

sprawl15: sprawl15: Are you going to quote my post a third time

I guess you were. Farkin' lol. Pace yourself, you'll blow a blood vessel.

Corvus: Are you saying no fail to comply/act excise taxes don't exist?

I would suggest you go figure out what excise taxes are before asking such a ridiculously stupid question.

Corvus: So you don't care that your pedantic argument has no bearing on the actual point being made?

The point being made is that there are limitations on the government's capacity to levy taxes. You've already said you agree with that point (by disagreeing with it), and yet you continue to shiat your pants responding to my posts (up to three times in a row!).


Are you going to answer my question or keep dodging?
Are you saying fail to comply/act excise taxes don't exist?
 
2012-09-28 04:29:23 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: None of you dull assholes know what efficiency is. Do you?


That's when you hold your piss until you have to shiat, then do both at once.
 
2012-09-28 04:29:37 PM  

jigger: Corvus: jigger: Biological Ali: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.

To "allow" people and charities to handle it, because they were apparently on the verge of ending poverty, and would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling government.

That is a pretty god one, genuine LOL there.

[wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net image 570x387]

Yeah but that chart shows that FDR's big social programs were reducing poverty before hand.

Or the fact that WWII ended.

Frankly it doesn't really show any cause/effect relationship for anything.


Then why did you show it then if you believe it shows no information?
 
2012-09-28 04:31:36 PM  

jigger: Wait a minute. The government would be the ones throwing them out into the street and you blame libertarians for being heartless? Are you trolling here?


The original statement was basically "don't help people, they have to do it for themselves".

I'm pointing out what a stupid idea that is through my example on property taxes.

Yes, it would be the city removing senior citizens from their homes, but that's what they would do for anyone who doesn't pay their property taxes over a long period of time. The city has to do this to ensure that property taxes continue to be paid to provide city services.

Bootstrappy libertarians would like to throw to the wolves anyone who can't get by on their own, which is incredibly short-sighted thinking. My example points out that if you consider the big picture and the long term, there's clearly benefit in helping seniors stay in their homes by working out deferrals or providing tax relief.
 
2012-09-28 04:31:38 PM  

Corvus: Are you saying fail to comply/act excise taxes don't exist?


They can't exist, by definition. Excise taxes are taxes on events. If there is no event, there's nothing to excise taxes from.

I would be very glad to be proven wrong. Feel free to provide a single example of an excise tax on inaction. Difficulty: failure to act in a specific manner is not the same thing as failure to act.
 
2012-09-28 04:32:58 PM  

Corvus: jigger: Corvus: jigger: Biological Ali: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.

To "allow" people and charities to handle it, because they were apparently on the verge of ending poverty, and would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling government.

That is a pretty god one, genuine LOL there.

[wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net image 570x387]

Yeah but that chart shows that FDR's big social programs were reducing poverty before hand.

Or the fact that WWII ended.

Frankly it doesn't really show any cause/effect relationship for anything.

Then why did you show it then if you believe it shows no information?


It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.
 
2012-09-28 04:33:58 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: hurr LOVE OF LIBERTY

Jesus Christ, grow up and face the 21st century.

Agreed. Liberty was fine for frontiersmen and other rugged individualists of their time. Today its the buggy-whip of governance philosophy.


What is it with your sado-masochistic take on government?

Looks like you're still stuck in the 18th century with the frontiersmen. I'm shocked by this realization.
 
2012-09-28 04:36:26 PM  

sprawl15: Rincewind53: I think I phrased my point badly. What I was saying is that economies of scale prevent individual actors from having any deterrent effect against large corporations. Because government is already large, they are on an equal footing with large corporations and have the power to reign in certain excesses and actually promote substantive change (see for instance how the Cuyahoga river no longer catches fire).

The standard libertarian counter is that people have the ability to sue corporations; that if a company sprays toxic waste all over your children, your method of redress is to sue the company into oblivion.

The obvious problems with this situation are what makes it so funny.


Apart from that, you might have situations where a private entity, either through their effect on the environment or from some product they're selling, results in a community suffering from higher-than-normal rates of some disease that also occurs naturally. Even though it may be clear that some obvious damage was done, in many cases you probably wouldn't even be able to tell whether a person was a victim of that private entity, or just an unlucky Individual who would have gotten sick anyway. Individuals bringing lawsuits for harm that they can personally prove the entity inflicted on them might not be the most efficient way of sanctioning companies that do things like that.
 
2012-09-28 04:36:28 PM  

Rev.K: jigger: Wait a minute. The government would be the ones throwing them out into the street and you blame libertarians for being heartless? Are you trolling here?

The original statement was basically "don't help people, they have to do it for themselves".


And what tenet of libertarianism says that you should never help other people?

Rev.K: Yes, it would be the city removing senior citizens from their homes, but that's what they would do for anyone who doesn't pay their property taxes over a long period of time. The city has to do this to ensure that property taxes continue to be paid to provide city services.


And that money definitely has to come from destitute old people.

Rev.K: Bootstrappy libertarians would like to throw to the wolves anyone who can't get by on their own, which is incredibly short-sighted thinking.


We've already established that it's the government doing this.

Rev.K: My example points out that if you consider the big picture and the long term, there's clearly benefit in helping seniors stay in their homes by working out deferrals or providing tax relief.


Your example shows that the government doesn't care who it hurts as long as it achieves compliance.
 
2012-09-28 04:36:33 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: hurr LOVE OF LIBERTY

Jesus Christ, grow up and face the 21st century.

Agreed. Liberty was fine for frontiersmen and other rugged individualists of their time. Today its the buggy-whip of governance philosophy.

What is it with your sado-masochistic take on government?

Looks like you're still stuck in the 18th century with the frontiersmen. I'm shocked by this realization.


I'm agreeing with your acknowledgment that liberty is a concept valued by few these days.
 
2012-09-28 04:36:53 PM  

Nobodyn0se: qorkfiend: Marbury v Madison did no such thing. It was simply the first time the power of judicial review was used to strike down a federal statute.

So in other words, Marbury Vs. Madison set up the concept of "judicial review" in which the SCOTUS gets to decide what is constitutional and what isn't, and people on Fark don't get to decide for themselves whether the Federal government is usurping more power than what is given to them by the constitution?

Got it.


No, it didn't. Judicial history dating back to the 1600s set up the concept of judicial review. This power was exercised many times prior to Marbury v. Madison by courts other than the Supreme Court to strike down laws. The Supreme Court itself had engaged in judicial review prior to Marbury v. Madison, in Hylton v. United States; the only reason you never hear about Hylton is because the Court found that the law in question did not conflict with the Constitution.

I would be interested in hearing an interpretation of the enumerated powers of the judiciary, coupled with the Supremacy Clause, that does not include the power to declare laws unconstitutional.
 
2012-09-28 04:37:00 PM  
My advice to all in this thread is to free your mind first. Right political thinking will follow.
 
2012-09-28 04:37:00 PM  

slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.


Funny, that was exactly Herbert Hoover's take on it as well.

"Conservatives believed that relief was the responsibility of charities and local government. But these resources were quickly overtaxed. The unemployed began to organize." link 

Then FDR got elected, Democrats got more power, New Deal started pulling us out, etc etc etc. And history has not been kind to Hoover and his laissez-faire "don't touch it, it'll fix itself" plan.
 
2012-09-28 04:38:20 PM  

jigger: Biological Ali: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.

To "allow" people and charities to handle it, because they were apparently on the verge of ending poverty, and would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling government.

That is a pretty god one, genuine LOL there.

[wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net image 570x387]


Did you reply to the wrong post by accident?
 
2012-09-28 04:38:36 PM  

Old Smokie: My advice to all in this thread is to free your mind first. Right political thinking ass will follow.


FTFY
 
2012-09-28 04:39:24 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: hurr LOVE OF LIBERTY

Jesus Christ, grow up and face the 21st century.

Agreed. Liberty was fine for frontiersmen and other rugged individualists of their time. Today its the buggy-whip of governance philosophy.

What is it with your sado-masochistic take on government?

Looks like you're still stuck in the 18th century with the frontiersmen. I'm shocked by this realization.

I'm agreeing with your acknowledgment that liberty is a concept valued by few these days.


Not at all. The reason we fight for regulations are to ensure that we have clean air, decent working conditions and a sense of social justice. Corporatism isn't going to just snap to and start treating people with dignity and respect without said regulations.

You're welcome to keep building your strawman, though. Doesn't really serve anything.
 
2012-09-28 04:40:20 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Are you saying fail to comply/act excise taxes don't exist?

They can't exist, by definition. Excise taxes are taxes on events. If there is no event, there's nothing to excise taxes from.

I would be very glad to be proven wrong. Feel free to provide a single example of an excise tax on inaction. Difficulty: failure to act in a specific manner is not the same thing as failure to act.



Hmm someone sounds like they are starting to back peddle.

Please tell me what that means exactly so you won't move the goal posts when I do.

DO they exist or not?

Does "non-compliance" excise taxes exist? Now it seems like you are adding additional wiggle room where before you said it was impossible.
 
2012-09-28 04:42:25 PM  

nevirus: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.

Funny, that was exactly Herbert Hoover's take on it as well.

"Conservatives believed that relief was the responsibility of charities and local government. But these resources were quickly overtaxed. The unemployed began to organize." link 

Then FDR got elected, Democrats got more power, New Deal started pulling us out, etc etc etc. And history has not been kind to Hoover and his laissez-faire "don't touch it, it'll fix itself" plan.


So during fairly stable time, outside of a giant depression, there is no need for govt usurpation of charitable roles? It sounds like it was working until a giant economic crunch.
 
2012-09-28 04:43:10 PM  

sprawl15: I would be very glad to be proven wrong. Feel free to provide a single example of an excise tax on inaction. Difficulty: failure to act in a specific manner is not the same thing as failure to act.


Weird this first time you brought this up. And you were yelling at me earlier I had no idea about how excise taxes because I suggested it and now you are moving goal posts and now saying "well it kind of depends on the details".
 
2012-09-28 04:43:12 PM  

Old Smokie: My advice to all in this thread is to free your mind first. Right political thinking will follow.


Let me guess: RON PAUL. Gary Johnson. That Other Unelectable Guy Who's Also Ridiculously Far to the Right?
 
2012-09-28 04:43:35 PM  

CanuckInCA: You know the government is really just a collection of people right?


www.crime-reg.com

Read that in Hobb's voice

/not the stuffed tiger
 
2012-09-28 04:45:00 PM  

jigger: Corvus: jigger: Corvus: jigger: Biological Ali: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.

To "allow" people and charities to handle it, because they were apparently on the verge of ending poverty, and would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling government.

That is a pretty god one, genuine LOL there.

[wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net image 570x387]

Yeah but that chart shows that FDR's big social programs were reducing poverty before hand.

Or the fact that WWII ended.

Frankly it doesn't really show any cause/effect relationship for anything.


Then why did you show it then if you believe it shows no information?

It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.


Huh?!?!

Didn't you say

"Frankly it doesn't really show any cause/effect relationship for anything"

and now you say:

"It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate"

You know those two statement's contradict each other?
 
2012-09-28 04:45:33 PM  

Saiga410: So during fairly stable time, outside of a giant depression, there is no need for govt usurpation of charitable roles? It sounds like it was working until a giant economic crunch.


[inigo_montoya.jpg]
 
2012-09-28 04:46:47 PM  

Saiga410: So during fairly stable time, outside of a giant depression, there is no need for govt usurpation of charitable roles? It sounds like it was working until a giant economic crunch.


Yes, but it's exactly when there's a giant economic crunch that we need these things. That's why the people rejected Hoover's laissez-faire idea and embraced FDR's New Deal. The churches/charities simply weren't enough.
 
2012-09-28 04:47:43 PM  

jigger: Frankly it doesn't really show any cause/effect relationship for anything.



jigger: It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.


petemergencymelbourne.com.au

Serious is their any ability for cognitive dissonance in your body? 

According to you when it shows you wrong it shows nothing, but when it supports your argument it's proof of cause and effect.
 
2012-09-28 04:48:49 PM  

Biological Ali: Saiga410: So during fairly stable time, outside of a giant depression, there is no need for govt usurpation of charitable roles? It sounds like it was working until a giant economic crunch.

[inigo_montoya.jpg]


Intrusion?
 
2012-09-28 04:49:14 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Are you saying fail to comply/act excise taxes don't exist?

They can't exist, by definition. Excise taxes are taxes on events. If there is no event, there's nothing to excise taxes from.

I would be very glad to be proven wrong. Feel free to provide a single example of an excise tax on inaction. Difficulty: failure to act in a specific manner is not the same thing as failure to act.


