Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Sick, Jonathan Haidt, social psychologist, moral dilemmas, religious tolerance, liberty, liberals, Simon Baron-Cohen, rule of law  
•       •       •

1733 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2012 at 1:47 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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