Oh and when you specifically explain what that exactly means (funny you didn't mention it until I was going to prove your early statements wrong) please show me where in the Constitution this distinction is made (or in other law).
 
2012-09-28 04:49:15 PM  

Corvus: DO they exist or not?


sprawl15: They can't exist, by definition. Excise taxes are taxes on events. If there is no event, there's nothing to excise taxes from.

I would be very glad to be proven wrong. Feel free to provide a single example of an excise tax on inaction. Difficulty: failure to act in a specific manner is not the same thing as failure to act.


Corvus: Weird this first time you brought this up.


I'm nipping your stupidity in the bud before it has a chance to spread. It's a very common mistake, because these are complicated ideas and many people are very simple. As a (non-tax) example, a fine for failure to signal during lane change is not a fine on inaction, it's a fine on action in a disallowed method. When we're talking about a rare situation like the health care mandate, which is a tax on absolute inaction rather than action in improper method, it's a fundamental point regardless of how fine a point it is.

And instead of rambling and trying to weasel out of it, just go ahead and show me a single excise tax on inaction. I'm waiting.
 
2012-09-28 04:49:21 PM  

nevirus: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.

Funny, that was exactly Herbert Hoover's take on it as well.

"Conservatives believed that relief was the responsibility of charities and local government. But these resources were quickly overtaxed. The unemployed began to organize." link 

Then FDR got elected, Democrats got more power, New Deal started pulling us out, etc etc etc. And history has not been kind to Hoover and his laissez-faire "don't touch it, it'll fix itself" plan.


As a more powerful example, you can also consider the example of the English Parliament further back in history - which was also keen for some time on Laissez Faire/non-interventionist policies - and their reactions to crop shortages, which they left to the market and charities to solve. This did not fair very well in practice, with the most notable example being the Irish potato famine.
 
2012-09-28 04:49:28 PM  

jigger: Your example shows that the government doesn't care who it hurts as long as it achieves compliance.


No, that's what you'd like to believe. That's not what is happening at all.

It's a government program, designed to help keep people in their homes. The government itself realizes that there are instances where compliance measures don't necessarily have to be enforced because there is a better option.
 
2012-09-28 04:49:29 PM  

nevirus: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.

Funny, that was exactly Herbert Hoover's take on it as well.

"Conservatives believed that relief was the responsibility of charities and local government. But these resources were quickly overtaxed. The unemployed began to organize." link 

Then FDR got elected, Democrats got more power, New Deal started pulling us out, etc etc etc. And history has not been kind to Hoover and his laissez-faire "don't touch it, it'll fix itself" plan.


Damn. Maybe find a more historically accurate account of what went down during the Hoover administration and the election of 1932. The one you linked to is all kinds of wrong. Let's just say Hoover wasn't "laissez-faire" and that Roosevelt actually ran against Hoover's big government interventions. He campaigned on drastic reductions in federal spending and restoration of the gold standard. Roosevelt was certainly no conservative but he considered himself a fiscal conservative (at least in 1932). That eventually went out the window, but to make it look like Hoover was this tight fiscal conservative and that's what killed the economy is just bullshiat.
 
2012-09-28 04:51:40 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: DO they exist or not?

sprawl15: They can't exist, by definition. Excise taxes are taxes on events. If there is no event, there's nothing to excise taxes from.

I would be very glad to be proven wrong. Feel free to provide a single example of an excise tax on inaction. Difficulty: failure to act in a specific manner is not the same thing as failure to act.

Corvus: Weird this first time you brought this up.

I'm nipping your stupidity in the bud before it has a chance to spread. It's a very common mistake, because these are complicated ideas and many people are very simple. As a (non-tax) example, a fine for failure to signal during lane change is not a fine on inaction, it's a fine on action in a disallowed method. When we're talking about a rare situation like the health care mandate, which is a tax on absolute inaction rather than action in improper method, it's a fundamental point regardless of how fine a point it is.

And instead of rambling and trying to weasel out of it, just go ahead and show me a single excise tax on inaction. I'm waiting.


Fines for a lange change isn't an excise tax.

So you refuse to explain what you mean and the why you feel it has a legal distinction before I show you? It sounds like you are preparing to move goal posts.
 
2012-09-28 04:51:58 PM  

Saiga410: So during fairly stable time, outside of a giant depression, there is no need for govt usurpation of charitable roles? It sounds like it was working until a giant economic crunch.


Brought on by the Federal Reserve, at least according to Ben Bernanke.
 
2012-09-28 04:53:22 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: hurr LOVE OF LIBERTY

Jesus Christ, grow up and face the 21st century.

Agreed. Liberty was fine for frontiersmen and other rugged individualists of their time. Today its the buggy-whip of governance philosophy.

What is it with your sado-masochistic take on government?

Looks like you're still stuck in the 18th century with the frontiersmen. I'm shocked by this realization.

I'm agreeing with your acknowledgment that liberty is a concept valued by few these days.

Not at all. The reason we fight for regulations are to ensure that we have clean air, decent working conditions and a sense of social justice. Corporatism isn't going to just snap to and start treating people with dignity and respect without said regulations.

You're welcome to keep building your strawman, though. Doesn't really serve anything.


I'm all for those things too. I just would prefer the government stopped assuming powers that were never given to it by the people.
 
2012-09-28 04:53:30 PM  

jigger: nevirus: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government.

Funny, that was exactly Herbert Hoover's take on it as well.

"Conservatives believed that relief was the responsibility of charities and local government. But these resources were quickly overtaxed. The unemployed began to organize." link 

Then FDR got elected, Democrats got more power, New Deal started pulling us out, etc etc etc. And history has not been kind to Hoover and his laissez-faire "don't touch it, it'll fix itself" plan.

Damn. Maybe find a more historically accurate account of what went down during the Hoover administration and the election of 1932. The one you linked to is all kinds of wrong. Let's just say Hoover wasn't "laissez-faire" and that Roosevelt actually ran against Hoover's big government interventions. He campaigned on drastic reductions in federal spending and restoration of the gold standard. Roosevelt was certainly no conservative but he considered himself a fiscal conservative (at least in 1932). That eventually went out the window, but to make it look like Hoover was this tight fiscal conservative and that's what killed the economy is just bullshiat.


Surely it would be trivial to provide some supporting reading that's not "all kinds of wrong".
 
2012-09-28 04:53:35 PM  

qorkfiend: Nobodyn0se: qorkfiend: Marbury v Madison did no such thing. It was simply the first time the power of judicial review was used to strike down a federal statute.

So in other words, Marbury Vs. Madison set up the concept of "judicial review" in which the SCOTUS gets to decide what is constitutional and what isn't, and people on Fark don't get to decide for themselves whether the Federal government is usurping more power than what is given to them by the constitution?

Got it.

No, it didn't. Judicial history dating back to the 1600s set up the concept of judicial review. This power was exercised many times prior to Marbury v. Madison by courts other than the Supreme Court to strike down laws. The Supreme Court itself had engaged in judicial review prior to Marbury v. Madison, in Hylton v. United States; the only reason you never hear about Hylton is because the Court found that the law in question did not conflict with the Constitution.

I would be interested in hearing an interpretation of the enumerated powers of the judiciary, coupled with the Supremacy Clause, that does not include the power to declare laws unconstitutional.


Well, that's actually not true. Marbury v. Madison put the nail in the coffin of the idea that the state legislatures or the president had any power to determine Constitutionality. If you're implying that the power of Judicial review was in someway uncontroverted or certain prior to Marbury, you're simply wrong on the history. See the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the Federalist papers, and Brutus IX on debates about who had the power to determine constitutionality.
 
2012-09-28 04:54:17 PM  

Rev.K: jigger: Your example shows that the government doesn't care who it hurts as long as it achieves compliance.

No, that's what you'd like to believe. That's not what is happening at all.

It's a government program, designed to help keep people in their homes. The government itself realizes that there are instances where compliance measures don't necessarily have to be enforced because there is a better option.


Oh good. At least some tax collectors have a shred of humanity. How many jurisdictions have similar policies? How many others are there throwing the elderly out of their homes?
 
2012-09-28 04:54:17 PM  

Saiga410: Biological Ali: Saiga410: So during fairly stable time, outside of a giant depression, there is no need for govt usurpation of charitable roles? It sounds like it was working until a giant economic crunch.

[inigo_montoya.jpg]

Intrusion?


A better word perhaps, but also one that makes the whole point rather trivial.
 
2012-09-28 04:54:24 PM  

sprawl15: And instead of rambling and trying to weasel out of it, just go ahead and show me a single excise tax on inaction. I'm waiting


Weasel out? You are the one who started back peddling and brought up a new condition that was never stated until I was going to show you wrong. And now refuse to explain what it is or what legal distinction it has to leave it vague so you can move goal posts.

You are doing this on purpose because you will take whatever I put and use a fake distinction that doesn't legally matter and go "OH that's different".
 
2012-09-28 04:55:40 PM  

Rincewind53: slayer199: DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?

Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.

If you choose to do hookers and blow every night, that's your choice. The consequences of that could be STDs, overdose, having no money...consequences YOU have to live with.

Okay. What if you choose to be born into a family that's been in poverty for three generations and go to a school in an area with high crime and low support structures? Do you have to just live with that, or are you supposed to just throw off your upbringing and the circumstances of your birth and emerge new, like a phoenix?


You still have a choice, you can continue to be 4th generation poverty OR you can chose to learn what you can at school, do very well (it can be done), study, get a scholarship, attend college and break the cycle of poverty in your family.

You have choices in life, some make the right ones, some do not.
 
2012-09-28 04:56:26 PM  

Corvus: jigger: Frankly it doesn't really show any cause/effect relationship for anything.


jigger: It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.

[petemergencymelbourne.com.au image 300x300]

Serious is their any ability for cognitive dissonance in your body? 

According to you when it shows you wrong it shows nothing, but when it supports your argument it's proof of cause and effect.


I'm convinced you're mentally handicapped, son. 

Now go read that string of posts again and if you still can't see where you went dumb, read them again until you can.
 
2012-09-28 04:57:06 PM  

Corvus: You know those two statement's contradict each other?


They don't contradict each other and you are a stupid person.
 
2012-09-28 04:57:25 PM  

jigger: Corvus: jigger: Frankly it doesn't really show any cause/effect relationship for anything.


jigger: It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.

[petemergencymelbourne.com.au image 300x300]

Serious is their any ability for cognitive dissonance in your body? 

According to you when it shows you wrong it shows nothing, but when it supports your argument it's proof of cause and effect.

I'm convinced you're mentally handicapped, son. 

Now go read that string of posts again and if you still can't see where you went dumb, read them again until you can.


Really?

You didn't say the chart proves nothing and then a little later says it proves your point?

That's not what you did?
 
2012-09-28 04:58:29 PM  

dantheman195: Rincewind53: slayer199: DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?

Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.

If you choose to do hookers and blow every night, that's your choice. The consequences of that could be STDs, overdose, having no money...consequences YOU have to live with.

Okay. What if you choose to be born into a family that's been in poverty for three generations and go to a school in an area with high crime and low support structures? Do you have to just live with that, or are you supposed to just throw off your upbringing and the circumstances of your birth and emerge new, like a phoenix?

You still have a choice, you can continue to be 4th generation poverty OR you can chose to learn what you can at school, do very well (it can be done), study, get a scholarship, attend college and break the cycle of poverty in your family.

You have choices in life, some make the right ones, some do not.


In other words.
 
2012-09-28 04:59:36 PM  

dantheman195: Rincewind53: slayer199: DamnYankees: Freedom to do what? Liberty to do what?

Whatever you damn well choose to do so long as it doesn't restrict the freedom of another.

If you choose to do hookers and blow every night, that's your choice. The consequences of that could be STDs, overdose, having no money...consequences YOU have to live with.

Okay. What if you choose to be born into a family that's been in poverty for three generations and go to a school in an area with high crime and low support structures? Do you have to just live with that, or are you supposed to just throw off your upbringing and the circumstances of your birth and emerge new, like a phoenix?

You still have a choice, you can continue to be 4th generation poverty OR you can chose to learn what you can at school, do very well (it can be done), study, get a scholarship, attend college and break the cycle of poverty in your family.

You have choices in life, some make the right ones, some do not.


Wow! I didn't know all those poor people out there had made choices to be poor! Gosh, what morons!
 
2012-09-28 04:59:49 PM  

GoldSpider: . I just would prefer the government stopped assuming powers that were never given to it by the people.


Actually, the 1st Amendment grants us the right to petition for grievances, and The Constitution allows for regulation and taxation of industry.

The article is leaning towards touting a better quality of life without these things, which is completely unrealistic.
 
2012-09-28 04:59:55 PM  

Rincewind53: qorkfiend: Nobodyn0se: qorkfiend: Marbury v Madison did no such thing. It was simply the first time the power of judicial review was used to strike down a federal statute.

So in other words, Marbury Vs. Madison set up the concept of "judicial review" in which the SCOTUS gets to decide what is constitutional and what isn't, and people on Fark don't get to decide for themselves whether the Federal government is usurping more power than what is given to them by the constitution?

Got it.

No, it didn't. Judicial history dating back to the 1600s set up the concept of judicial review. This power was exercised many times prior to Marbury v. Madison by courts other than the Supreme Court to strike down laws. The Supreme Court itself had engaged in judicial review prior to Marbury v. Madison, in Hylton v. United States; the only reason you never hear about Hylton is because the Court found that the law in question did not conflict with the Constitution.

I would be interested in hearing an interpretation of the enumerated powers of the judiciary, coupled with the Supremacy Clause, that does not include the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

Well, that's actually not true. Marbury v. Madison put the nail in the coffin of the idea that the state legislatures or the president had any power to determine Constitutionality. If you're implying that the power of Judicial review was in someway uncontroverted or certain prior to Marbury, you're simply wrong on the history. See the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, the Federalist papers, and Brutus IX on debates about who had the power to determine constitutionality.


Judicial review was used 31 times by various courts to strike laws between the ratification of the Constitution and the Marbury decision; this suggests a great deal of certainty about it.
 
2012-09-28 04:59:56 PM  

jigger: Corvus: You know those two statement's contradict each other?

They don't contradict each other and you are a stupid person.


Yes they do.

jigger: Frankly it doesn't really show any cause/effect relationship for anything.


jigger: It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.

You first say that it shows no cause and effect. Then you use it to give a cause and effect for the war on poverty with the poverty rate.

It is contradictory. You are an illogical person who accepts information only when it supports you and ignores when it doesn't.
 
2012-09-28 05:00:36 PM  

Corvus: Really?

You didn't say the chart proves nothing and then a little later says it proves your point?

That's not what you did?


I said it shows no causal relationship, meaning it proved there was no causal relationship between the War on Poverty and the poverty rate. That's information. And you are dumb.
 
2012-09-28 05:00:59 PM  

Corvus: Fines for a lange change isn't an excise tax.


Holy shiat, you're stupid. Re-read, this time focus on the words:

sprawl15: As a (non-tax) example, a fine for failure to signal during lane change

I'm explaining to you the fine difference between inaction and improper action. Jesus christ, you're stupid.

Corvus: brought up a new condition


It's not a new condition. It's implicit in the nature of an excise tax. You're basically arguing that cars that only drive on water exist. I'm asking you to give an example of one, but forcing you to show a car that only drives on water and not a boat. I'm forcing you to the parameters of what we're talking about. Inaction is - and has always been - inaction.

Corvus: You are doing this on purpose because you will take whatever I put


Stop making excuses and give an example. Shiat, use your own stupid definition if it gives you a chubby.
 
2012-09-28 05:01:09 PM  

jigger: Corvus: You know those two statement's contradict each other?

They don't contradict each other and you are a stupid person.


so saying:


jigger: It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.

Is not implying a cause and effect relationship of "the War on Poverty" with "the poverty rate"?
 
2012-09-28 05:02:33 PM  

Corvus: Nobodyn0se: qorkfiend: Marbury v Madison did no such thing. It was simply the first time the power of judicial review was used to strike down a federal statute.

So in other words, Marbury Vs. Madison set up the concept of "judicial review" in which the SCOTUS gets to decide what is constitutional and what isn't, and people on Fark don't get to decide for themselves whether the Federal government is usurping more power than what is given to them by the constitution?

Got it.

No it did not. That concept was around way before then. It was the first time it was used. That's not the same thing.


Either way my point still stands. Constitutional is decided by the Supreme Court, not some random Fark poster
 
2012-09-28 05:03:33 PM  

Corvus: jigger: It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.

Is not implying a cause and effect relationship of "the War on Poverty" with "the poverty rate"?


Right. No effect.

You are stupid.
 
2012-09-28 05:05:37 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Fines for a lange change isn't an excise tax.

Holy shiat, you're stupid. Re-read, this time focus on the words:
sprawl15: As a (non-tax) example, a fine for failure to signal during lane changeI'm explaining to you the fine difference between inaction and improper action. Jesus christ, you're stupid.

Corvus: brought up a new condition

It's not a new condition. It's implicit in the nature of an excise tax. You're basically arguing that cars that only drive on water exist. I'm asking you to give an example of one, but forcing you to show a car that only drives on water and not a boat. I'm forcing you to the parameters of what we're talking about. Inaction is - and has always been - inaction.

Corvus: You are doing this on purpose because you will take whatever I put

Stop making excuses and give an example. Shiat, use your own stupid definition if it gives you a chubby.


I read that it just makes no sense of giving an example of something that isn't at all what it supposed to be an example of.

You refuse to explain what you mean so you can move the goal posts. Which you will do like you already have.


But here just so I can watch you move the goal posts. You will make a false distinction and move the goal posts.

IRS COBRA Audits and Penalties

The IRS is authorized by TAMRA to assess COBRA excise taxes. A little-known federal law with a big name, the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, commonly known as TAMRA, authorizes the IRS to assess excise taxes for failure to follow COBRA rules. Prior to the passage of this law, the IRS punished employers for COBRA noncompliance by disallowing all deductions for expenses paid for group health plans in the year in which the failure first occurred and all subsequent years, including the year in which the failure was corrected. Internal Revenue Code section 4980B sets out the IRS' COBRA provisions and incorporates the excise tax penalties as they apply to violations after 1988.

Who is liable for the excise tax penalty? In the case of a plan other than a multi-employer plan, the employer and each person responsible for administering benefits under the plan who caused the violation is liable for the tax. (But persons who act in their capacity as employees are exempt from liability.) And employers can even be held liable for failures in COBRA administration made by previous employers. In the case of a multi-employer plan, it is the plan that is liable for the penalties.



That is a failure to comply excise tax. Now you will say "Well that's different..." and not give me any legal basis why you can make the distinction.
 
2012-09-28 05:06:45 PM  

jigger: Corvus: jigger: It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.

Is not implying a cause and effect relationship of "the War on Poverty" with "the poverty rate"?

Right. No effect.

You are stupid.


You understand saying something had "no effect" is still a casual relationship right?
 
2012-09-28 05:07:39 PM  

Nobodyn0se: Corvus: Nobodyn0se: qorkfiend: Marbury v Madison did no such thing. It was simply the first time the power of judicial review was used to strike down a federal statute.

So in other words, Marbury Vs. Madison set up the concept of "judicial review" in which the SCOTUS gets to decide what is constitutional and what isn't, and people on Fark don't get to decide for themselves whether the Federal government is usurping more power than what is given to them by the constitution?

Got it.

No it did not. That concept was around way before then. It was the first time it was used. That's not the same thing.

Either way my point still stands. Constitutional is decided by the Supreme Court, not some random Fark poster


I agree. I just don't want to feed into the right wing myth that it was created by Marbury v Madison.
 
2012-09-28 05:10:06 PM  

GoldSpider: Nobodyn0se: GoldSpider: Remember when We the People gave the government new powers by way of the process outlined in the Constitution? Neither do I!

Marbury v Madison would like a word.

That was directed more at people who assert that the commerce clause and the presence of the words "general welfare" in the preamble gives the government the power to do whatever the fark it wants.


Because Article I Section 8 doesn't start with


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(emphasis added)

?
 
2012-09-28 05:12:35 PM  

Nobodyn0se: ..... Wait, what? I ask for an instance in which I said the Constitution contains economic freedom and you call me a liar and use as proof a quote in which i say NOTHING about the Constitution or that the Constitution contains economic freedoms?!?!

Are you for real?



Because I asked specifically what freedoms liberals support restricting that are actually in the Constitution, because economic freedom doesn't exist. And all you could come up with was a false narrative about gun rights and and stupid example about airlines.
 
2012-09-28 05:12:54 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: provide for the common Defence and general Welfare


inb4 "overused along with the Commerce Clause"
 
2012-09-28 05:15:09 PM  

jigger: It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.



Tell that to the elderly.
 
2012-09-28 05:16:44 PM  

whidbey: Vlad_the_Inaner: provide for the common Defence and general Welfare

inb4 "overused along with the Commerce Clause"


Here is the thing about right wingers crying about the commerce clause.

200 years ago interstate commerce was much more rare today. their is tons more interstate commerce so by what the constitution says federal government SHOULD be more involved in commerce.

The Constitution did not change so much as the US did.
 
2012-09-28 05:17:30 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: GoldSpider: Nobodyn0se: GoldSpider: Remember when We the People gave the government new powers by way of the process outlined in the Constitution? Neither do I!

Marbury v Madison would like a word.

That was directed more at people who assert that the commerce clause and the presence of the words "general welfare" in the preamble gives the government the power to do whatever the fark it wants.

Because Article I Section 8 doesn't start with


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(emphasis added)

?


Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.
 
2012-09-28 05:19:03 PM  

GoldSpider: Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.



Says the guy who blindly supports the party of the Patriot Act, war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, questioning of everyones patriotism, etc.
 
2012-09-28 05:20:26 PM  

GoldSpider: Vlad_the_Inaner: GoldSpider: Nobodyn0se: GoldSpider: Remember when We the People gave the government new powers by way of the process outlined in the Constitution? Neither do I!

Marbury v Madison would like a word.

That was directed more at people who assert that the commerce clause and the presence of the words "general welfare" in the preamble gives the government the power to do whatever the fark it wants.

Because Article I Section 8 doesn't start with


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(emphasis added)

?

Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.


Guess who isn't paying attention to the actual replies to his arguments?
 
2012-09-28 05:21:14 PM  

intelligent comment below: Nobodyn0se: ..... Wait, what? I ask for an instance in which I said the Constitution contains economic freedom and you call me a liar and use as proof a quote in which i say NOTHING about the Constitution or that the Constitution contains economic freedoms?!?!

Are you for real?


Because I asked specifically what freedoms liberals support restricting that are actually in the Constitution, because economic freedom doesn't exist. And all you could come up with was a false narrative about gun rights and and stupid example about airlines.


I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to scroll that far up, but from what I remember, you only asked what liberties liberals wanted to curtail, and left off the "in the constitution" part.
 
2012-09-28 05:23:23 PM  

intelligent comment below: GoldSpider: Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.


Says the guy who blindly supports the party of the Patriot Act, war on terrorism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, questioning of everyones patriotism, etc.


I support none of those, but keep working your fiction.
 
2012-09-28 05:24:23 PM  

GoldSpider: Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.


nathan-lee.com
 
2012-09-28 05:25:50 PM  

jigger: The difference between "expected to" and "forced to," let me show you it.


That really bothers you? My employer is also "forced" to compensate me in exchange for my work, as I am "forced" to part with currency for the goods and services I request. How is that different from being "forced" to contribute to the community that harbors you, if you take in above a certain level of income?
 
2012-09-28 05:26:43 PM  
Quelle Surprise!

Libertarians think that they are the most moral.
 
2012-09-28 05:27:22 PM  

GoldSpider: Vlad_the_Inaner: GoldSpider: Nobodyn0se: GoldSpider: Remember when We the People gave the government new powers by way of the process outlined in the Constitution? Neither do I!

Marbury v Madison would like a word.

That was directed more at people who assert that the commerce clause and the presence of the words "general welfare" in the preamble gives the government the power to do whatever the fark it wants.

Because Article I Section 8 doesn't start with


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(emphasis added)

?

Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.


No, the government has the power it is granted by the constitution, as defined by the Supreme Court. This is a very simple concept. If you try, I'm sure you can grasp it.
 
2012-09-28 05:27:49 PM  

jigger: Corvus: jigger: It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.

Is not implying a cause and effect relationship of "the War on Poverty" with "the poverty rate"?

Right. No effect.

You are stupid.


I'll give this a shot.

jigger: Frankly it doesn't really show any cause/effect relationship for anything.

This means the graph cannot be used to say the War on Poverty had a positive or negative effect on the poverty rate because, as you state, it doesn't apply.


jigger: It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.

Now you're saying that it does apply, and that the graph shows that the cause/effect relationship between the War on Poverty and the poverty rate was either negative or neutral.

They are, in fact, contradictory statements. Either the graph shows us nothing because it doesn't apply, or it does apply and shows no positive effect. It can't do both.
 
2012-09-28 05:28:01 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: Vlad_the_Inaner: GoldSpider: Nobodyn0se: GoldSpider: Remember when We the People gave the government new powers by way of the process outlined in the Constitution? Neither do I!

Marbury v Madison would like a word.

That was directed more at people who assert that the commerce clause and the presence of the words "general welfare" in the preamble gives the government the power to do whatever the fark it wants.

Because Article I Section 8 doesn't start with


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(emphasis added)

?

Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.

Guess who isn't paying attention to the actual replies to his arguments?


Yeah he is just taking it and creating a strawman out of it taking it to the extreme to make a false dichotomy for his extreme position.

You can either have no regulation or full government control, because the idea of having some government control is too rational so they have to pretend it's not an actual option to make their radical ideas seem reasonable.
 
2012-09-28 05:28:46 PM  
but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress"

And this is obviously bullshiat. Who really believes this?

Love of "liberty?" WTF are they even talking about?

No, I'm not going to click on that right-leaning crap.
 
2012-09-28 05:29:06 PM  

Corvus: GoldSpider: Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.


Where in the Constitution gave the government the powers it presumed when passing the Patriot Act?
 
2012-09-28 05:30:01 PM  

Corvus: Yeah he is just taking it and creating a strawman out of it taking it to the extreme to make a false dichotomy for his extreme position.

You can either have no regulation or full government control, because the idea of having some government control is too rational so they have to pretend it's not an actual option to make their radical ideas seem reasonable.


Yeah liberals obviously are authoritarian despots who want to control everything.

What a childish line of thinking. Who even expects to be taken seriously touting that kind of disingenuous mindset?
 
2012-09-28 05:30:56 PM  

Teufelaffe: jigger: Corvus: jigger: It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.

Is not implying a cause and effect relationship of "the War on Poverty" with "the poverty rate"?

Right. No effect.

You are stupid.

I'll give this a shot.

jigger: Frankly it doesn't really show any cause/effect relationship for anything.

This means the graph cannot be used to say the War on Poverty had a positive or negative effect on the poverty rate because, as you state, it doesn't apply.


jigger: It does show information. It shows that the War on Poverty had no positive effect on the poverty rate.

Now you're saying that it does apply, and that the graph shows that the cause/effect relationship between the War on Poverty and the poverty rate was either negative or neutral.

They are, in fact, contradictory statements. Either the graph shows us nothing because it doesn't apply, or it does apply and shows no positive effect. It can't do both.


He's not too smart. I think he thinks it shows there is "no effect" is not showing cause and affect relationship. I think he is just not smart enough to understand the difference between "no effect" and "no relationship". I think he thinks they mean the same thing.
 
2012-09-28 05:31:04 PM  

jigger: Biological Ali: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.

To "allow" people and charities to handle it, because they were apparently on the verge of ending poverty, and would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling government.

That is a pretty god one, genuine LOL there.

[wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net image 570x387]


That definition of 'Poverty' changes:

www.census.gov

So adjust for the bar being raised, and you'd see definite progress.
 
2012-09-28 05:32:22 PM  

GoldSpider: Corvus: GoldSpider: Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.

Where in the Constitution gave the government the powers it presumed when passing the Patriot Act?


Can you show me where I said it did?

My statement had nothing to do with that. Once again you are making a strawman. You are pretending a specific example mean they can do anything. That's just not true.
 
2012-09-28 05:33:52 PM  

whidbey: but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress"

And this is obviously bullshiat. Who really believes this?

Love of "liberty?" WTF are they even talking about?

No, I'm not going to click on that right-leaning crap.


To libertarians this is "liberty":

ehistory.osu.edu

That's not what I call "liberty".
 
2012-09-28 05:36:05 PM  
i249.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-28 05:36:26 PM  

Corvus: whidbey: but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress"

And this is obviously bullshiat. Who really believes this?

Love of "liberty?" WTF are they even talking about?

No, I'm not going to click on that right-leaning crap.

To libertarians this is "liberty":

[ehistory.osu.edu image 312x296]

That's not what I call "liberty".


Well, those kids are "free" of oppressive government intrusion, certainly. Maybe they'll get off their asses and improve their working conditions now that they know that.

Oh wait. They probably died in squalid conditions. But at least they didn't have government supporting their bad decisions.
 
2012-09-28 05:37:48 PM  

Corvus: You refuse to explain what you mean so you can move the goal posts.


I very specifically explained it:

sprawl15: As a (non-tax) example, a fine for failure to signal during lane change is not a fine on inaction, it's a fine on action in a disallowed method. When we're talking about a rare situation like the health care mandate, which is a tax on absolute inaction rather than action in improper method, it's a fundamental point regardless of how fine a point it is.

Please, let me know what's confusing about that to you.

Corvus: You will make a false distinction


Why am I not surprised to see that you've already made up your mind that it's a false distinction, regardless of whatever I may actually say?

Corvus: That is a failure to comply excise tax.


I'll walk you through it, step by step. Though it'll likely be about a post and a half before you get impatient and vomit all over your keyboard, if you are actually interested in learning something you'll calm down and listen / seriously answer.

On what is the tax being imposed? Hint: You may need to dig into the actual statute to answer this.
 
2012-09-28 05:37:56 PM  
i232.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-28 05:39:22 PM  

whidbey: Vlad_the_Inaner: provide for the common Defence and general Welfare

inb4 "overused along with the Commerce Clause"


I was more against his "it's just part of the preamble" stance.
 
2012-09-28 05:39:28 PM  

Corvus: GoldSpider: Corvus: GoldSpider: Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.

Where in the Constitution gave the government the powers it presumed when passing the Patriot Act?

Can you show me where I said it did?

My statement had nothing to do with that. Once again you are making a strawman. You are pretending a specific example mean they can do anything. That's just not true.


I'm saying the government acts with impunity, with no regard for constitutional limits. It sounds like you disagree with that assertion.
 
2012-09-28 05:40:49 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: whidbey: Vlad_the_Inaner: provide for the common Defence and general Welfare

inb4 "overused along with the Commerce Clause"

I was more against his "it's just part of the preamble" stance.


Yeah we can only "promote the General Welfare" if we take the Constitution completely literally and make no allowances for the present day.
 
2012-09-28 05:41:10 PM  

sprawl15: Why am I not surprised to see that you've already made up your mind that it's a false distinction, regardless of whatever I may actually say?


Because I asked you to give the basis of your legal distinction or to clarify and you refused.
 
2012-09-28 05:41:43 PM  

GoldSpider: Corvus: GoldSpider: Corvus: GoldSpider: Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.

Where in the Constitution gave the government the powers it presumed when passing the Patriot Act?

Can you show me where I said it did?

My statement had nothing to do with that. Once again you are making a strawman. You are pretending a specific example mean they can do anything. That's just not true.

I'm saying the government acts with impunity, with no regard for constitutional limits. It sounds like you disagree with that assertion.


As does the Supreme Court. You know, the people who actually get to decide what is constitutional and what isn't.
 
2012-09-28 05:41:48 PM  

GoldSpider: I'm saying the government acts with impunity, with no regard for constitutional limits. It sounds like you disagree with that assertion.


I have a huge problem with that when you believe that to be the default setting.

Bare assertion is bare.
 
2012-09-28 05:42:29 PM  

GoldSpider: Corvus: GoldSpider: Corvus: GoldSpider: Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.

Where in the Constitution gave the government the powers it presumed when passing the Patriot Act?

Can you show me where I said it did?

My statement had nothing to do with that. Once again you are making a strawman. You are pretending a specific example mean they can do anything. That's just not true.

I'm saying the government acts with impunity, with no regard for constitutional limits. It sounds like you disagree with that assertion.


It does? I thought the supreme court ruled on if the laws were constitutional and in bounds of the government powers.

They don't do that?

Or are you pretending because they are not perfect that it doesn't count?
 
2012-09-28 05:43:20 PM  
It's hard to believe anyone can be so dumb as to not understand that this liberty can conflict with that liberty.

The stupidity is truly mind-boggling.
 
2012-09-28 05:44:22 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: That is a failure to comply excise tax.

I'll walk you through it, step by step. Though it'll likely be about a post and a half before you get impatient and vomit all over your keyboard, if you are actually interested in learning something you'll calm down and listen / seriously answer.

On what is the tax being imposed? Hint: You may need to dig into the actual statute to answer this.


Are you saying it "Not the same" like I said you would or not?

It is a failure to comply excise tax, just like I said. Just like you said does not exist
.
 
2012-09-28 05:44:30 PM  

GoldSpider: Then its settled; the government has unlimited power.


Because SCOTUS has given no opinions on "Necessary and Proper"?
 
2012-09-28 05:45:34 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: You refuse to explain what you mean so you can move the goal posts.

I very specifically explained it:sprawl15: As a (non-tax) example, a fine for failure to signal during lane change is not a fine on inaction, it's a fine on action in a disallowed method. When we're talking about a rare situation like the health care mandate, which is a tax on absolute inaction rather than action in improper method, it's a fundamental point regardless of how fine a point it is.Please, let me know what's confusing about that to you.

Corvus: You will make a false distinction

Why am I not surprised to see that you've already made up your mind that it's a false distinction, regardless of whatever I may actually say?

Corvus: That is a failure to comply excise tax.

I'll walk you through it, step by step. Though it'll likely be about a post and a half before you get impatient and vomit all over your keyboard, if you are actually interested in learning something you'll calm down and listen / seriously answer.

On what is the tax being imposed? Hint: You may need to dig into the actual statute to answer this.


I showed you so answer these:

Is it a failure to failure to act excise tax? Yes or No

Did you tell me earlier that those did not exist? Yes or No?

I showed you so you answer.
 
2012-09-28 05:45:55 PM  

Wooly Bully: It's hard to believe anyone can be so dumb as to not understand that this liberty can conflict with that liberty.

The stupidity is truly mind-boggling.


"Liberty" for huge corporations while denying basic liberties like the right to collective bargaining and demands for a livable wage and working conditions.

Yeah, that's a real level playing field.
 
2012-09-28 05:46:47 PM  

GoldSpider: I'm saying the government acts with impunity, with no regard for constitutional limits. It sounds like you disagree with that assertion.


So the supreme court has never struck down a law because of constitutional limits ever?

Because that is what you are saying.
 
2012-09-28 05:48:17 PM  

Weaver95: it's always interesting watching these threads....Republicans and Democrats alike both show their programmed responses very clearly. damn shame this country has been hard coded to only think in binary terms: left wing, right wing. Republican and Democrat. Conservative and Liberal. Good and Evil. both sides define themselves by their relationship to each other. then along comes a libertarian viewpoint that says 'hey, maybe a little bit of both sides would work out better for everyone' and the binary crowd loses their shiat.

I know i'm not going to change anyone's point of view in this (or any other) 'bash the libertarians' thread. I just thought it worth mentioning that you might benefit from questioning your own inherent bias before jumping on the libertarians. carry on my wayward sons, There'll be peace when you are done.


Again, unless there is a huge movement to start a 3rd party, I really don't want to hear about it.

Right now, we know the Democratic party is the only sane alternative, and I have more than appreciated your own sane appraisal of that situation.

But right now, any alternative is just talk, and zero to no action.
 
2012-09-28 05:48:39 PM  

whidbey: Wooly Bully: It's hard to believe anyone can be so dumb as to not understand that this liberty can conflict with that liberty.

The stupidity is truly mind-boggling.

"Liberty" for huge corporations while denying basic liberties like the right to collective bargaining and demands for a livable wage and working conditions.

Yeah, that's a real level playing field.


Like you, I couldn't even bear to click on this garbage.
 
2012-09-28 05:50:53 PM  

jigger: Biological Ali: slayer199: Does that mean we don't want to help the poor or hungry? No, it doesn't. But from a libertarian perspective, the best way to ensure prosperity for a larger group is to allow people and charities to handle it, NOT the government. The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.

To "allow" people and charities to handle it, because they were apparently on the verge of ending poverty, and would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddling government.

That is a pretty god one, genuine LOL there.

wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net

It's almost as if the definition of poverty was changed in the 1960s to a percentage rather than a fixed set of commodities. By the way, the War on Poverty legislation started in 1965, and not during Nixon's first term.
 
2012-09-28 05:52:59 PM  
Well, this thread went places.

Weaver95: I know i'm not going to change anyone's point of view in this (or any other) 'bash the libertarians' thread. I just thought it worth mentioning that you might benefit from questioning your own inherent bias before jumping on the libertarians. carry on my wayward sons, There'll be peace when you are done.


FTFA, a pro-Libertarian blog posting about a pro-Libertarian study:

"Libertarians match liberals in placing a relatively low value on the moral foundations of loyalty, authority, and sanctity ... They really do put liberty above all other values."

"Libertarians score the lowest of the three groups on empathizing, and highest of the three groups on systemizing."

"They have a morality that matches their sociability - one that emphasizes independence, rather than altruism or patriotism."

"When given moral dilemmas - e.g. being asked whether it is ok to sacrifice five people to save one - they reported fewer qualms than other groups, a pattern of responding that is consistent with a rational/utilitarian style."


Red flags shot up all over the more I read. Lack of empathy, loyalty, and altruism? Its like standing fascism on its head. And again this was a pro-Libertarian blog linking another pro-Libertarian website cheering this on

Yes, it turned into another 'bash the Libertarians' thread, but the question you're missing is 'why.' A lot of liberals would happily agree with you that a distrust of authority is healthy. That sort of libertarianism we'd eagerly take in our political discourse. Its when the Libertarian ideal is 'if everyone ate Nietsche Pops, the world would be great,' that's where the bashing begins.
 
2012-09-28 05:53:36 PM  
Wow. A big libertarian thread, and only one 'so move to Somalia' in it.

For a moment I thought it was Somalia free.

But I checked backwards, and it was Somalia-ed long before it was Godwined.
 
2012-09-28 05:58:38 PM  

whidbey: I have a huge problem with that when you believe that to be the default setting.


It will be to me as long as the Patriot Act is still active law. I'm sorry you're OK with that.

Corvus: It does? I thought the supreme court ruled on if the laws were constitutional and in bounds of the government powers.


I disagree with a lot of SCOTUS rulings. I bet you do too.

Corvus: So the supreme court has never struck down a law because of constitutional limits ever?


Oh it does occasionally, but not on the important cases. Maybe one of you guys knows whether or not a constitutional challenge to the Patriot Act has reached the SCOTUS yet. I'm genuinely curious.
 
2012-09-28 05:59:39 PM  

Corvus: Are you saying it "Not the same" like I said you would or not?


I was off by a full post on my estimate, only half a post before you started vomiting.

I'm walking you through my thought process step by step, either act like an adult and learn something or just stop posting.
 
2012-09-28 06:00:00 PM  

Jekylman: It's almost as if the definition of poverty was changed in the 1960s to a percentage rather than a fixed set of commodities. By the way, the War on Poverty legislation started in 1965, and not during Nixon's first term.


This guy says that chart shows no cause and effect at all but proves that the War on Poverty did nothing. I doubt he's going to get your points. I think more helping him to learn to tie his shoes or not drool on himself is more of a level we wish for him to attend to first.
 
2012-09-28 06:01:46 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Are you saying it "Not the same" like I said you would or not?

I was off by a full post on my estimate, only half a post before you started vomiting.

I'm walking you through my thought process step by step, either act like an adult and learn something or just stop posting.


Sorry where was I vomiting?

Can you even answer my simple questions instead of just saying I am wrong with no justification? You keep saying you are going to explain but don't.

Is it a failure to failure to act/comply excise tax? Yes or No

Did you tell me earlier that those did not exist? Yes or No?
 
2012-09-28 06:03:23 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: I have a huge problem with that when you believe that to be the default setting.

It will be to me as long as the Patriot Act is still active law. I'm sorry you're OK with that.


Then you're admitting that you're making a ridiculous argument. Or, more accurately, I'm pointing it out.

And thanks for the predictably tiresome assumption that I'm "OK with" the PATRIOT Act.

You really can't progress beyond the need to present childish one-dimensional arguments, I've noticed. So much for real opposition.
 
2012-09-28 06:04:24 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: I have a huge problem with that when you believe that to be the default setting.

It will be to me as long as the Patriot Act is still active law. I'm sorry you're OK with that.

Corvus: It does? I thought the supreme court ruled on if the laws were constitutional and in bounds of the government powers.

I disagree with a lot of SCOTUS rulings. I bet you do too.


Sure I do. What does that ahve anything to do with anything I was saying?



Corvus: So the supreme court has never struck down a law because of constitutional limits ever?

Oh it does occasionally, but not on the important cases. Maybe one of you guys knows whether or not a constitutional challenge to the Patriot Act has reached the SCOTUS yet. I'm genuinely curious.


But you said the federal government is not restricted in any way. now you are admitting it is.

So was that statement wrong then? No I am not going to let you change the subject.
 
2012-09-28 06:05:13 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: I was more against his "it's just part of the preamble" stance.


Yes, I was wrong about that. Post it on Twitter or something.
 
2012-09-28 06:06:57 PM  

GoldSpider: I'm saying the government acts with impunity, with no regard for constitutional limits. It sounds like you disagree with that assertion.


GoldSpider: Corvus: So the supreme court has never struck down a law because of constitutional limits ever?

Oh it does occasionally, but not on the important cases. Maybe one of you guys knows whether or not a constitutional challenge to the Patriot Act has reached the SCOTUS yet. I'm genuinely curious.


This is a contradiction. Both statements can't be true.

Either they act without impunity, or the SCOTUS has struck down their laws because of over reach. Both can't be true.
 
2012-09-28 06:08:20 PM  

Corvus: whidbey: but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress"

And this is obviously bullshiat. Who really believes this?

Love of "liberty?" WTF are they even talking about?

No, I'm not going to click on that right-leaning crap.

To libertarians this is "liberty":

[ehistory.osu.edu image 312x296]

That's not what I call "liberty".


I have a friend who helped demolished old factories that were built before the Civil War, and were still in operation as late as the early 1970s. Part of that process involved dismantling huge machines as big and as heavy as atomic piles. While demolishing those 'hellmouths' as my friend called them, occasionally he would find children's finger and toe bones (metacarpals and metatarsals to be precise), a few long bones, and some evidence that possibly some children were purposefully immured inside some of the machines and the foundations of these factories as part of some ritual.

These children were 'grease monkeys'. While Union troops were busy emancipating African-American slaves in the South during the Civil War, Northerners were buying and kidnapping little white children to run their farking factories. They used to run 'Orphan Trains' from New York City starting in the 1850s, where the authorities used to ship out trainloads of orphaned children to the rest of the country supposedly to put them all in good homes. Many of those children ended up as factory and farm workers. At least 200,000 children were disposed of in this way.

Do we want to go back to living in a Libertarian paradise?
 
2012-09-28 06:08:49 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: whidbey: I have a huge problem with that when you believe that to be the default setting.

It will be to me as long as the Patriot Act is still active law. I'm sorry you're OK with that.

Then you're admitting that you're making a ridiculous argument. Or, more accurately, I'm pointing it out.

And thanks for the predictably tiresome assumption that I'm "OK with" the PATRIOT Act.

You really can't progress beyond the need to present childish one-dimensional arguments, I've noticed. So much for real opposition.


Either I guess we can get rid of all the mass majority of government powers OR support the Patriot Act. Somehow those seem to be our only two choices in the world of libertarian.
 
2012-09-28 06:12:59 PM  

whidbey: Then you're admitting that you're making a ridiculous argument. Or, more accurately, I'm pointing it out.


No, I think the existence of active laws like the Patriot Act puts the credibility and validity of the entire process in doubt.

Corvus: Sure I do. What does that ahve anything to do with anything I was saying?


That people can disagree on what is constitutional independent of SCOTUS rulings.

Corvus: But you said the federal government is not restricted in any way. now you are admitting it is.


I'm arguing the government acts as if it is not restricted, and that certain people here defend the abuse of power.
 
2012-09-28 06:14:47 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: Then you're admitting that you're making a ridiculous argument. Or, more accurately, I'm pointing it out.

No, I think the existence of active laws like the Patriot Act puts the credibility and validity of the entire process in doubt.

Corvus: Sure I do. What does that ahve anything to do with anything I was saying?

That people can disagree on what is constitutional independent of SCOTUS rulings.

Corvus: But you said the federal government is not restricted in any way. now you are admitting it is.

I'm arguing the government acts as if it is not restricted, and that certain people here defend the abuse of power.


So then you are admitting they ARE restricted then?

But it doesn't act that way. They just disagree on what those restriction are. You are saying that yourself.
 
2012-09-28 06:15:18 PM  

Corvus: Either I guess we can get rid of all the mass majority of government powers OR support the Patriot Act. Somehow those seem to be our only two choices in the world of libertarian.


Fine, Obamacare then. I happen to support the public option, or better yet single-payer, but I don't believe the government currently has the authority for any of these in the Constitution's current state. The SCOTUS disagrees, but I guess I'll just have to live with that.
 
2012-09-28 06:16:54 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: Then you're admitting that you're making a ridiculous argument. Or, more accurately, I'm pointing it out.

No, I think the existence of active laws like the Patriot Act puts the credibility and validity of the entire process in doubt.


Odd how I see it as an abuse of power by a paranoid warmongering administration, while your way is to regard that abuse be applicable to any governmental act of legislation.

Not exactly logical thinking.
 
2012-09-28 06:17:24 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Wow. A big libertarian thread, and only one 'so move to Somalia' in it.


To be fair, from an immigration/citizenship perspective, it's much easier for the libertarians to move to Somalia than it is for liberals to move to one of the northern-European welfare states.

I mean, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, they all have this whole process before you're entitled to social services. You have to establish residency and stuff. You have to learn the language and get a job, show that you'll fit in OK. That's hard to do, and if what's the point of cradle-to-grave government care if you have to go get a job and learn a whole language just to qualify for it? If I was willing to work, I wouldn't NEED the government to take care of me, duh!

With Somalia, all you have to do to enjoy the total absence of government and social services is show up. Just hop on a bus from Dubai or Ethiopia. Actually, that's pretty much the only option, since no airlines will fly there, the borders are closed to personal vehicles and the coastline is swarming with pirates. But step off that bus, and baby, you are made in the shade. No "citizens" here, friend, just rugged individualists, like yourself!
 
2012-09-28 06:18:57 PM  

Corvus: So then you are admitting they ARE restricted then?

But it doesn't act that way. They just disagree on what those restriction are. You are saying that yourself.


They sure don't seem bound by much these days, wouldn't you agree?

There has been exactly one amendment to the Constitution ratified in the last 40 years. Expansion of government power via judicial review seems to be the new norm. I'm not comfortable with that.
 
2012-09-28 06:21:02 PM  

whidbey: Odd how I see it as an abuse of power by a paranoid warmongering administration, while your way is to regard that abuse be applicable to any governmental act of legislation.


You seem to be under the impression that I support the Patriot Act despite everything I have posted to the contrary. There is no fix for that.
 
2012-09-28 06:24:55 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: Odd how I see it as an abuse of power by a paranoid warmongering administration, while your way is to regard that abuse be applicable to any governmental act of legislation.

You seem to be under the impression that I support the Patriot Act despite everything I have posted to the contrary. There is no fix for that.


Oh i know already that you have spoken out against it. So have I.

Our disconnect is that you believe a center-right leaning government can just snap its fingers and eliminate it. The solution would have been to not allow a warmonger like Bush into office in the first place.

PATRIOT will be repealed when we stop electing Republicans and conservative Democrats to office, so they can bully the progressives that they're not being "tough enough on terror."
 
2012-09-28 06:28:19 PM  

whidbey: Our disconnect is that you believe a center-right leaning government can just snap its fingers and eliminate it. The solution would have been to not allow a warmonger like Bush into office in the first place.


A lesson I hope most of us have learned (former Bush supporter).

whidbey: PATRIOT will be repealed when we stop electing Republicans and conservative Democrats to office, so they can bully the progressives that they're not being "tough enough on terror."


Ya realize that civil libertarians hate PATRIOT too... just sayin we don't have to rely entirely on progressives to get that stricken.
 
2012-09-28 06:31:06 PM  

Corvus: Can you even answer my simple questions instead of just saying I am wrong with no justification?


Saying you're wrong is an answer. The justification is what I'm trying to walk you through, but you seem to care much more about stomping your feet and shouting than listening. If you want simple answers, here they are. You won't get much out of them, though.

Corvus: Is it a failure to failure to act/comply excise tax? Yes or No


No.

Corvus: Did you tell me earlier that those did not exist? Yes or No?


Yes.
 
2012-09-28 06:31:30 PM  
And for what it's worth, I'd vote for a progressive that supports a constitutional amendment establishing single-payer over an opposing libertarian.
 
2012-09-28 06:31:48 PM  

flux:
With Somalia, all you have to do to enjoy the total absence of government and social services is show up. Just hop on a bus from Dubai or Ethiopia. Actually, that's pretty much the only option, since no airlines will fly there, the borders are closed to personal vehicles and the coastline is swarming with pirates. But step off that bus, and baby, you are made in the shade. No "citizens" here, friend, just rugged individualists, like yourself!


The whole Somalia = 100% gov't-free zone isn't true anymore. Their parliament recently voted in a president so they can get on with drafting a constitution. (clicketly-poppo) The Somalis tried the whole no gov't thing, and found out that it sucks.

The airport in Mogadishu is even working well enough to fly in a plane full of the Somali national U-17 soccer team (which apparently just beat the Sudanese team, first team victory in two decades since they stopped playig due to war.)
www.mareeg.com

They're planning on more zOMG goverment intervention with upgrading their sports ministry.

At this rate, Somalia will be full of stinky socialist hippies in no time.
 
2012-09-28 06:33:52 PM  
Objectivism: Autism, expressed as an existential philosophy.
Libertarianism: Autism, expressed as a political philosophy.
 
2012-09-28 06:34:03 PM  

slayer199: The War on Poverty has been no more of a success than the War on Drugs.


this is what libertarians actually believe.



here's a hint, those image macros of american fat poor people with proper appliances in their section 8 apartments.


there is a reason american poor people can afford to eat enough to be fat (although not nutritionally great food) and have appliances to cook and keep their food cold.

And that reason is not the free market.

It is the welfare state you hate so much.

prior to the new deal, old people ate dog food, if anything at all, people died of all sorts of treatable emergencies, people starved to death, people burned to death in apartment buildings packed like sardines.

we already tried libertarianism, more than a hundred years ago, it failed miserably, much worse than communism.
 
2012-09-28 06:34:06 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: Our disconnect is that you believe a center-right leaning government can just snap its fingers and eliminate it. The solution would have been to not allow a warmonger like Bush into office in the first place.

A lesson I hope most of us have learned (former Bush supporter).

whidbey: PATRIOT will be repealed when we stop electing Republicans and conservative Democrats to office, so they can bully the progressives that they're not being "tough enough on terror."

Ya realize that civil libertarians hate PATRIOT too... just sayin we don't have to rely entirely on progressives to get that stricken.


Again, I have a problem with your envisioning PATRIOT as what constitutes default government action.

Back to the topic, we NEED regulation of industry in order to have a fair market. This is a fact.

Stating that those who would regulate are against "liberties" is bullsh*t.

Corporate oppression is not "love of liberty," either.
 
2012-09-28 06:41:29 PM  

whidbey: Again, I have a problem with your envisioning PATRIOT as what constitutes default government action.


It's more a matter of the kind of abuses the government is capable of perpetuating while asserting constitutional authority.

whidbey: Back to the topic, we NEED regulation of industry in order to have a fair market. This is a fact.

Stating that those who would regulate are against "liberties" is bullsh*t.

Corporate oppression is not "love of liberty," either.


And that's largely where I disagree with party Libertarians. However I still think the pervasive cultural tendency is to surrender our liberties to government AND corporate control, and I see that as a problem.
 
2012-09-28 06:46:36 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: Again, I have a problem with your envisioning PATRIOT as what constitutes default government action.

It's more a matter of the kind of abuses the government is capable of perpetuating while asserting constitutional authority.


Again, what does this have to do with the topic? PATRIOT is a security matter.

Corporate oppression is not "love of liberty," either.

And that's largely where I disagree with party Libertarians. However I still think the pervasive cultural tendency is to surrender our liberties to government AND corporate control, and I see that as a problem.


I voted against Bush twice, so I can't say I willingly "surrendered" sh*t. I did my civic duty.

Pretty sure you're not going to see much of a victory against corporate control without govt legislation, though. They already have people by the wallets, what makes you think a wholly citizens' initiative would work?

Again, I can't imagine that kind of thinking as very realistic.
 
2012-09-28 06:48:50 PM  
They never mean liberty.. they mean THEIR liberty to do as they please, and to tell other people what to do. Always.

There is a tiny rump of genuine libertarians, and their position is evil (and honest) but the vast vast majority are both evil AND dishonest

So fark right off.
 
2012-09-28 06:51:24 PM  

gaspode: They never mean liberty.. they mean THEIR liberty


You have to use the indefinite article, "a freedom", never...your freedom.
 
2012-09-28 06:52:39 PM  

whidbey: Again, what does this have to do with the topic? PATRIOT is a security matter.


It's all government overreach to me. *shrug*

whidbey: I voted against Bush twice, so I can't say I willingly "surrendered" sh*t. I did my civic duty.


Which is why I found it odd that you scoffed at "liberties" up-thread.

whidbey: Pretty sure you're not going to see much of a victory against corporate control without govt legislation, though. They already have people by the wallets, what makes you think a wholly citizens' initiative would work?


And good luck with that. Another gift from SCOTUS. Frankly I don't know what we can do about pervasive corporate influence. Something tells me that voting for the same people we have been isn't going to change much.
 
2012-09-28 06:54:51 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Can you even answer my simple questions instead of just saying I am wrong with no justification?

Saying you're wrong is an answer. The justification is what I'm trying to walk you through, but you seem to care much more about stomping your feet and shouting than listening. If you want simple answers, here they are. You won't get much out of them, though.

Corvus: Is it a failure to failure to act/comply excise tax? Yes or No

No.



It's not? Funny it says it is.


What are the penalties? Although no longer as harsh as the penalties prior to TAMRA, current IRS COBRA sanctions still have sharp teeth. The excise tax penalty is $100 per day for each day of noncompliance, but if there is more than one qualified beneficiary with respect to the same violation, the maximum amount of tax for any day is $200 per family.


It sounds exactly like "If you do not do this, you pay this excise tax" which you seem to have state has never happened before.
 
2012-09-28 06:55:34 PM  

Lehk: there is a reason american poor people can afford to eat enough to be fat (although not nutritionally great food) and have appliances to cook and keep their food cold.

And that reason is not the free market.


Hey, let's be fair here. You're giving all the credit for this to the the war on poverty. Social welfare is responsible for them being able to afford food and appliances, sure. But the free market is responsible for the fact that all the food they're buying is nutritionally poor.
 
2012-09-28 06:56:12 PM  

GoldSpider: Corvus: Either I guess we can get rid of all the mass majority of government powers OR support the Patriot Act. Somehow those seem to be our only two choices in the world of libertarian.

Fine, Obamacare then. I happen to support the public option, or better yet single-payer, but I don't believe the government currently has the authority for any of these in the Constitution's current state. The SCOTUS disagrees, but I guess I'll just have to live with that.


Obamacare what? You seem to not understand logic. Finding one or two example does not prove something happens all the time. If I can show only one example of a law being struck down that proves your statement is incorrect no matter how many counter examples you give.
 
2012-09-28 06:59:16 PM  

Corvus: It sounds exactly like "If you do not do this, you pay this excise tax"


I'll make it very simple.

I am not complying with that statute. I am not operating a group health plan in accordance with TITLE 26, Subtitle D, CHAPTER 43, Sec. 4980B Subsection (f). Yet I do not have to pay the excise tax.

Why do I not have to pay the excise tax?
 
2012-09-28 07:00:05 PM  

GoldSpider: Corvus: So then you are admitting they ARE restricted then?

But it doesn't act that way. They just disagree on what those restriction are. You are saying that yourself.

They sure don't seem bound by much these days, wouldn't you agree?

There has been exactly one amendment to the Constitution ratified in the last 40 years. Expansion of government power via judicial review seems to be the new norm. I'm not comfortable with that.


So then you are now admitting that the Federal government is restricted at least to some level? You keep dodging around on this but it seemed to be the opposite of the main point you were making earlier.

Can you give an example of what you feel is an expansion of government by the courts?
 
2012-09-28 07:01:28 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: It sounds exactly like "If you do not do this, you pay this excise tax"

I'll make it very simple.

I am not complying with that statute. I am not operating a group health plan in accordance with TITLE 26, Subtitle D, CHAPTER 43, Sec. 4980B Subsection (f). Yet I do not have to pay the excise tax.

Why do I not have to pay the excise tax?


Because you are not running a group health plan. So what? It does not apply to everyone in the US just like the ACA mandate also does not apply to everyone in US. So what?
 
2012-09-28 07:01:45 PM  

Corvus: If I can show only one example of a law being struck down that proves your statement is incorrect no matter how many counter examples you give.


If that's what's important to you to take away from this thread, knock yourself out.
 
2012-09-28 07:02:46 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: It sounds exactly like "If you do not do this, you pay this excise tax"

I'll make it very simple.

I am not complying with that statute. I am not operating a group health plan in accordance with TITLE 26, Subtitle D, CHAPTER 43, Sec. 4980B Subsection (f). Yet I do not have to pay the excise tax.

Why do I not have to pay the excise tax?


You know there are lots of people not complying with the ACA mandate and won't have to pay the excise tax either... So your point is???
 
2012-09-28 07:03:35 PM  

GoldSpider: Corvus: If I can show only one example of a law being struck down that proves your statement is incorrect no matter how many counter examples you give.

If that's what's important to you to take away from this thread, knock yourself out.


It was your statement you made earlier. Do you stand by your statement still or now pretend it's doesn't matter?
 
2012-09-28 07:06:30 PM  

Corvus: Can you give an example of what you feel is an expansion of government by the courts?


The Affordable Care Act is the most recent I can recall. Kelo v. City of New London stands out as well. If I didn't have some drinking scheduled for tonight, I could certainly find plenty more examples.
 
2012-09-28 07:08:09 PM  

GoldSpider: Corvus: Can you give an example of what you feel is an expansion of government by the courts?

The Affordable Care Act is the most recent I can recall. Kelo v. City of New London stands out as well. If I didn't have some drinking scheduled for tonight, I could certainly find plenty more examples.


I thought the ACA was written and passed by congress at the president not by the courts. So what constitutional power did the court increase like you said they did?
 
2012-09-28 07:09:41 PM  

Corvus: Because you are not running a group health plan. So what?


Exactly. I do not receive the excise tax because it is levied on action. You must be taking a certain action in a certain way to be eligible for the tax. If you are not running a group health plan, if you are inactive, then you are not eligible for the tax. The contrast is to the ACA mandate - it applies if you take no action. You are eligible for the tax regardless of detail of existence. It is not levied on action, it is not excised from extant transactions.

That's why it's called an excise tax - the word excise means to cut off from a larger entity. You excise a tumor, in that you cut it out of a larger piece. You cannot excise something from nothing, and you cannot levy an excise tax on inaction, only action.
 
2012-09-28 07:09:43 PM  

GoldSpider: Corvus: Can you give an example of what you feel is an expansion of government by the courts?

The Affordable Care Act is the most recent I can recall. Kelo v. City of New London stands out as well. If I didn't have some drinking scheduled for tonight, I could certainly find plenty more examples.


When you say "expansion of government" do you mean expanding that constitutional powers? or do you mean expanding the powers in general?

You are aware it is possible for the government to be expanded constitutionally right?
 
2012-09-28 07:10:02 PM  

Corvus: It was your statement you made earlier. Do you stand by your statement still or now pretend it's doesn't matter?


Pedantry makes a poor substitute for worthwhile debate.
 
2012-09-28 07:10:34 PM  

GoldSpider: whidbey: Again, what does this have to do with the topic? PATRIOT is a security matter.

It's all government overreach to me. *shrug*


And that's a problem. PATRIOT does not equate to regulation of big business. In any way.

whidbey: I voted against Bush twice, so I can't say I willingly "surrendered" sh*t. I did my civic duty.

Which is why I found it odd that you scoffed at "liberties" up-thread.


Obama has already gone on record noting that the Bush era policies were failures, and that it's up to Congress to decide to pull the plug on them. You clearly want some kind of "overreaching" power to undo PATRIOT and other abuses of power. That's hypocrisy.

whidbey: Pretty sure you're not going to see much of a victory against corporate control without govt legislation, though. They already have people by the wallets, what makes you think a wholly citizens' initiative would work?

And good luck with that. Another gift from SCOTUS. Frankly I don't know what we can do about pervasive corporate influence. Something tells me that voting for the same people we have been isn't going to change much.


I'm comfortable with the people I voted into office. It's the Republicans other people voted in in the past 4 years who have proven to be the biggest trouble. Seems like the solution would be to stop electing them.
 
2012-09-28 07:11:14 PM  

Corvus: You know there are lots of people not complying with the ACA mandate and won't have to pay the excise tax either... So your point is???


Having actual money change hands is different than eligibility. A person making $5k/year is eligible for income taxes because they are receiving income, regardless of their payment of $0.
 
2012-09-28 07:11:25 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Because you are not running a group health plan. So what?

Exactly. I do not receive the excise tax because it is levied on action. You must be taking a certain action in a certain way to be eligible for the tax. If you are not running a group health plan, if you are inactive, then you are not eligible for the tax. The contrast is to the ACA mandate - it applies if you take no action. You are eligible for the tax regardless of detail of existence. It is not levied on action, it is not excised from extant transactions.

That's why it's called an excise tax - the word excise means to cut off from a larger entity. You excise a tumor, in that you cut it out of a larger piece. You cannot excise something from nothing, and you cannot levy an excise tax on inaction, only action.


But that's exactly what they law I quoted does. Or are you saying the excise tax is actually on the person providing the plan? Not on the act of them not?
 
2012-09-28 07:12:18 PM  

GoldSpider: Corvus: It was your statement you made earlier. Do you stand by your statement still or now pretend it's doesn't matter?

Pedantry makes a poor substitute for worthwhile debate.


Holding you to the statements you make you think is "Pedantry"? I don't think you understand what that word means.
 
2012-09-28 07:14:08 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: You know there are lots of people not complying with the ACA mandate and won't have to pay the excise tax either... So your point is???

Having actual money change hands is different than eligibility. A person making $5k/year is eligible for income taxes because they are receiving income, regardless of their payment of $0.


Sorry where did I say money changing hands or eligibility.

You made a statement trying to pretend it made it different then the ACA. Under the ACA many people will not have to pay the excise tax and it will not apply to them.
 
2012-09-28 07:15:05 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Because you are not running a group health plan. So what?

Exactly. I do not receive the excise tax because it is levied on action.


So what action exactly is it levied on the COBRA fail to comply excise tax?
 
2012-09-28 07:17:06 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: You know there are lots of people not complying with the ACA mandate and won't have to pay the excise tax either... So your point is???

Having actual money change hands is different than eligibility. A person making $5k/year is eligible for income taxes because they are receiving income, regardless of their payment of $0.


So then are you saying if it didn't apply to every the ACA would be ok?

(I feel more back peddling coming on)
 
2012-09-28 07:17:25 PM  

Corvus: I thought the ACA was written and passed by congress at the president not by the courts. So what constitutional power did the court increase like you said they did?


In my opinion, the SCOTUS ruling on the law resulted in an expansion of government power. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I can live with that.

Corvus: When you say "expansion of government" do you mean expanding that constitutional powers? or do you mean expanding the powers in general?


Whether I agree or not, a SCOTUS ruling establishes a constitutional power until a later court reverses the decision. Which is damn near impossible given the courts' deference to precedent.
 
2012-09-28 07:19:42 PM  

GoldSpider: Corvus: I thought the ACA was written and passed by congress at the president not by the courts. So what constitutional power did the court increase like you said they did?

In my opinion, the SCOTUS ruling on the law resulted in an expansion of government power. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I can live with that.


I get that. But what part? What power did the US government not have before that it now gives them. Can you be specific?


Corvus: When you say "expansion of government" do you mean expanding that constitutional powers? or do you mean expanding the powers in general?

Whether I agree or not, a SCOTUS ruling establishes a constitutional power until a later court reverses the decision. Which is damn near impossible given the courts' deference to precedent.


Can you actually answer my question instead of going of on tangents? You keep replying to things I am not asking and keep flipping the subjects around.
 
2012-09-28 07:21:08 PM  

Corvus: But that's exactly what they law I quoted does.


No, it doesn't. As you said, I don't have to pay the tax - despite my inaction - "because [I am] not running a group health plan."

If it applied to inaction, then it would be a drive for action - every person failing to run a group health care plan in accordance with that statute would be eligible for the tax, myself included. But since I am not running a group health care plan, because I am not taking that initial action, then the method of how I am taking (or not taking) that action is irrelevant. There is nothing to excise.

Corvus: Or are you saying the excise tax is actually on the person providing the plan?


This is where your colloquial language gets you in trouble. Are you talking about what the tax is levied upon, under what method the tax is levied, or who actually sends dollars to the IRS?

The tax is levied upon extant group health insurance plans that do not meet statutory requirements.

The tax is levied in a punitive method - it's directly taxed to the entity responsible for actually sending dollars to the IRS, as punishment for failure to comply.

The company that runs the plan is responsible for paying it, in the case of multi-employer plans the plan itself is responsible for paying it.

Three very different answers.
 
2012-09-28 07:23:47 PM  

whidbey: And that's a problem. PATRIOT does not equate to regulation of big business. In any way.


Do you believe that the government has unlimited regulatory authority?

whidbey: Obama has already gone on record noting that the Bush era policies were failures, and that it's up to Congress to decide to pull the plug on them. You clearly want some kind of "overreaching" power to undo PATRIOT and other abuses of power. That's hypocrisy.


Obama signed the PATRIOT Act extension in 2011. I'm sure you understand that he didn't have to do that.

Corvus: Holding you to the statements you make you think is "Pedantry"? I don't think you understand what that word means.


You're deliberately ignoring the point of my argument to focus on how I worded a single sentence. I know exactly what the word means.
 
2012-09-28 07:24:15 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: But that's exactly what they law I quoted does.

No, it doesn't. As you said, I don't have to pay the tax - despite my inaction - "because [I am] not running a group health plan."

If it applied to inaction, then it would be a drive for action - every person failing to run a group health care plan in accordance with that statute would be eligible for the tax, myself included. But since I am not running a group health care plan, because I am not taking that initial action, then the method of how I am taking (or not taking) that action is irrelevant. There is nothing to excise.

Corvus: Or are you saying the excise tax is actually on the person providing the plan?

This is where your colloquial language gets you in trouble. Are you talking about what the tax is levied upon, under what method the tax is levied, or who actually sends dollars to the IRS?

The tax is levied upon extant group health insurance plans that do not meet statutory requirements.

The tax is levied in a punitive method - it's directly taxed to the entity responsible for actually sending dollars to the IRS, as punishment for failure to comply.

The company that runs the plan is responsible for paying it, in the case of multi-employer plans the plan itself is responsible for paying it.

Three very different answers.


You said earlier it wasn't a fail to comply excise tax. Now it is?
 
2012-09-28 07:26:33 PM  

GoldSpider: You're deliberately ignoring the point of my argument to focus on how I worded a single sentence. I know exactly what the word means.


No, I am not focusing on how you worded a sentence. I was focusing on the statement you made.

Did I misunderstand you?
Do you or do you not feel that the federal governments power is unchecked?

This is the problem with you guys. Is you guys say hyperbolic statements and then later pretend you don't actually mean it when you are called on it but the go right back to them. Either stand by your statements or say they are wrong.
 
2012-09-28 07:26:47 PM  

Corvus: What power did the US government not have before that it now gives them.


Specifically I don't believe the government had the power to compel citizens to engage in commerce.

Corvus: Can you actually answer my question instead of going of on tangents? You keep replying to things I am not asking and keep flipping the subjects around.


I'm doing my best, but you aren't helping with terms like "general" vs. "constitutional" powers. What the hell is that supposed to mean?
 
2012-09-28 07:27:20 PM  

Corvus: sprawl15: Corvus: You know there are lots of people not complying with the ACA mandate and won't have to pay the excise tax either... So your point is???

Having actual money change hands is different than eligibility. A person making $5k/year is eligible for income taxes because they are receiving income, regardless of their payment of $0.

Sorry where did I say money changing hands or eligibility.


"People not complying" refers to eligibility. "have to pay the excise tax" refers to money changing hands.

Corvus: So what action exactly is it levied on the COBRA fail to comply excise tax?


Your grammar is pretty insanely shiatty here, so I'll have to guess at what you're asking. The action which obligates one to pay a tax is operation of a group health care plan non compliant with TITLE 26, Subtitle D, CHAPTER 43, Sec. 4980B Subsection (f).

Corvus: So then are you saying if it didn't apply to every the ACA would be ok?


Application to 'everyone' is irrelevant. It has to be tied to an action. Say, if the law was that you were levied a massive excise tax for receiving health care without insurance, it would be an excise tax. That applies to everyone, but is a punitive excise tax. A general tax levied upon everyone regardless of action is not an excise tax, punitive or not.
 
2012-09-28 07:28:05 PM  
Oh goodie.

Another thread where libertarians pretend to be above all the petty left/right concerns because they thoughtlessly label all of their personal viewponts as "supporting liberty!" without really defining what that means.

And the rest of us are supposed to pretend to forget that they vote republican 100% of the time and only feign concern for being "socially liberal" in the hypothetical when confronted as being just an embarrassed republican.
 
2012-09-28 07:30:26 PM  

Corvus: This is the problem with you guys. Is you guys say hyperbolic statements and then later pretend you don't actually mean it when you are called on it but the go right back to them. Either stand by your statements or say they are wrong.


If I say I exaggerated a little to illustrate a broader point, would you end your insufferable and pointless little crusade over it?
 
2012-09-28 07:30:55 PM  

GoldSpider: Corvus: What power did the US government not have before that it now gives them.

Specifically I don't believe the government had the power to compel citizens to engage in commerce.


That's ok. It's not. It's having you pay an excise tax if you don't. Millions of people will not be buying health insurance and none of them will be being sent to jail for it.


Corvus: Can you actually answer my question instead of going of on tangents? You keep replying to things I am not asking and keep flipping the subjects around.

I'm doing my best, but you aren't helping with terms like "general" vs. "constitutional" powers. What the hell is that supposed to mean?


Constitutional powers are the powers the government MAY do but those are not the power the government ARE doing. You see those are two different things.

The government used to not do many things they do now. That doesn't all those things are unconstitutional.
 
2012-09-28 07:35:01 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: sprawl15: Corvus: You know there are lots of people not complying with the ACA mandate and won't have to pay the excise tax either... So your point is???

Having actual money change hands is different than eligibility. A person making $5k/year is eligible for income taxes because they are receiving income, regardless of their payment of $0.

Sorry where did I say money changing hands or eligibility.

"People not complying" refers to eligibility. "have to pay the excise tax" refers to money changing hands.


So if people don't have to comply to ACA then it would be ok? Or is the goal posts going to move again?




Corvus: So what action exactly is it levied on the COBRA fail to comply excise tax?

Your grammar is pretty insanely shiatty here, so I'll have to guess at what you're asking. The action which obligates one to pay a tax is operation of a group health care plan non compliant with TITLE 26, Subtitle D, CHAPTER 43, Sec. 4980B Subsection (f).


specifically what is it on? running the group healthcare plan or running it and being non compliant? You said it's only taxed on the active part. So what ACTIVE part is it taxed on?


Corvus: So then are you saying if it didn't apply to every the ACA would be ok?

Application to 'everyone' is irrelevant. It has to be tied to an action. Say, if the law was that you were levied a massive excise tax for receiving health care without insurance, it would be an excise tax. That applies to everyone, but is a punitive excise tax. A general tax levied upon everyone regardless of action is not an excise tax, punitive or not.


Is earning income an action?
 
2012-09-28 07:35:26 PM  

Corvus: You said earlier it wasn't a fail to comply excise tax. Now it is?


It's a tax on failure to act according to statue. That's very different than a tax on failure to act or a failure to comply. Both of those impel action - they state that you MUST do something. If a policeman gives you a lawful order, it doesn't matter what actions you have taken, you are compelled to comply. If you fail to comply, you can be arrested. In this case, it does matter what actions you have taken - you must be operating a group health plan not in accordance with statute - before you are compelled to do anything. That's the distinction.

Do you seriously not see that distinction?
 
2012-09-28 07:36:10 PM  

Corvus: A general tax levied upon everyone regardless of action is not an excise tax, punitive or not.


I agree, and that not how the ACA works either.
 
2012-09-28 07:38:17 PM  

Corvus: That's ok. It's not. It's having you pay an excise tax if you don't. Millions of people will not be buying health insurance and none of them will be being sent to jail for it.


You and John Roberts make strange bedfellows, I must say.

Corvus: The government used to not do many things they do now. That doesn't all those things are unconstitutional.


Yeah, I get that. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be watchful for overreach.
 
2012-09-28 07:39:28 PM  

sprawl15: It's a tax on failure to act according to statue.



Just like I said. I keep showing you that you are wrong and you keep moving the goal posts.

sprawl15: That's very different than a tax on failure to act or a failure to comply


You even called it a failure to comply earlier:

sprawl15: The tax is levied in a punitive method - it's directly taxed to the entity responsible for actually sending dollars to the IRS, as punishment for failure to comply.


You said it was a failure to comply and now you are saying it isn't. You are so dishonest.
 
2012-09-28 07:39:58 PM  

Corvus: So if people don't have to comply to ACA then it would be ok?


What do you mean by "ok"? We're arguing about the ACA tax's status as excise or not. It's OK as is, per SCOTUS. That doesn't magically make it an excise tax.

Corvus: specifically what is it on? running the group healthcare plan or running it and being non compliant? You said it's only taxed on the active part. So what ACTIVE part is it taxed on?


Running it in non compliance. If you do not run it, you are not compelled to run it in compliance.

Corvus: Is earning income an action?


Depends on the method of earning income. If you want a comprehensive look at it, read Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. It looks at the nature of some income taxes being direct and some being indirect based on method of levy. The 16th was passed not to allow income taxes (that's a common misconception), but to allow all income taxes.
 
2012-09-28 07:41:19 PM  

Corvus: sprawl15: It's a tax on failure to act according to statue.


Just like I said. I keep showing you that you are wrong and you keep moving the goal posts.

sprawl15: That's very different than a tax on failure to act or a failure to comply

You even called it a failure to comply earlier:

sprawl15: The tax is levied in a punitive method - it's directly taxed to the entity responsible for actually sending dollars to the IRS, as punishment for failure to comply.

You said it was a failure to comply and now you are saying it isn't. You are so dishonest.


You desperately need a hobby.
 
2012-09-28 07:42:19 PM  

GoldSpider: Corvus: That's ok. It's not. It's having you pay an excise tax if you don't. Millions of people will not be buying health insurance and none of them will be being sent to jail for it.

You and John Roberts make strange bedfellows, I must say.


I don't agree with everything he says but I think he is one of the more fair conservative judges.


Corvus: The government used to not do many things they do now. That doesn't all those things are unconstitutional.

Yeah, I get that. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be watchful for overreach.


When did I say we shouldn't? But we don't have to say hyperbolic comments to do so.
 
2012-09-28 07:43:10 PM  

Corvus: you keep moving the goal posts.


Where have I moved them from? Where have I moved them to?

Corvus: I agree, and that not how the ACA works either.


So...you're in agreement that the ACA is not an excise tax?

Corvus: You said it was a failure to comply and now you are saying it isn't.


Do you really want me to say "The tax is levied in a punitive method - it's directly taxed to the entity responsible for actually sending dollars to the IRS, as punishment for failure to act in a method that complies with TITLE 26, Subtitle D, CHAPTER 43, Sec. 4980B Subsection (f)"? Or are you not capable of understanding the difference between technical language and colloquial language?

Act like an adult.
 
2012-09-28 07:45:11 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: So if people don't have to comply to ACA then it would be ok?

What do you mean by "ok"? We're arguing about the ACA tax's status as excise or not. It's OK as is, per SCOTUS. That doesn't magically make it an excise tax.


Corvus: specifically what is it on? running the group healthcare plan or running it and being non compliant? You said it's only taxed on the active part. So what ACTIVE part is it taxed on?

Running it in non compliance. If you do not run it, you are not compelled to run it in compliance.


Corvus: Is earning income an action?

Depends on the method of earning income. If you want a comprehensive look at it, read Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. It looks at the nature of some income taxes being direct and some being indirect based on method of levy. The 16th was passed not to allow income taxes (that's a common misconception), but to allow all income taxes.


[confuseddog.jpg]
 
2012-09-28 07:46:42 PM  

Corvus: GoldSpider: Corvus: That's ok. It's not. It's having you pay an excise tax if you don't. Millions of people will not be buying health insurance and none of them will be being sent to jail for it.

You and John Roberts make strange bedfellows, I must say.

I don't agree with everything he says but I think he is one of the more fair conservative judges.


Corvus: The government used to not do many things they do now. That doesn't all those things are unconstitutional.

Yeah, I get that. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be watchful for overreach.

When did I say we shouldn't? But we don't have to say hyperbolic comments to do so.


Its sad that the ACA could have been so much better if it simply expanded medicare to cover everyone, and been more constitutionally sound too. The fatal flaw with that was that it wouldn't line private healthcare industry pockets with truckloads of money.
 
2012-09-28 07:47:12 PM  

sprawl15: Do you really want me to say "The tax is levied in a punitive method - it's directly taxed to the entity responsible for actually sending dollars to the IRS, as punishment for failure to act in a method that complies with TITLE 26, Subtitle D, CHAPTER 43, Sec. 4980B Subsection (f)"? Or are you not capable of understanding the difference between technical language and colloquial language?


So it's a "failure to act excise tax" the thing you said does not exist.

Really you are saying it's a failure to act/comply excise tax but then you yelled at me for saying they exist and now you call me childish?
 
2012-09-28 07:49:45 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: you keep moving the goal posts.

Where have I moved them from? Where have I moved them to?


You first said there is not such thing is a fail to act/comply excise tax, then you slide the goal posts to redefine what it means if though you yourself have multiple times called the CORBA excise penatly a "fail to act/comply excise tax".


Corvus: I agree, and that not how the ACA works either.

So...you're in agreement that the ACA is not an excise tax?
huh?!?

Funny I thought that was the SCOTUS ruling. It wasn't?
 
2012-09-28 07:50:43 PM  

Corvus: [confuseddog.jpg]


You do know there are different kinds of income beyond wages, right?

Corvus: So it's a "failure to act excise tax"


No, it's not. You are not currently operating a group health insurance plan in compliance with TITLE 26, Subtitle D, CHAPTER 43, Sec. 4980B Subsection (f). You are not levied the tax, despite your failure to act. You are not levied the tax despite your failure to comply.

That is because it is not levied on simple failure to act or comply. It is levied on action in a certain manner. We just went over this.
 
2012-09-28 07:51:34 PM  

sprawl15: Do you really want me to say "The tax is levied in a punitive method - it's directly taxed to the entity responsible for actually sending dollars to the IRS, as punishment for failure to act in a method that complies with TITLE 26, Subtitle D, CHAPTER 43, Sec. 4980B Subsection (f)"? Or are you not capable of understanding the difference between technical language and colloquial language?

Act like an adult.


PROTIP: Don't keep calling something a "fail to act/comply excise tax" when you argument is pretending it's not one.
 
2012-09-28 07:53:38 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: [confuseddog.jpg]

You do know there are different kinds of income beyond wages, right?


Yep. You never said "wages". I am just not sure about the income beyond income.

Corvus: So it's a "failure to act excise tax"

No, it's not. You are not currently operating a group health insurance plan in compliance with TITLE 26, Subtitle D, CHAPTER 43, Sec. 4980B Subsection (f). You are not levied the tax, despite your failure to act. You are not levied the tax despite your failure to comply.

That is because it is not levied on simple failure to act or comply. It is levied on action in a certain manner. We just went over this.


Then why have you called it one twice already and so do others like the article did so?
 
2012-09-28 07:54:09 PM  

Kazan: i think he understands it better than you. Governments are constituted amongst men (neutered sense of the word) for the common interest. when the government isn't serving the common interest it is because corruption influences, like Citizens United.


No, government exists to protect the rights of the people, people do not exist to serve the government...though I suspect you'd prefer the 2nd definition.
 
2012-09-28 07:54:27 PM  

sprawl15: That is because it is not levied on simple failure to act or comply. It is levied on action in a certain manner. We just went over this.


And so is the ACA. We went over that too.
 
2012-09-28 07:55:03 PM  

Corvus: Funny I thought that was the SCOTUS ruling. It wasn't?


No, it wasn't. Here's a PDF link to the ruling. Feel free to show me where they ruled it was an excise tax.

Corvus: to redefine


I haven't shifted an iota from my original definition:

sprawl15: Excise taxes are taxes on events. If there is no event, there's nothing to excise taxes from.

 
2012-09-28 07:56:21 PM  

sprawl15: sprawl15: Excise taxes are taxes on events. If there is no event, there's nothing to excise taxes from.


So then what is the event between following the COBRA rules and not?

One I get taxed on. So what is that event?
 
2012-09-28 07:58:26 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Funny I thought that was the SCOTUS ruling. It wasn't?

No, it wasn't. Here's a PDF link to the ruling. Feel free to show me where they ruled it was an excise tax.


Funny that's what congress called it. And that what the defense for the white house called it. I guess you are smarter than them huh?

Ok what kind of tax is it then?
 
2012-09-28 08:00:37 PM  

Corvus: Yep. You never said "wages". I am just not sure about the income beyond income.


What income beyond income? You asked if earning income was an action, and I said it depends on the income. What in the fark are you babbling about?

Corvus: Then why have you called it one twice already


Because it's easier than typing a paragraph in full legalese. As I said, I acknowledge that you aren't bright enough to figure out the difference between technical and colloquial language, and I'll try to buckle down and make things easier for you.

Corvus: Funny that's what congress called it. And that what the defense for the white house called it. I guess you are smarter than them huh?


Neither of those are a SCOTUS ruling. Show me where SCOTUS ruled it was an excise tax. That's your claim, back it up.

Corvus: So then what is the event between following the COBRA rules and not?


Operating a group health insurance plan not in compliance with TITLE 26, Subtitle D, CHAPTER 43, Sec. 4980B Subsection (f).
 
2012-09-28 08:02:41 PM  
sprawl15

While I admire Corvus' familiarity with the nuts and bolts of taxation, I can't imagine how it hasn't dawned on him yet that the federal government can now tell individual citizens "You will buy this, or else!" and is backed by judicial precedent.
 
2012-09-28 08:03:08 PM  
 
2012-09-28 08:05:04 PM  

sprawl15: Because it's easier than typing a paragraph in full legalese.


I see so you can use it interchangeably but if that's what I was doing it would be no fair?

So when you say a "failure to comply/act excise tax" You are correct but when I say it I am wrong?

that's what you are saying.
 
2012-09-28 08:07:25 PM  

GoldSpider: sprawl15

While I admire Corvus' familiarity with the nuts and bolts of taxation, I can't imagine how it hasn't dawned on him yet that the federal government can now tell individual citizens "You will buy this, or else!" and is backed by judicial precedent.


Or "else" what exactly?

Also healthcare is commerce people already are involved in.

What makes it different from the US government taking our money and spending it on commerce exactly?

Are vouchers for schools illegal, that commerce? Is privatization of social security or medicare unconstitutional too?
 
2012-09-28 08:08:10 PM  

GoldSpider: While I admire Corvus' familiarity with the nuts and bolts of taxation


He's so familiar with the operation of government that he thinks Forbes dot com is the Supreme Court of the United States.

Other recent Supreme Court rulings have shown that Google Maps may be an iPhone killer.

Corvus:

I linked you the farking ruling. It's not hard, just cntl+f for excise and let me know what you find.

Corvus: So when you say a "failure to comply/act excise tax" You are correct but when I say it I am wrong?


When either of us say it we're wrong. But I'm wrong in that I'm using shortened language to save myself some typing. You're wrong in that you're using that language to say things that are not true.
 
2012-09-28 08:10:48 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: So when you say a "failure to comply/act excise tax" You are correct but when I say it I am wrong?

When either of us say it we're wrong. But I'm wrong in that I'm using shortened language to save myself some typing. You're wrong in that you're using that language to say things that are not true.


So you admit you have been wrong at least twice so far with your statement?'

Why can't I be using it for short hand like you? Difficulty: Don't try to look like the arrogant bastard you actually are.
 
2012-09-28 08:11:12 PM  

Corvus: Why can't I be using it for short hand like you?


sprawl15: you're using that language to say things that are not true

 
2012-09-28 08:11:33 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus:

I linked you the farking ruling. It's not hard, just cntl+f for excise and let me know what you find.


So what kind of tax did they say it was?

You didn't answer last time. Maybe you didn't see it.
 
2012-09-28 08:12:22 PM  

Corvus: Also healthcare is commerce people already are involved in.


The law directs that citizens must buy health INSURANCE or pay the tax, not health CARE. Those aren't the same thing. Lots of people aren't currently buying health insurance.
 
2012-09-28 08:12:48 PM  

Corvus: You didn't answer last time


I also didn't do your math homework in middle school.

You said it was ruled an excise tax by SCOTUS. Show me where.
 
2012-09-28 08:13:11 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: Why can't I be using it for short hand like you?

sprawl15: you're using that language to say things that are not true


What's not true? A fail to act/comply excise tax doesn't exist. You have said they do exist twice already. Then when I have pointed it out you said it doesn't count.


You really are a troll.
 
2012-09-28 08:14:26 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: You didn't answer last time

I also didn't do your math homework in middle school.

You said it was ruled an excise tax by SCOTUS. Show me where.


I must be wrong. Now you show me what kind of tax it was and I will apologies to you for being wrong.
 
2012-09-28 08:15:17 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: You didn't answer last time

I also didn't do your math homework in middle school.

You said it was ruled an excise tax by SCOTUS. Show me where.


However originally it the bill it WAS called an excise tax and the Obama admin had used that at a defense at one time. But you seemed to have ignored those parts. I wonder why.
 
2012-09-28 08:15:43 PM  

Corvus: I must be wrong. Now you show me what kind of tax it was and I will apologies to you for being wrong.


It's kind of hilarious how much insane butthurt you have over 'goalpost moving' when you pull shiat like this.

I linked you the ruling. Ask your handlers to read it to you.
 
2012-09-28 08:16:57 PM